Top
440°

Financial Analyst: "You Should Be So Lucky to Save So Much Money on Star Wars Battlefront 2"

The Star Wars Battlefront 2 controversy has one financial analyst weigh in on video game pricing: "Gamers aren't overcharged, they're undercharged."

The story is too old to be commented.
XiNatsuDragnel27d ago

Hell no dude, you scumminess has pissed off millions. POS analyst.

Diffraction_Fos26d ago

Exactly. A better way to save money is to NOT buy this sham of a game in the first place.

trumpwonstopcrying26d ago

Can't believe this article got approved. The analyst's argument for star wars battlefront is that it costs more "cents per hour" than watching cable tv or streaming/going out to watch a movie.

"The analyst estimated cost per hour for a typical "Star Wars Battlefront II" player. He said if a gamer spent $60 for the game, an additional $20 per month for loot micro-transaction boxes and played around 2.5 hours a day for one year, it comes out to roughly 40 cents per hour of entertainment. This compares to an estimated 60 cents to 65 cents per hour for pay television, 80 cents per hour for a movie rental and more than $3 per hour for a movie watched in a theater, according to the firm's analysis."

There's no reason to break it down like this honestly. 99.9% of people probably have never sat there and thought "oh i wonder how many cents per hour this costs." The analyst also bases the argument on estimates which may or may not be accurate. It's an extremely weak defense against EA and their predatory business practices.

OoglyBoogly26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

This will probably change once the Net Neutrality laws disappear. Single player + 40 hours of MP for $60 but after those 40 hours you have to pay per hour or a subscription service.

Don't worry though, EA will have a $25 All Access Pass that allows you to play ALL their online games for an UNLIMITED time! Plus for "free" you'll get some cool personalized blah-blah-blah every month!

God...gaming, the internet, all the stuff I love is being slowly destroyed by greed. What the hell is going on?

Ju25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

This is what this comes down to when bean counters start taking over the gaming industry - when they smell profits. If this is what it will become, I will be out. And I am sure that greed will get us another gaming industry disaster like in the 80s. Go ahead, Wallstreet, ruin a perfect functioning eco system. /s

rainslacker25d ago

Gotta love corporate speak.

The only form of entertainment I'm thankful to spend more on is prostitutes.

We buy games based on what we value them at, not what the publishers value them at. The publishers are free to charge whatever they want, and consumers can decide. But you throw in other ways to monetize your games and affect the value of the entertainment that we're already spending money on, and we're not likely to be very thankful.

I saved $60 on SW:BF because I didn't buy it. Not that I was interested in the game, but I wouldn't be thanking anyone involved with the production of the game because they reversed their anti-consumer implementation of something I'm not willing to support with any denomination of money.

Ashlen27d ago

Uh, you got that backwards asshat. EA is lucky people buy their games.

Diffraction_Fos26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

EA are in full damage-control mode. They're scouring left, right and center for friends and calling in favors within the market to help them save face.

strayanalog27d ago

The battle continues. Nothing here we all don't know, and he's going with the other entertainment argument: the cost-per-hour metric. No entertainment should be broken down like that! So if movies are $3 an hour (his words) then by that very definition a bluray should be $6? That's a crappy argument, pal.‎
Okay, let's think about this: what can they do with a $70 video game that you can't do with a $60 one? Honestly I can't think of anything, so if prices rose it would have to be $80 or more.
If $50 was proper in the 1990s to late 2000s, then adjusted for inflation games should be $71 nowadays.‎ Well, if prices rose I could see more special editions or possibly crowdfunding-like early releases to give people more incentive.
Sadly, though, too many games release with glitches nowadays, so this feels like a lose-lose. Guess I'll be waiting on sales or buying my games used if prices jump high.

Seraphim26d ago

actually SNES and N64 games were more than $50. Or the fact that games have never increased in price to adjust for inflation. I remember some SNES cartridges costing $80 when I was a kid. I honestly don't know exact price ranges or what the reason for them was but the fact remains, in the past games have carried a more than a $60 price tag.

However, I think that the industry also understands that pricing games any higher is going to price far too many gamers/consumers out of the market. Even at $50 in the PS2/XB/GC era and $60 from then to now, most games don't garner the sales they should. That is aside from the well known franchises, sequels and annual releases of course. So pricing games higher won't necessarily mean the developer/publisher will create a greater profit. It's possible it could do just the opposite. The greater problem imo is getting consumers/gamers with the disposable income to go out and buy these games.

While I wouldn't be opposed to paying $80 for a game I certainly wouldn't pay that for any game. And if all games went that route I'd likely join the ranks of many others who don't support the industry and just start renting games I don't deem worthy of paying $80 for. Though while receiving a discount as a Prime member perhaps nothing would change. That discount would certainly help since for a game that costs $80 I'd still only be paying $64+tax.

Prubar26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

It wouldn't be just a 10 dollar difference. It would be 10$ times the number of games sold. Plus I remember going into Walmart and buying Turok 2 seeds of evil for 110$ on the N64. granted this was in Canada. Either way games have never been cheaper and yet all you self entitled whiners complain anyways.

LostInSpaceCamp26d ago

What AAA games are you playing that only cost $59.99 for the whole game?

Seraphim26d ago (Edited 26d ago )

@Prubar

Would that $10 times how many games actually account for greater revenue? You also have to factor in that more probable than not less copies will be sold; at least in regards to a majority of games. As I said, games don't garner the sales they should as it is so would that $10 increase in pricing lead to a decrease in game sales or increase revenue? It's not as simple as it sounds. Would lowering games to $40 cause more people to buy the games and bring in more money?

Lol and too bad I can't edit my post because I now see how that last bit can be misconstrued.

To clarify. At $80 I wouldn't buy some games. There are definitely games I'd have happily paid $80 for. Even though I often despise all these LE and SE I've bought quite a few the past several years in support of franchises or new IPs. But to pay $80 for every game, absolutely not. I buy a lot of games, always new unless unavailable and I definitely do my job supporting the industry. I'f I've played something there's a 99.998 chance I've purchased it. However I can't justify $80 for every single game.

_-EDMIX-_26d ago

"If $50 was proper in the 1990s to late 2000s, then adjusted for inflation games should be $71 nowadays"

Agreed.

I'm ok paying that next gen too.

Ittoittosai26d ago

They all miss the Fact EA screwed up when they flatout said " taking the microtransaction out of Star wars wont effect our profit outlook for the year" so that right there disproves his argument and Seraphim statement. If they will still be profitable this with out the MT in Star wars then they dont need the MT they are just looking for extra money for no real investment.

rainslacker25d ago (Edited 25d ago )

Yeah well, that was a BS statement from EA. Of course it's going to affect their profits.

In any case, I like seeing EA get bitchslapped over this. People have been complaining about this stuff and them for over a decade now, and EA has constantly derided the consumer, and acted like it was necessary, or completely misdirected the consumers complaints so they didn't have to address it.

Now they're really on the hot seat, and they're scrambling to try and make this whole thing go away. If this was unwarranted criticism, then it'd be sad to watch, but since this has been a big issue within the gaming community for so long, it's rather satisfying to see such big things happening so quickly in a way that is likely to have major ramifications industry wide to actually cause some real change in how publishers implement things that affect the consumer.

The consumer got the industry's attention, and is forcing them to respond. If people stick to it, then things can change for the better.

-Foxtrot27d ago

You can’t make this shit up

ravinash26d ago

Sounds more like digging a bigger hole.

Show all comments (66)
The story is too old to be commented.