The Star Wars Battlefront 2 controversy has one financial analyst weigh in on video game pricing: "Gamers aren't overcharged, they're undercharged."
Hell no dude, you scumminess has pissed off millions. POS analyst.
Exactly. A better way to save money is to NOT buy this sham of a game in the first place.
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.
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?
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
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.
Uh, you got that backwards asshat. EA is lucky people buy their games.
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.
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.
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 $64+tax.
It wouldn't be just a 10 dollar difference. It would be 10$ 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.
What AAA games are you playing that only cost $59.99 for the whole game?
@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.
"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.
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.
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.
You can’t make this shit up
Sounds more like digging a bigger hole.
Piss off back to get a better education. Seems your failure of an analysis wasn't helped by your laughable degree.
lol Comical articles at this point, given that this crap is now under the spotlight, and countries are finally labeling this as what it is. Take your bull***t , and go **** yourself scrub.
We dictate where the ball goes asshat. We’re the ones with the money. They need to beg us and cater to US not all the way around
I csn save even more money by not purchasing the game. That's the topic, saving money.
Are we playing the opposites game or is it just click bait journalism?
The journalism isn't click bait, it's what an analyst actually said. The quote itself is inciteful though.
If games can no longer afford to sustain themselves at a higher price than they were several years ago, with only a fraction of the content that games used to have the obvious solution is to be more reasonable with your budget. I'm not paying an additional £10-£20 on mediocre annual cash grabs that use the same engine and assets, just so they can put in another advert in the superbowl.
I am so lucky, I am not buying this game so I am at least saving £50. Microtransactions should never have been allowed to get a foothold in gaming and the only savings that should be discussed is at purchase of the game. This analyst is as dumb as the previous one.
I don't get this "game prices haven't changed" argument. I have watched games have get progressively more expensive with each generation.
True for the uk market too, every gen has seen a price hike from ps1, not by much but a 40 pounds game then is a 55-60 pounds game now.
Yeah i'm in the UK. PS1 games were £29.99-£34.99 full price. Ps2 games were £34.99-£39.99 full price Ps3/Xbox360 games were £39.99 - £44.99 PS4/Xbone games are £44.99-£49.99
Brill example that, although ive found game prices are higher in shops v online. Does show how much bull gets spread in the gaming media though
In the US, they've remained at $60 since the start of last gen. When they went to $50 with the PS2 gen, they actually went down in price, or at least most games that would have been more ended up having a more reasonable price.
yup! obviously if you shop about, or shop online you can find them cheaper, but thats the sort of RRP that i've seen in shops.
"You Should Be So Lucky to Save So Much Money on Star Wars Battlefront 2" And the 'Michael Pachter' gigantic idiot of the year award goes..
Patcher is usually more tactful than this.
That's a new one, spending more on a game due to microtransactions = saving money...interesting.
If you play for 2.5 hours per day for 1 year. I'll be lucky to get 10 hours or if it before another have steals my attention (that's if I was actually going to buy it) So it's more like $6 per hour
Yeah, I saved a lot... by not buying it at all.
Are all these so called analysts in a "paid by EA" campus??
At least one of the tools was outed as an EA shareholder, so there's that.
This is starting to remind me of that Eddie Murphy movie trading places. Those two old stock brokers must be running EA... Im done defending this game, its really good but damn the negativity surrounding this game is to much. EA have always been scum bags, they had to go ruin a good game. Feel sorry for DICE.
Seriously though, who on here actually buy loot boxes? We N4G folks are pretty clued up on it and assuming a very low percentage of people getting angry in the comments actually buy them. Do people realise that it is not a bad thing to have added content and that developers don't work for free? The choices they have so far is paid DLC or optional crates or currency. Pay to win is awful and should never be put in games. But who cares about cosmetics if the idiots which actually fund them give us free content for more years. Just look at Rocket league, Halo 5 and Overwatch. All still have more free content being made after 1-2 years coming out. Even CD Projekt RED who on N4G can do know wrong had an incredible DLC for The Witcher 3 which people had to pay for. Imagine if they had a multiplayer game which they wanted to keep going. Paid DLC would split the community, or they could add optional currency or just let their game die. For the people who mention instances of a free map after release date it's a marketing technique. Notice how it's always just after launch not a year after? To give people promise of more to come.
Excuse me, we're not undercharged. A video game costs between $60-$120 new depending where in the world you buy it. That is NOT CHEAP, no matter how you slice it. See, these analysts and companies forget one thing... We're the ones who buy the games, and we're the ones who decide whether we open our wallets. If a game costs too much, or if microtransactions get in the way of our enjoying the game, then we don't open our wallets. Who loses then? Not us. The companies who're trying to make a living off of making games. They need to step back, stop spending so much and stop being so greedy about profits. Stop fleecing gamers. If they want additional revenue, then offer paid DLC where we know what we're getting and can make a choice about buying it, but make the DLC something that would be a good companion to the game, like GTAV or Horizon Zero Dawn, not something like missing main characters who'd impact the gamers enjoyment of the game. Star Warts Battefrontz II is a good example of the last one. You don't get the most popular characters right off the bat. Why the hell not? So EA can line their pockets with more money. That's just not cool. That's greasy. I'm willing to open my wallet more for certain things. If a fighting game comes with a decent amount of characters, like MVCI's 30, or DBZ's expected 20-something, then I'm willing to pay for more. Why? Because the company made the effort to at least give me a solid number of characters. Even if the DLC was ready before the launch of the game, I don't care. I've got a full game's worth of characters and I'd be getting my money's worth either way. Another way I'm willing to open my wallet more is if a game gets released and it's a full game. No questions asked, no DLC planned. But then the game does well, and the publisher decided to do an add-on with more things to do, like HZD did. That's totally cool. Gambling on loot boxes, I'm not willing to do it anymore. Pay to win? No way. Paying for more characters when the game was put out half assed, like SFV? Never. Capcom gave me 1/2 a game, and I'm not paying a dime for anything else. I'm still owed 1/2 a game by them. Pretty much it depends on the circumstances surrounding the release of DLC, whether or not I'm cool with it. If I even suspect a slimeball money-grab move, then forget it. But there are times, when I know it's a money-grab, but I'll bite. And that goes back to what I said before. If the company MAKES AN EFFORT to give me what amounts to a full game, I'll pay for more if I like it. MVCI has 30 characters at launch. That's more than most fighting games. So I know some people were upset that some of the other characters who are in season 1 and season 2 weren't included at launch, esp. since they were ready, but 30 characters at launch is really good for this kind of game. So I ponied up for the next 6 with the deluxe version. Same with DBFZ. There's enough at launch to make it worthwhile to get the deluxe copy, esp. since they're known for making really great fighters. There's a grey line in there, and it's up to everybody to decide where that line is for themselves, but we can all agree that EA's practices aren't in the grey area and that these lootboxes, pay to win and half of a game for the full price practices all need to stop.
This really pisses me off, he dosnt include the system we pay for £200 to £450. online subscription which has gone up twice for PSN a year £50. The Internet in UK cost me £37 a month and keeps going up and if you buy 10 games a year (which is not that many) that's £400/500. This dosnt even include the electricity bill which is the most important thing you can't have any of it, which is £50/70 a month depending on usage and don't forget the TV licence which is £150 a year just to have a TV. EA makes billions with selling their games at $60 they are just greedy s#um who wants more and more. $400 MILLION for respawn was pocket change for them. They can shove SWBF2 where the sun dosnt shine I ain't buying that plus they make it way to casual just like bf1.
Just recieved an offer from Three, 100gb data with unlimited calls etc for £18pm and it got me thinking I could scrap the BT con line and save £30pm, call it a day with Sony online subscription and just use PS4 for offline games then go back and play older PC games online again - ie. CoD4, CoD WaW, BF2, BF1942 etc etc which seem to have loads of players and servers again (all free) - I'd save a fortune!
EA makes billions on, at the very best, mediocre games with reused assets, yet I have to buy a system, an online subscription, and $80 for the game to play a rehash of last years popular shooter?
Well, we are lucky, actually. Because there are tons of other games out there besides Battlefront 2 and Need For Speed: Payback. :)
Putting the 'Anal' in analyst.
Financial analyst that probably doesn't know games ans doesn't play them is telling gamers how they are wrong to protest EA's greed. K.
"According to Wingren playing a game is cheaper than watching an hour of television (60 to 65 cents per hour), or watching a film either through rental (80 cents per hour) or in a theater ($3 per hour)" You cannot compare those different types of entertainment. 15$ on an album of my favourite band equals hundreds of hours of entertainment. So this is less than 7 cent per hour. What a naive fallacy.
I'll not purchase the game. Better to save money and purchase great games without loot boxes and micro transactions. EA, your practice made you loose millions of sales.
what kind of stupidity is this, replay value is not an excuse to rip us off
Give it up guys, Wingren also works as an financial analyst for EA, so nothing he says is relevant to anything.
gtfo, games here already cost $79 + tax
He makes a good point.
Complete BS. Movies are just as expensive to make and people dont spend 60$ on them. Tops 20$ so no. I call complete BS on these asshats!
Movies actually cost more to make. At least the big summer blockbusters. Very few games have a dev/marketing budget that is equal to even a modest big budget movie, and only GTA has a budget which is as high as the biggest blockbusters.
Very true. I checked actual costs after but I knew it was higher but wasnt sure by how much compared to a typical AAA nowadays
Lucky? Lol. Didn't cost me a penny. Been boycotting ea for ages.
The guy is an INVESTOR with EA. He needs to shut the fuck up
Is that why turning off the Microtransactions will have no impact on EA's profit estimates, as per EA's own admission?
Everyone complains about games getting more expensive even though the only ones that cost more look way better than games used to and people keep buying 800$ graphics cards so that's clearly what people value. If it's content you people care about then play BF2 2005, it's 10$ on steam and you could get 100 hours out of that easily if your not a spoiled graphics snob.
Looking at the server lists lots of gamers are choosing this option, original CoD4 is packed out, so is CoD WaW, BF games, Quake etc.
I'm saving a whole shit load by torrenting your game once cracked :D I should email this Financial Analyst send him the link of the torrent once it's up, and show him I'm saving a lot LOL .. haha Come on guys we all should just drain EA, torrent everything they have, seed and be happy :P All I see is talk here, by not buying this from EA, boycott EA, while I can torrent a shit load of EA games and show the proof of what I do here LOL. https://www.reddit.com/r/Pi... My fav link :D
I can save even more money by avoiding the game all together
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.