EA's CEO asked about loot boxes by investor, gives lengthy response

[Watershed]

This sounds so wrong man.

Click to shrink...

Especially since there's nothing "free" about. Consumers pay $60 upfront and they get all the content in the game (excluding microtransactions). Him saying the other 2/3rds of the game is free is like saying "you payed $60 for the 1st 20 hours of gameplay, the next 40 hours we imcluded free of charge."

 

[THErest]

"We released a tiny barebones game last time, so now it's three times the size so you can be happy when we bring in loot boxes."

He also never said it wasn't pay to win. "Earn everything they need to progress through the game" doesn't mean that people won't be able to pay to win.

Never trust EA.

 

[Snack12367]

This sounds awful. My problem with loot boxes and dlc is that so many feel like they were a part of the base game at one point and then cut off. That's not adding content, that's carving it up behind pay walls. It's bullshit. There are justification for them, but right now the overwhelming majority of publishers abuse them like crazy.

 

[klauskorp]

That's a whole lot of words that don't say very much.

 

[Knight in Shining Armani]

Three times the size of Battlefront 1...meaning it can now be considered being worth $60.

 

[Norwegian_Imposter]

can someone please tell me what these BF2 loot box changes are? I haven't had a chance to hunt the specifics down.

 

[Amiibola]

I can't help but to feel that companies justifying this kind of practices are big hypocrites

Yes, the games are now larguer and shinier, but there's no one to blame for that but themselves, who pushed to the gamers the need to have larguer and shinier games in order to get them to buy ONLY their games, effectively killing the AA market. And now, gamers have to pay for their mistakes because they miscalculated the cost, or how it would turn out in the years to come.

Now gamers demand the shiniest and larguest games every single time, and they have to fund that somehow but refuse to do it with their own money.

Anything they can say to justify the use of loot boxes or MT in full priced games it's just a cheap excuse, so screw them.

Also, i'm still salty for the death of Visceral, so screw EA in particular.

 

[RandomTiger]

So publishers can focus on making a small number of very big games that they know will sell as they are wrapped with killer IP with a big focus on their marketing. Much easier to market and sell than a mixture of smaller old and new IP games.

Lootboxes set it up so it doesn't matter how old the game is if they get it right they can still have money coming in while the base game and season passes get cheaper and cheaper.

I hate it but it all makes sense.

 

[Bjones]

I would say loot boxes wouldn't be bad if there wasn't a chance to get the exact same things twice. Thad's the real bs part to them.

As far as pay to win that really doesn't bother me. MP is never equal just because you have people who can play the games 24/7 and the people who can't.

 

[R_thanatos]

We take what much of the content that would've been gated behind a Season Pass, and we offer that to the community for free. So we feel very good about the overall value proposition focused on keeping the player community together.

Click to shrink...

I'm not convinced.
Yes this might be true and yes you won't have a community of player if you cut the content into pieces , but that's you making the choice of "making the service last longer" VS " sell DLC " and since you want a sale , you're putting micro transactions into the mix.

i'm not a fan of this

 

[Hooligan]

Expansion packs with new maps kills a game community. I'm all for loot boxes if it prevents that from happening but only cosmetic ones. R6 siege has it right. Can unlock everything by grinding or buying the season pass to get the operators early. All maps are free so even a starter pack customer has no problem playing with a 4 season subscriber.

 

[Complicated]

Wow...always wonder if answers like this are pre written or if the CEO is winging it.

Click to shrink...

I doubt they're pre-written. CEO of a major company is going to know this shit inside and out and will do practice runs on likely questions for sure though. Pretty much like a politician practices for a debate.

So...why make the size 3 times as big? Is it in order to keep the player engagement and community active for years? And that supports the micro transactions for taking longer on a single game?

That doesn't sound very healthy or risk free.

Click to shrink...

Probably because they got absolutely shit on for not making the first battlefront with as much content as the old games despite the difference in cost of making giant maps compared to what it was on the Ps2 when the ground was just one giant muddy texture.

 

[fourfourfun]

I think I would prefer a Season Pass to a Lootbox. At least I have a fixed idea of what the total cost of a game will be over it's lifecycle. Edit; I also know that I will be going into a game where it's structure isn't geared around a monetisation mechanic.

 

[freakybj]

The cold hard facts are that EA has figured out that they can make far more money from whales with loot boxes than they did with season passes. If they didn't, they'd still be using season passes. Don't act like you're doing the consumer a favor by using microtransactions to fund additional content.

 

[THErest]

I think I would prefer a Season Pass to a Lootbox. At least I have a fixed idea of what the total cost of a game will be over it's lifecycle. Edit; I also know that I will be going into a game where it's structure isn't geared around a monetisation mechanic.

Click to shrink...

Are games with season passes not structured around a monetisation mechanic?

In the past you had secret bonus levels, cheats, costumes, weapons, etc included in the base game. We never even used to say "base game". Now, that stuff is saved for the season pass(es). You pay more money than you used to for the same amount of content.

Perhaps there's an inflation argument to be made here, but still, it's monetisation beyond the price of the game.

 

[Cap G]

Expansion packs with new maps kills a game community. I'm all for loot boxes if it prevents that from happening but only cosmetic ones. R6 siege has it right. Can unlock everything by grinding or buying the season pass to get the operators early. All maps are free so even a starter pack customer has no problem playing with a 4 season subscriber.

Click to shrink...

They could just give maps for free to drive sales of the $60 base game, and if that somehow doesn't generate enough revenue, restrain themselves from spending astronomical sums on the game in the first place. It's not like games today are more complicated or complex than they were 10 years ago (The Battlefront series still pales to its PS2 predecessor) so the extra budget is seemingly only going to non-gameplay puffery.

It was how things worked before 2006/map packs. Everyone gets content, everyone plays on the same playing field, devs still make money becauce the initial cost of the game is nowhere near insignificant.

 

[fourfourfun]

Are games with season passes not structured around a monetisation mechanic?

Click to shrink...

Not to the extent of the entire lootbox way of working. I mean season pass I can pay for up front (if I even want it, I might decide that the basic game is exactly what I want) and I'll get pretty much unsullied content. Lootbox (and by extension, currency mechanic games) have the core gameplay mechanic centred around guiding towards you paying to remove whatever tedium that has been placed in the way of enjoying yourself.

Mobile is the most criminal in regards to this as there usually is no real game behind the money, just more timers to extract more money from you.

 

[Lowrys]

I get the vague impression that EA "feel very good" about it all.

 

[shimon]

I think I would prefer a Season Pass to a Lootbox. At least I have a fixed idea of what the total cost of a game will be over it's lifecycle. Edit; I also know that I will be going into a game where it's structure isn't geared around a monetisation mechanic.

Click to shrink...

What's funny is that people have been complaining about Season Passes for some time now. And now seems like it's what's the lesser evil SP or Lootboxes? Either way people will complain but at this point we know companies want additional sources of revenue and this stuff is here to stay.

 

[Ponn]

Folks are playing games for longer these days due to the added MP. Devs want to make money off that time. Ultimately the acceptance of loot boxes depends on that answer. If people drop games due to loot boxes, they'll try to come up with something else.

This is companies trying to make more money out of consumers while giving the same effort.

Click to shrink...

They are? Do you have any evidence of people playing games longer now compared to, when exactly. Because it actually seems like the opposite, majority of people burning through games and onto the next thing. Most MP communities have a life span of a year tops with the inevitable sequel coming along to cannibalize it. That's why they pummel consumers so hard right out of the gate with $100 gold editions with season passes and dlc and loot boxes.

Also love their comment about 3x more content than previous version when the first one was criticized for being barren. Really shows their mindset. But what can you do, gamers keep eating the shit up and defending this shit.

 

[Supercrap]

There's nothing in the loot boxes you can't earn in game right? So what's the problem with that? There's always going to be someone with a shinier weapon than you until you get it yourself whether they earned or bought it.

The content seems to be there and theyre trying to keep the mp community together. It's like a majority of gamers don't want to acknowledge the cost it takes to maintain an mp game like this. It's absolutely nothing new

 

[Elandyll]

It's interesting how going back to what could be described as a full featured game (at a full $60 retail price), as opposed to the feature/ content starved Battlefront 1, he mentions that he considers the additional content (again, that players expected in BF1) to be "free content they could have put behind a season pass".

 

[Brera]

Loot boxes are a better solution than season passes. That shit was getting ridiculous. I would walk into a game shop and shake my head at the prices of some EA games... £80 and even £130 bundles.

Fuck that noise.

I don't buy dlc unless it's Nintendo or wait until they release a special edition.

If loot boxes mean no more season pass and free updates then let's do it!

 

[prag16]

Especially since there's nothing "free" about. Consumers pay $60 upfront and they get all the content in the game (excluding microtransactions). Him saying the other 2/3rds of the game is free is like saying "you payed $60 for the 1st 20 hours of gameplay, the next 40 hours we imcluded free of charge."

Click to shrink...

It's interesting how going back to what could be described as a full featured game (at a full $60 retail price), as opposed to the feature/ content starved Battlefront 1, he mentions that he considers the additional content (again, that players expected in BF1) to be "free content they could have put behind a season pass".

Click to shrink...

I think he's saying two different things. "We tripled the amount of content in the base game AND we are making what would have been season pass content available at no charge via free content updates". NOT "We tripled the amount of content in the base game instead of splitting off 2/3 of it as a season pass". After all the free updates are done for BF2, it's likely to have FAR more than three times the content the original had at launch.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Wow...always wonder if answers like this are pre written or if the CEO is winging it.

Makes sense if the game really is 3x bigger. Content locked behind a season pass is exchanged for loot boxes. Is he implying free new maps will be given in the future? Honestly a pretty nice trade off.

Click to shrink...

I'd be very surprised if they didn't prepare a list of likely questions and answers to said questions in advance, and this would definitely be on such a list

 

[Illusion]

Is there actually much evidence that in game loot boxes are leading to people spending their life savings? I mean, maybe there is, but I haven't seen it.

Click to shrink...

There isn't a study, but you can find some stories online shared on gaming sites but they are rarely reported on. YouTube has a lot of stories shared about people's experiences or talking about said experience. Or in my case know people who have spent paycheck to paycheck on loot boxes because of addiction. Heck my friend just now spent his entire paycheck after being broke for months on some loot box rolls.

 

[RpgN]

Probably because they got absolutely shit on for not making the first battlefront with as much content as the old games despite the difference in cost of making giant maps compared to what it was on the Ps2 when the ground was just one giant muddy texture.

Click to shrink...

I had no idea the first battlefront was considered to be a game with very little content. This changes the conversation as I thought they changed their development in a positive direction.

 

[Bulebule]

I hope the game design isn't compromised by presence of lootboxes... hah, who am I kidding.

 

[Falchion]

It's hard to argue with his value claim. The sequel has a story and theoretically much more multiplayer content with more to come as free DLC. I just want to make sure they aren't breaking the in game ecosystem with these loot boxes.

 

[Markitron]

It's hard to argue with his value claim. The sequel has a story and theoretically much more multiplayer content with more to come as free DLC. I just want to make sure they aren't breaking the in game ecosystem with these loot boxes.

Click to shrink...

It's really not, BF1 was barebones and not up to the content standard of most other games, and they made people pay for the rest of it via a season pass. The free DLC is nice but Battlefront 2 is doing something the first game should have done at launch.

 

[Enki]

?
um, is he implying there are things that you can only acquire via paying for a lootbox?

Click to shrink...

This is also the main thing I got from their answer. I'm sure they choose their wording really carefully so we can rest assured that there will be certain stuff not made available by just playing the game.

Which, if true, really sucks hard

 

[amokk0]

The purpose of a corporation is literally to make as much money as possible. These types of microtransactions are here to stay and there's zero chance of them going away.

 

[Darth Vapor]

"And balance and fairness inside of gameplay is very important to our community. And it's very important to us."

Well, that's good to hear -- that means we'll get the drop odds, right? We'll know exactly what chance we have to pull any item, and those odds won't change without a clear and obvious notice ... right? Because, that's what I consider fair.

Click to shrink...

It's obvious what he is referring to and it isn't drop odds.

 

[fastballspecial]

This is so long-winded and exhausting. Maybe the price of games should just go up to offset the loot box shenanigans and ballooning budgets. I'd be ok with it.

 

[Enki]

This is so long-winded and exhausting. Maybe the price of games should just go up to offset the loot box shenanigans and ballooning budgets. I'd be ok with it.

Click to shrink...

I believe we're beyond the point where this can be considered a solution. It's no longer about covering cost (if it ever was) but about maximising profit