Wall Street Analyst: Gamers are overreacting to EA's Star Wars controversy; publishers should raise prices

@Shewgenja said:

@FastRobby said:

@Shewgenja said:

@xxyetixx said:

Of course gamers overreacted, they are the most crying bunch of ass hats ever.

When's the last time you saw a commercial or trailer for a movie that headlined a character that isn't even in that movie or is planned for a sequel, instead?

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's not okay to d-ride an iconic character like Darth Vader only to put them behind a pay-wall. You know this.

But then there's an issue with the marketing, not necessarily with the micro-transactions.

Not if the management teams involved issue an edict to marketing not to use DLC material in the initial promotion of a product. I'm not letting them off that easy. For that matter, were you this forgiving of Hello Games? I think not.

People accosted a new indie developer to no end for the same thing. Why give the fattest cat of them all any wiggle room?

I'm also not forgiving for EA, you are completely right that if you promote certain aspects of a game that they shouldn't be behind a paywall that is also based on luck. Btw no one is letting of EA easily, they've already received a lot of bad press for this, and even Disney told them to listen to consumers.

The question is, have they learned? Probably not

Nope.Maybe it's cuz i'm Canadian, but I can't help but think $80 launch prices will drive more and more people to just wait for Steam sales, as gamers up in the northwest would have to do so in order to get fairer prices. (Like, FO4 GOTY costed $60 and that's apparently a discount. I think the base price was closer to $87?)

@FastRobby said:

@Shewgenja said:

@FastRobby said:

@Shewgenja said:

@xxyetixx said:

Of course gamers overreacted, they are the most crying bunch of ass hats ever.

When's the last time you saw a commercial or trailer for a movie that headlined a character that isn't even in that movie or is planned for a sequel, instead?

Yeah, that's what I thought. It's not okay to d-ride an iconic character like Darth Vader only to put them behind a pay-wall. You know this.

But then there's an issue with the marketing, not necessarily with the micro-transactions.

Not if the management teams involved issue an edict to marketing not to use DLC material in the initial promotion of a product. I'm not letting them off that easy. For that matter, were you this forgiving of Hello Games? I think not.

People accosted a new indie developer to no end for the same thing. Why give the fattest cat of them all any wiggle room?

I'm also not forgiving for EA, you are completely right that if you promote certain aspects of a game that they shouldn't be behind a paywall that is also based on luck. Btw no one is letting of EA easily, they've already received a lot of bad press for this, and even Disney told them to listen to consumers.

The question is, have they learned? Probably not

That's fair. I get you. I'm pretty sure they will have a small apology tour and then it will be back to business as usual.

I'd pay $2 per hour for a GREAT game, absolutely. I do believe those are few and far between, and like I said, you don't know until you play it. I have done pre-orders, yes, mainly for the bonuses IF I like them. I'll never pre-order an EA game again. I've done very little DLC, mainly on Forza for cars I want. I NEVER do season passes.

@madrocketeer:Ok let me help you. Star wars is a big name, on a game that was projected to sell a gazilion copies and then milk everyone for like 2 years for untold profits. Suddenly the whole prospect is gone. That guy missed his pay day big time. So of course he just starts to cry "HEY EA! Y yo do dis man!? dey would suck it up and pay! Y U NO KEEP MICROTRANSACTIONS?!"

So, to summarise, this guy is just a butthurt investor.

@Pedro: Alternative to microtransactions? Havent we already said they need to be more efficient, that they already making a profit even without them, that they don't even pay taxes, that they have actually hoarded a motherload, that some of their costs have dropped and most stayed stagnant? If the situation is as presented by you or @sirk1264, then they would've stopped making games. You cant tell me they don't have enough soap to bathe while their house is covered in soap.

@anthonyautumns i dont suppose you're tarmack

@anthonyautumns: That's really not proof of collusion. Every large investment house will have a representative on the earnings call for each large, publicly traded company in order to gather information and ask questions. This doesn't mean they are beholden to the companies in any way. What this guy wrote is more "I was overly optimistic about EA stock performance and if you took my advise, you lost money, but here's why it wasn't my fault and you should still take my advise - the customers are acting irrationally and no one could have seen this coming." He's just making excuses. He even throws out numbers for an unsubstantiated and irrelevant theory to seem more knowledgeable. It's actually fairly amusing.

That's just life. I'm expecting the same from Kevin Spacey

If he was correct this would mean that a game like Witcher 3 wouldn't be possibly, or Mario or Zelda. Anyone defending otherwise is just plain stupid. This was just the case of EA pushing too far by putting some core elements for SW fans under HUNDREDS of dollars and completely blew on their faces.

And what is this game? A bunch of maps that players loop for hours/days/months with an half assed sp campaign they were forced to put in the game. Yes, they really need to charge players a premium amount.

Also, this retarded idea that companies are entitled to do whatever to maximize profits but consumers need to shut the **** up is truly priceless. Yes companies can do what they want but so do consumers. As a consumer I have absolutely no reason to show acceptance for their practices, I have nothing to gain from it. if the solution they have for profitability is to deliver predatory shitty games...well, good riddance. And don't tell me "consumers vote with their wallet" because when facing millions spent in marketing to sell us their shit (with sites like Gamespot and the likes taking their money to run their advertising as "content") it's really convenient this idea that the consumer should be an isolated island, and that "we" running our own marketing campaigns against them, is to be entitled, spoiled and so forth. Doesn't this sounds perverse?

That's a sh*tty argument. A free market is driven by consumer interest. If they want to raise their prices then do so. No one is stopping them. Now only time would tell if people would still be buying their games if they were $20 more expensive. It's competition that has made the game prices stagnant over the years. No one dares to raise their games prices cause if others dont, the publisher willing to raise it's game price would be at a disadvantage to sell its game. Now how is that consumers fault? It's how the market works

What is wrong is trying to justify predatory schemes with the fact that games are "more expensive to make" thus giving a legitimate reason for publishers to nickle and dime the consumer... that bullsh*t. Especially when we know very well that nowadays most of a game's budget often goes to marketing and not actual game development (at least in the AAA space).

And, as Jim Sterling has already mentioned, one had to be an idiot to not realise games arent still $60 when they're being sold to us in pieces, cut DLC, microtransactions, etc, etc, etc. If one wants the full game nowadays, he must spend way more than $60 dollar to have it. The $60 mark is just an entry fee

this video just became relevant. Put at 5:40

People trying to justify MTX with the argument that "games are too expensive to make" are gullible. The publishers favorite kind of people

Here is another relevant video

Nope, Gamers are actually underreacting to this shallow and awful game that is vastly inferior to pandemic Battlefront 2.(which only had one year development time)

This game deserved all the hate it got and deserves much more hate.

You mean the same newspaper who wants to charge to read their articles when you can get the same information for free somewhere else?

Taking the USA for example, wages haven't gone up since the 80s. The video game market is honestly one of very few markets that hasn't skyrocketed since then. Every other has; food, gas, electricity, housing, cable TV, etc.

So, in reality, the video game market is one of the few markets that kept with our current trend of crappy wages. Lmao.

His argument is flawed... He is basing it on value of hours played is not how you determine a price/value of the product, by his own logic a DVD/Bluray should cost $60 simply because of the infinite hours you can spend re-watching it.

Its based on standards and profit margins. If a developer decides to invest in a idea of a game and it fails to sell its not because the prices were too low its because it was a product no one liked.

Games that sell well make millions in profit.

I agree with the lootboxes and microtransactions being over blown. I also havent been held back by progression by lootboxes. Ive just been crafting the starcards i want via gameplay and unlocking weapons by just meeting the criteria of kills per weapon.

The whole pay to win and lootboxes holding progression is blatantly false. I dont even play more than 5hrs a week and already have a great set of star cards. And i just horde my credits and craft points and unlock the stuff i want.

@anthonyautumns:

All you guys who buy into that garbage arguement are rubes. Game prices have not gone up, that is true. HOWEVER, the number of people buying these games has literally skyrocketed over the last 20 years. The money they are bitching about losing per unit due to inflation and increased costs is more than compensated by the enormous increase in number of units sold. They are lying to you in order to make you more pliant with regards to MTX to increase their profit margins and boost their share prices.