He later deleted his complaint about "armchair developers."
A little too late I won't be supporting these practices. And or your game for that matter.
Why don't people realise once it's on the internet it's there forever. I doubt his apology is sincere.
An apology from a representative of a public corporation, with investors, will NEVER be sincere.
Agreed. He's not sorry about what he said, he's sorry he got busted saying it.
He says the tweet was "taken out of context". I don't think so. I think we all know exactly why he would tweet out such a comment. So none of out here are professionals, developers, adults, or otherwise savvy gamers? Do our lying eyes deceive us? SW BF2 is heavily weighted to encourage MT purchases from the whales and otherwise gambling addicted population. What little changes they have made are only as a reaction to the furor. Doubtful they would change anything without pressure. Bear in mind EA / Dice say constant changes will occur. Those changes can go both ways. Crank up or down the reward system and cost of MT's. They hope to weather the storm and then continue to squeeze people. We call them like we see them. Don't get sucked in by the shiny new penny. Zero purchase.
You know not everybody at EA is evil. Those guys giving the news are probably just some messengers who had no input in EAs business decisions. There's no need to be angry at those guys.
Yeah he's a goof. Maybe they'll get it when they realize most of the sales for battlefront came from system bundles this holiday.
He was probably sincere in regretting him saying it in the first place, but if he said it, he was obviously thinking it. While I have at times thought some bad things about customers, when I was in fields that required interaction with them, I still treated them with respect, and never let it be known if I thought they were annoying or not worth giving the time of day to. I'd always address their concern though, even if it didn't resolve their issue.
A saying I have said several times, "You're not sorry for what you did, but sorry that there are repercussions. "
He's not apologizing for the bad business practice. He's just sorry it affected sales and public perception.
Agreed but the funny thing is Battlefront 2 must have already sold enough to make its development money back and it hasn't even started yet. Unfortunately, we that stand by whats right and fair are the minority.
True. But it may be rectified in the future. And other companies may refrain from doing the same due to the backlash.
"Battlefront 2 must have already sold enough to make its development money back" If only it was that simple, what about the money they paid Disney for the 10 year star wars license? I'm not sure if that number is public or not as I cant seem to find that info, but it must have been a pretty hefty sum and they don't really have a lot to show for it yet, unless those phone games have been super successful.
@perjoss If they felt comfortable trying mobile free to paly tactics on a AAA game then yeah its safe to say they made enough money to warrant the risk. That said, I'm pretty sure pre-orders alone covered the cost of development. Lets not forget that the engine was ready and tested with the fitst game as were most of the assets. Battlefront 2 was a sure bet to begin with.
Looks like someone got scolded. He can delete his tweets, but that doesn't change the fact the game itself is a garbage practice of greed.
Why delete what you already posted? The mindset, arrogance, and attitude are already known
Too late, for being a community manager he needs sacking
Funny how us arm chat developers seem to know how games should be made. I understand it's a business and profits are important but this loot box BS is ridiculous and not the answer. I'm not saying I have the solution but I'd rather just just pay a xtra £5 for my retail copy instead of this.
Oh no you won't when many others will happily spend 10-20 times as much on MTs!
The solution is to not always take when you're already successful. All businesses are about taking more than before, regardless of profits. It's so bad for EA they honestly believe we're mindless hivewhales and will give them a dollar whenever they want. A happy medium for companies to take more without ruining the experience is to provide FREE MAPS/CHARACTERS for any MP game and any cosmetic can be earned in game. Offer loot boxes that offer the same cosmetics, you will make your money there. It's the same model Overwatch uses and it's not an issue at all for either side. But EA will always want to take and never meet us down the middle. What's dumbfounding is that this is common sense, but we have Mr. Business degree so disconnected from what keeps them relevant in this industry that they really think we're just braindead bots.
EA follows in Apple's footsteps where they decide to add or cut a feature depending on the part of the industry they want to control and make money off in the near future without caring about their consumers preferences in the slightest. EA/Apple: This is what we believe you want/like, no its not up for debate (we know better) and we know that you are already invested in our products so shut up and buy our product. The sad thing is that most people not only shut up and buy their products, but go the extra mile and support cash grabbing practices that go along said products. For the...Last of Us, vote with your wallet.
UltraNova You can add MS and their OS/Business practices to that too.
It's not that they think that we'll just keep giving them money, it's that they want the money from those that will do so. EA isn't so dumb to assume that everyone, or even the majority, will actually pay for those MT. The reality is, it's the rather small portion of people who actually do that make them more money, with the least amount of work, and that's who they are making these things for. Everyone else just has to suffer because of it, because in some cases they become part of the game design to try and entice people to actually spend money, as is the case here. Most people don't have a problem with MT that aren't P2W or put in to just give some people added options. They usually are against them when their overall game experience is effected because now they have to do more of the less fun stuff to get the things they want.....as is the case here. As to sprinters original comment. I'm sure a lot of people would be willing to pay a bit more to see MT go away. The problem is, there are a lot of people who would see that as greedy, and I don't look forward to the day when game prices go up. Games can make more and be the price they are now because more people are buying games, but eventually, that price will have to increase. The problem is though, that despite game prices going up, it's likely that MT will continue to exist. The reality is, is that there are enough people buying them to increase the revenue on a a game, and that's what these companies want. It's not good enough for them to just turn a profit, they also have to maximize their revenue as much as possible. Some of this is due to giving investors more incentive to invest, and some of it is just "being greedy". MT/DLC actually are not there anymore to make sure a game is profitable, they're there to maximize profit. They don't keep developers open or fed. They aren't required to secure investment. They are purely a secondary revenue stream.
That armchair shit is actually true. He’s sorry for telling the truth? To please an insatiable mob that’s not buying it anyway? Ea probably made him do it lol.
These “insatiable mob” don’t buy this game because it is crap and filled with free to play bullshit. And “telling the truth”? It is uncalled for and disrespectful to call gamers who buy their games and voice their opinion for something that they don’t like “armchair developer”.
The truth is never uncalled for. I have no love for “community managers” especially the long list of ignorant ones at EA. That said this is no big deal. “Armchair developer” oh boohoo, start a riot.
You’re right. Its no big deal. However they shouldn’t have said it in the first place, especially given that we are their paying customer and we have the rights to demand and make suggestions to them. Imagine you go to a restaurant, the food is too salty, you complain to the chef and the chef proceeds to call you “armchair cook”. How would that feel?
Dude, you are like the armchair supreme commander with your comments all the time!
Lmao supreme commander of armchairing? How do you figure? I trash a lot of dumb things but I never once told a studio how to make their games. I don’t fill up their twitter suggestion box and threaten them on reddit. Can you name an example of this or were you just being snarky?
Truth is valued, but truth doesn't need to be supplemented in an offensive manner. If he's apologizing, he clearly was told to smarten up because every sale counts (or perhaps he actually realized he was being rude).
Did you actually read the apology? Or the continuation of tweets. This guy is terrible at being a community manager.
@Gh05t Oh, I know he sucks. lol
I agree that its no big deal. Its a fact that some people are armchair dev. and often you see people tweeting that expression. Why would it be directed at all the gaming community too? Not sure why people take it personally.
Because some people in some positions should keep some opinions to themselves and not blast them publicaly (i.e. Trump) Whether it is true or not in no context should a community manager blast a tweet like that without context and expect it to go well, especially when their house is on fire.
@Gh05t I get the disapproval. Still I don't think it should be a big deal. I suppose it got overblown with the house on fire situation your referring. I can imagine a kid typing 'poop' on his dads phone and that then goes to IGN news and the mob calling 'EA burn' etc etc. Haha See what I mean? People take it way too seriously whereas its very likely most of them have no reason to feel targeted
I have, respectfully, added my down vote. Great gaming, opinionated.
It’s all good bro. Maybe if we can get enough downvotes I will apologize for hurting your feelings with my rude remarks and give you 75% off my next three comments. That’s how this works now right? Downvote the new democracy.
Regardless of if it's true or not, he invalidated the consumers concerns. That is not a good practice for any business. It assumes that everyone complaining was doing so from the perspective of just putting down EA, and assumes that people were more concerned with that instead of actually seeing a better product. People were telling EA what they felt would make a better product, and while EA doesn't have to listen to that now or in the future, you don't just lump your entire consumer base into the "complainers" group. If you have to address something broadly like this guy did, you do so with kiddie gloves. People will still gripe, but at least you don't piss off everyone, and it usually defuses the situation a lot faster than calling your consumer's concerns invalid, implying those people are too stupid or ignorant(which armchair implies) to have an opinion.
Oh I know. I can’t tell customers at my work to go eat shit either. That’s not what he did though. What I’m saying is it’s really not that bad, it is kiddie gloves. Not everyone was the cool, collected critics you are portraying. A bunch of people were yelling at them and he called them armchair developers which is true. It’s not like the last guy at EA that was a blatant racist trashing all white people. EA had his back and the news media still asks that asshole quotes like his opinion matters anymore after being discredited as a hack and a fraud.
I realize that. but he generalized everyone that had criticism into that one group. Whether intentional or not is besides the point. If he didn't mean to, the apology certainly didn't clear things up. Same thing happened with Cliff Blizenski when he "insulted" xbox fans. While he was only talking about certain people in that group, the generalization was that all Xbox fans were to blame. He followed up and clarified a bit, but it didn't do him any good. The point is, regardless of if those people are your customers, or just people complaining for the sake of it, you have to treat them with respect. It's easy enough to disavow those who are being irrational. All you have to do is address the valid concerns with respect. The guy was more willing to give the time of day to those who were irrational, as opposed to addressing those who had valid criticisms, and that's where he failed at his job. The apology doesn't change that, nor does it put things in context, or address the concerns that his actual customers have. In the end, I'd be willing to give him some benefit of the doubt if he seemed more sincere and actually cleared things up. Obviously, not everyone would, but it'd be more of a start than just apoligizing for upsetting people, because that just says he regrets saying it, not that he actually didn't believe it. Right now he hasn't done anything to actually clarify his statements, so all I can do is assume he feels disdain towards the community as a whole....which is probably more so true now that he's pissed everyone off.
I stopped buying EA games years Ago. You guys should've been woke up! This is the only way to Fix a Problem and make these B**tards Listen.
Eh, I'm still lookin for a good Black Friday deal on it.
These guys sound like a bunch of "armchair gamers" who dont understand jack about their consumers
Game developers like EA, UbiSoft and others, try to inform their customers that it costs huge amounts of cash, to make a major AAA video game title today, with all that goes into producing, developing, distribution and marketing costs of a AAA game. So they must resort to ways to recoup their investments. If true... what does a game company do... to show a return for their investments and make enough money to pay investors and stockholders? If their stockholders have no return, as in dividends for their investments... they walk and no games are made and EA closes it's doors... like so many game companies have done over the years. So... how many of you forum posters here... would pay $80 to $150+, for a AAA game like Battlefield 5 in 2019, so no micro transactions or loot boxes would need to be included and allow a game developer to show a profit on their major AAA video game? It's been reported in the game press over the years, that a major AAA game can cost as much or more to produce than a major Hollywood movie. Think of the many costs that goes into making a AAA game. If you have no clue… get educated. "How Much Does It Cost To Make A Big Video Game?" https://is.gd/9d2WhI The 2014 report above, shows the production costs of many AAA games in the past that you may have owned. Just add on 10 to 20 million dollars more for each title and you will get the picture what it costs to make your favorite video game in 2018. If a game company like EA or UbiSoft… makes one to many stinkers that does not sell well… bankruptcy of their company may soon follow. UbiSoft has come to that point of closing it's doors several times in the past. It's been reported that UbiSoft may be sold out soon. Ever heard of games like SOCOM, MAG or Zipper? I've been an investor in 3 major game developers or companies. If I don't get a return on my investment… I walk. And I have. Quote: "When we do get specific numbers, it is often only the development or marketing costs, which do not necessarily provide a complete picture of a game's entire budget of development, distribution and marketing costs. Also, specific numbers communicated to the public may not be accurate: like the film industry, it is possible for accounting to play tricks with budgeting to change the appearance of things. In 2009, EA executive Rich Hilleman indicated in a speech that his company "now typically spends two or three times as much on marketing and advertising as it does on developing a game." This formula is not necessarily applicable to every potential blockbuster game—a "AAA game", in gaming parlance—or to every company, but it is fair to say the break-even point for the average AAA game is well above the development budget. Companies also need to recoup marketing and other expenses."
nonsense, Free to play games are on par with recent AAA releases. NONE of them force the consumer to spend real money so dont give me it costs x amount BS. Recoup extra money in PROPER DLC for games. Example - Neverwinter - Free to play, free dlc every few months, not forcing anything on the consumer. You dont hear the developers from Arc games moaning about how much money its costing. Why dont we see Bethesda using MT and moaning about cost? Their AAA games are above and beyond anything that EA or Activision could put on a store shelf
Suureeee...EA is so poor that they need to nickle and dime their customers to the bone by releasing a full price $60 game and then rigged it full of MTs and lootboxes just to “make a few more bucks and make their shareholders happy”. Jesus christ, based on your logic then games companies like Sony and Nintendo would have been bankrupt since ages ago since they didn’t make any profits due to their game having no lootboxes and other free to play bullshit. There are ways that devs/pubs can make more money without fucking gamers over you know. Just look at games like the Witchers 3 and Mario Odyssey. They both cost $60 and have no freaking lootboxes whatsoever. When you make great games, people buy it. When you make shitty games like EA, people react in a negative way.
As much as a Hollywood movie? You realise those retail for 25 - 30$ and that's the 4k version. DVD is tops 20$. And Hollywood somehow turns a profit on those. Now games retail for DOUBLE, cost the same to make yet somehow don't turn a profit?
Such a fool to buy into the costs of games should be higher without mt. There are probably more people buying games than movies or music so your argument is only there to appeal to companies and shareholders. Amazing that people like you take such a simple concept and blow it up into something it's not. Typical ea mindset, it's all about shareholders, f the customer, they don't know anything. The audacity bruh, can't even....smfh
The average AAA game cost between 30-50 million to develop, and probably another 10-50 million in marketing. While there are a few stand out examples of one's that cost more, it is far from the norm. In some cases, the marketing budget is higher than the development budget, but in those cases, the marketing budget is often offset by console makers taking on that responsibility. As was the case here where Sony paid for exclusive marketing rights. No way did this particular game cost anymore than $50 million to develop. It's a MP focused game with resused assets from prior games. If I had to wager, the actual development budget was closer to $30 million, and maybe another $10 million in licensing fees. So, in this case, there was no way that this game wouldn't return a significant return on investment, so in the case of how the MT are implemented here, it's just trying to maximize revenue. While I understand the impetus to maximize revenue, it doesn't have to be done in a way that alienates the consumers. There is nothing inherently wrong with MT, it's always in the way they're implemented, and in this case, they were implemented in a way that affects everyone, as the design of the economy encouraged players to buy by implementing a rather extensive grind. This means that the rather large portion of the consumer that has no interest in MT is forced to plod their way through the game to get to the good stuff. This was by design....and that's a design problem, because a game should never become a chore for the player. More broadly speaking, this notion that games can't make money without implementing such things is just not relevant anymore. There are more software sales nowadays than there were when MT were first starting to be introduced into gaming. At that time, it was true that it was harder for AAA games to make money with development budgets that were skyrocketing, and game costs that couldnt' increase because the consumer wasn't willing to pay for it, that isn't the case anymore. A game that fails or succeeds is likely to do so regardless of if it has MT or not. The initial sales are what makes the money back for most AAA games nowadays, and the MT/DLC are purely there to gain added revenue. The notion that devs can't feed their families without these things is also wrong. 80% of all devs are let go from their positions when their work is done, so the publishers are not altruistic in trying to insure that they remained employed. Game development budgets have remained relatively constant for about 10 years now, and with more games selling more copies than before, the numbers simply don't add up to say that they're losing money when they're selling 3+ million copies within a few weeks, and 5-10+ million copies over a year. The games which only sell 1-2 million copies usually have much smaller budgets, and lower production values. This general idea that all games somehow don't make money because of inflated budgets is outdated, and something the publishers perpetuate in order to maximize revenue. The same way they did with the used game market somehow being detrimental to sales.
Respect. Very good read Rain.
Rain speaks the truth
So because he apologized than it all makes it ok? No, screw this guy and EA as well. Hope SWB2 tanks.
Want people to support you again? Release great AAA premium games with no free to play bullshit like lootbox and MTs. Then and only then would people view you in good light again.
Personally, I don't care if they implement MT, I'd just rather not see them be something that causes the majority of players to have to go through an endless grind in order to get the same things if they want them. There are ways to implement MT that aren't offputting to the average player, and there are plenty of games which do this to take example from. Even games as big as Star Wars, which will certainly turn a profit off pure game sales, particularly since the console makers are footing the bill for marketing, can have things which can be MT only, but not actually affect the majority of players. My problem with MT such as the one's implemented here is that they cause those not willing to spend more to have to do more to get the same things, and overall, that just feels like it would become a chore in what may otherwise be a good game. But even the best game can become dull if you have to endlessly do the same things over and over again to gain some sort of prize, particularly if that prize isn't guaranteed. I think when it comes to Star Wars, there are so many things which could be offered up through MT, and even attached to an endless grind, which don't make the game more P2W. While not as appealing as a fair balance between play vs. pay, it's certainly better than this new loot box fad which no one seems to like. Just the number of character skins which could be offered alone is immense, not to mention different skins for available characters. Those kinds of things get eaten up by Star Wars fans, but not all of them are going to spend countless hours trying to get them, and a lot of them aren't going to be willing to pay for it. Just making a game that lets you take short cuts through gauranteed prizes instead of loot boxes, while having a decent amount of fun game play to achieve the same results, tends to not be frowned upon by many. It's all about balance, and in this case, it seems the balance was way off.
Give us the game for free and maybe just maybe we will forgive you.
He didnt apologize for saying it, just that he was sorry it angered people?
I'm not angry at Mat for his views, though I don't think his comments helpful. I'm disappointed, (anger is such a waste of time.) with EA, for leading the gaming industry down a path most gamer's don't want to go. There are always some that think personal attacks on forums or at the extreme, death threats, are okay. They are never okay. Doesn't matter if you are a simple gamer or a well known developer, same rules apply.
All is forgiven if MTs are gone
Not buying his explanation that he was not referring to SWBF2.
i'll tell you what buddy, i'll buy and play your game but i won't buy a single loot crate. The End.
for the love of God people, stop whining about EVERYTHING these days. If you dont like the micro transactions, dont purchase them.
Classic, if you don't like the opinion it is just whining. I am sure you have never posted an opinion online.
Huh? I think you misunderstood me. I dont care that you're voicing your opinion, you're entitled...but these people getting bent out of shape over optional video game micro-transactions are being a bit ridiculous.
I could be wrong but didnt this really start when it was found that it takes 40 hours to play as ONE of the TWO most prominent characters in the Star Wars universe. Isnt that 100% what the Reddit post was about? I could be wrong but that is what I read, you had to play 40 hours and spend no currency on anything else (loot boxes) save it all just to unlock a well known and wanted character. With the largest issue being that you are rewarded credits through time spent and not skill then add on top of this that EA's initial response was basically a we know better than you then add on top of that the MT's and it adds fuel to the fire but they are different yet related to bad game mechanics and design. People are upset with bad game mechanics and design.
So all those people with addictive personalities we should just tell them not to buy them and they will simply stop? Let’s try it. Hay alcoholics stop buying alcohol. There did I just cure alcoholism?
Says the whiner over valid complaints...