• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Deeke

Member
Oct 25, 2017
966
United States


It's no secret that Anthem is gearing up to be EA's ultimate answer for Destiny, and looks to be the online-based action game that will counter it. How should EA make money off of it for the long term, ie monetization?

First, a little history just in case you're interested!

Note: Purple text denotes clickable links

Over the past few years I've covered BioWare's once-secret IP (previously known as "Dylan," now confirmed as Anthem) in length without any real input from sources or the studio. I'm not Jason Schreier or anything :P I just watched EA's financials, paid attention to their calls, and gathered the clues that spoke to me.

Back then the clues told me two major things: it'd probably be action-based, not RPG-based, and it'd be online-based and likely be monetized with a service-game wrapper to make big revenues over time. (Other things were kind of obvious such as it'd be powered by Frostbite, and it'd be online-based). In July 2017 EA re-confirmed their action focus for upcoming titles.

"We're trying to build a fictional world that feels real and is alive and is constantly changing," BioWare said during their E3 2014 tease.

Back in May 2017 I predicted Dylan would have microtransactions (again) and gave the proof I gathered (just slides from EA's calls combined with other data, etc).

Hell, I did the same with Battlefront 2, predicting it'd have class-based microtransactions before confirmation, and even predicted that Ubisoft would monetize Assassin's Creed's RNG/RPG elements.

And I'm no gumshoe! Anyone can find this data. I was surprised I didn't see more predictions out there.

More quotes about Anthem!

"New IP is one the purest forms of innovation in our industry. A brand new idea combining the latest tech and a vision for something extraordinary.

"This game will push every boundary for you. It is fast, dangerous, beautiful and unexpected."

-- Patrick Soderlund said at EA Play in June.


"Looking forward, we will continue our aggressive pace of innovation through experiences that capitalize on our technology, network and creativity.

"We are very pleased with the progress of our new action IP from BioWare - the design is stunning, gameplay mechanics are excellent, and the action will be exhilarating.

"This game is built around a live service, and through our creative process we have decided to add more to the disruptive new social designs for our players.

"To accommodate that, we are moving the launch date for this project into FY19."

-- EA said in its Fiscal Year 2017 earnings call.


"It's action-adventure, not RPG. So what we're starting to see more and more in games is kind of genre-melding, which is great components of a number of different genres really coming together in a single game.

"So when you're thinking about this game you should be thinking about the great RPG character development and storyline progression that BioWare is known for, but in a world of greater action and greater adventure. Which is growing to be the largest categories of games.

"It will be a wholly-owned IP and we're very excited about it and we'll share more in the year to come."


-- EA CEO Andrew Wilson, EA's FY2017 earnings call

But my real question here for all of you is this: how should EA monetize Anthem, assuming of course it does have microtransactions?

Everything I've seen points to Anthem being extremely important. It should be the biggest game BioWare has ever made, and it certainly sounds like EA's dream game--another big online service game that taps Destiny's revenues.

The point is Anthem is too big to mess up. EA has to do this just right, and so does BioWare. But ultimately I think EA calls the shots about monetization.

Can EA get away with another Battlefront II-style Star Card scheme to fund free post-release content, or could they charge a subscription fee? Would anyone pay that on top of the $59.99 for the base game? Could EA maybe monetize it like they do FIFA with randomized packs? How can they balance things to keep everyone happy?

With the Javelin mechs and a huge array of weapons and add-ons, Anthem looks to be prime territory for mTX (microtransactions), and EA could monetize everything down to paint jobs if they wanted to.
 

Calibro

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,822
Belarus
Cosmetics only.

But that won't happen ofc, it's EA. Battlefront 2 will sell millions and Anthem's going to get them gameplay changing items in lootboxes, you'll see.
 

Kaotic

Member
Oct 23, 2017
82
New York
Cosmetics only.

But that won't happen ofc, it's EA. Battlefront 2 will sell millions and Anthem's going to get them gameplay changing items in lootboxes, you'll see.

I agree it should only be cosmetic items like in Destiny 2. If its as atrocious as Battlefront 2 is with its loot boxes then sadly I will be skipping Anthem just like I am skipping Battlefront 2. Which i really hope it doesn't come to that since I am really looking forward to playing Anthem.
 

QuantumBro

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
288
Alpha Access: $20
Beta Access: $30
Retail Game: $60
DLC 1: $20
DLC 2: $20
Expansion: $50
DLC 3: $20
DLC 4: $20
Costumes: $4 each
Weapon Skins: $2 each
Gameplay Boosts: $5 for 24 hour
Mass Effect Costumes: $10 each
Mass Effect Weapon Skins: $5 each

All costumes, weapon skins, and boosts are obtainable for free through a gambling system that gives you one spin every hour of gameplay after beating the main game or you can pay $3 for a spin.
 

Derp

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
80
How about just taking our 60 EUR and fucking off? Ok, they can have season pass and maybe few "clown" outfits (no loot boxes). But if it has huge portion of cosmetics locked, or even gear affecting gameplay, they can fuck off.
 

Lime

Banned for use of an alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,266
Lootbox relationship outcomes

Banging squadmates is behind a platinum paywall
 

Rapture

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,077
Hide every accessible area behind a loot box. You wanna progress to the next planet? Better keep buying those loot boxes and hope you unlock it there!
 

NekoFever

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,009
Should? By charging $60 for a game.

Charge for optional expansions they you need to continue to make money from it.
 

matrix-cat

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,284
lol, this game's going to be monetized to the hilt. EA doesn't know about subtlety; they only know how to spend a shitload of money and then kill studios if a game fails. And think about how the gaming landscape will have changed (i.e. worsened) with regard to this stuff even over the next year (or two) before Anthem comes out, too. Shit's going to be nuts.
 

Deleted member 9486

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,867
I honestly wish they'd just try making it a subscription game. It will never happen, but WoW is old as shit and with all the salt over Destiny 2's end game it's clear there's demand for an endless shooter MMO/MMO lite.

It's very hard business wise for an AAA publishers to greenlight and endless game if it's not bringing in constant revenue as otherwise it's just getting people hooked, occupying all their gaming time and keeping them from buying their other titles (while not bringing in more revenue than those other titles if not monetized).

A subscription is much less offensive monetization and can bring in money to fun ongoing content releases--it's just very had to build a base that will pay, especially on consoles.

Cosmetic only microtransactions/loot crates are next best as people can ignore them without affecting gameplay. Those are also hard to make hugely successful as they seem to really only explode in a game like Overwatch where they nail the character design and build a huge fan base for the IP (with fan art and cosplay scene etc.). Games like Destiny (and presumably Anthem) with character creators often don't seem to have as much success with cosmetic loot crates. MMOs like WoW where people still get super attached to their Avatars aside of course.

So yeah, I'm guessing it will be more akin to Battlefront 2 with microtransactions that affect gameplay. If it's totally PVE, or the microtransactions only affect PVE, I can probably live with it depending on how much of a progress/being able to do end game content boost people that pay get vs. those that don't (i.e. how much longer you have to play to get to that point without paying).
 

Kripton

Member
Oct 27, 2017
36
Portugal
How it should and how they will are 2 different stories.
It should be only cosmetic like skins, costumes, chromas etc

But hey its EA we are talking about...
Probably even creating more than 1 character will cost you money.
 

diablos991

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
933
It should be monetized by charging $60 retail.

Periodic expansions to the story content should be sold for $20 to $30 afterwards.

I miss the days when this was a worse case scenario and now it's a best case.
 

Deleted member 5864

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,725
Should? Cosmetics only and Meaty expansion packs.

Will?:

gowfa_sales.jpg


Overwatch-LootBox-640x353.jpg


etc etc
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
Alpha Access: $20
Beta Access: $30
Retail Game: $60
DLC 1: $20
DLC 2: $20
Expansion: $50
DLC 3: $20
DLC 4: $20
Costumes: $4 each
Weapon Skins: $2 each
Gameplay Boosts: $5 for 24 hour
Mass Effect Costumes: $10 each
Mass Effect Weapon Skins: $5 each

All costumes, weapon skins, and boosts are obtainable for free through a gambling system that gives you one spin every hour of gameplay after beating the main game or you can pay $3 for a spin.

That is far too generous, people gotta eat. Have some respect for GaaS.
 

Deleted member 9486

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,867
Pretty much exactly like Destiny 2.

It doesn't seem like people much care about what's offered in Eververse.

I'm guessing EA will want something that provides a lot more incentive for people to buy loot crates or whatever than what D2 has to offer. Few people care about ships you rarely see, sparrows with few differences or armor that is purely comsmetic (in a game that's first person most of the time).
 

Aranjah

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,185
What I want them to do:
$60 base game with some reasonable "collector's editions" (no $250 messenger bags or $800 statues).

A couple of alternatives for continued monetization:
-Expansion-style DLC at $10 - $20 each, and an optional season pass that gets you all of these in bulk.
OR
-Expansions are free but you can direct-buy cosmetics for the pre-loot-box HotS price range with your local currency directly.

No loot boxes.
-----------------------------
What they will do:
Alpha Access: $20
Beta Access: $30
Retail Game: $60
DLC 1: $20
DLC 2: $20
Expansion: $50
DLC 3: $20
DLC 4: $20
Gameplay Boosts: $5 for 24 hour
plus:
AC:Origins-style collector's edition tier nonsense
Cosmetics are only in loot boxes and there is no way to earn any loot boxes through gameplay. You can always get duplicates. Sometimes your jump button opens the real-money shop instead of jumping, just in case you wanted to see it.
You buy these using an intermediate currency and the pricing tiers make sure that you always have some of this currency left over.
 

Legacy

One Winged Slayer
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
15,704
I'm sure they will try to monetize as much as possible but in terms of should, I think cosmetics only and maybe xp boosters.
 

Drayco21

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,362
They should monetize it as a $60 retail release with a steady stream of DLC priced accordingly, and can fuck off with lootboxes and modern games as a service poison.

They won't, of course, but that's what I would want.
 

Stowaway Silfer

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
32,819
At this point I wish this industry would just go back to subscription systems for monetization. Problem is big publishers have shown they're never satisfied no matter what the payment model is.

Originally we had microtransactions to support F2P games. Now we have them in games even though we pay $60 already. In Activision's case it's worse since Call of Duty has microtransactions and a $50 Season Pass and Destiny 2 has microtransactions, small-scale DLC and will probably have fully fledged expansions like Destiny 1, even though I'm pretty sure they told us that Taken King had introduced microtransactions to support development of smaller-scale updates that would be free.

So yeah, my answer is whatever business model that keeps microtransactions out but whatever business model they pick, they'll find someway to put microtransactions in it so whatever.
 

Seth Balmore

Member
Oct 27, 2017
379
Spain
Ideally, cosmetics only and you get to buy exactly the items you want a la Titanfall 2, but I seriously doubt that will be the case.

I wouldn't mind a Destiny model with periodic, beefy expansions adding narrative and endgame content, so long as they're fairly priced. Would make sense for Bioware, it'd be sort of similar to their old Mass Effect and Dragon Age DLCs...

I do not like the current lootboxes craze at all and that's probably what they'll go with.
 

Gloomz

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,402
lol, this game's going to be monetized to the hilt. EA doesn't know about subtlety; they only know how to spend a shitload of money and then kill studios if a game fails. And think about how the gaming landscape will have changed (i.e. worsened) with regard to this stuff even over the next year (or two) before Anthem comes out, too. Shit's going to be nuts.

For some reason I feel the opposite - companies are getting huge backlash for terrible implementation of Lootboxes, gambling, etc. - I feel like the 2 year it's going to take for Anthem to come out will (hopefully) mean that they've found a way to implement this system correctly. Idealistic, perhaps.

They should just charge a subscription.
 

Aokiji

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,265
Los Angeles
expansion packs. And nothing else. But we don't live in a perfect world, so I'm sure they'll monetize every possible aspect.
 

jakoo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,112
Man, the name of this thread just made me really sad that this is what we've come too, that when we talk about how a studio is going to "monetize" a game, the $60 up front is no longer enough.

Realistically, I hope they just sell cosmetics and cosmetics alone. I was willing to come back and pay Titanfall 2 a lot of money I didn't need to because they kept open a freecontent pipeline for all players, and it seemed only fair to "tip" the developers for embracing it to keep the community whole. I'm really curious as to Respawn's financials to what extent this panned out for them.
 

Ocean

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,691
I like the Destiny model. Microtransactions can get you cosmetics only - nothing like powerful gear or anything. And then expansions every once in a while for US$20-30.
 

Neurom

Using an alt account to circumvent a ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
92
It doesn't seem like people much care about what's offered in Eververse.

I'm guessing EA will want something that provides a lot more incentive for people to buy loot crates or whatever than what D2 has to offer. Few people care about ships you rarely see, sparrows with few differences or armor that is purely comsmetic (in a game that's first person most of the time).

Not quite..a lot of people care about the shaders and emotes, there was a huge furore about the cosmetic stuff which ppl had paid money for not carrying forward from D1 to D2...if anthem is going to be more on the lines of pay to win count me out...
 

Deleted member 9486

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
4,867
Not quite..a lot of people care about the shaders and emotes, there was a huge furore about the cosmetic stuff which ppl had paid money for not carrying forward from D1 to D2...if anthem is going to be more on the lines of pay to win count me out...

I meant care enough to pay. They were never a huge money maker and all the uproar Lillie limited what's exclusive to the D2 Eververse and led to shaders and mods dropping like candy while playing.

In any case, given their comment about the "economics" of single player games being "challenging" it's clear EA will double down on revenue generations games as services so I'd be prepared for Anthem to be heavily monetized. Just a question of how.
 

XaviConcept

Art Director for Videogames
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,900
$60 base game

Free small content updates

2 big $30 expansions

Microtransactions for color and pattern cosmetics

If the game has a separate minigame they can utilize like Gwent or Ultima Team, go all out.
 

mas8705

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,497
EA isn't exactly being the most reassuring as of late.

Between Visceral closing and the stunt they tried to pull with Battlefront, I'm actually very concerned that they are going to force Anthem into a position where if it can't meet their expectations (will likely sell, but not enough), that we will see another EA owned company get thrown into the graveyard.

If anything else, I will say that if EA does do it, they need to keep it simple: Stay with Cosmetics and customization options. No power ups, no loot boxes, make it so that if they want to buy anything, it will improve how they look, not perform. We don't really know much of Anthem yet (and if it will have other things like PvP), so I would like to hope that they avoid anything that will allow them to cut corners like how we have seen Lootboxes handle with games nowadays.

...

Now to wait and be disappointed to hear how the game will have the "Overwatch" approach to microtransactions and how some boxes will drop "Special Weapons" to make you a bigger bad ass... Please prove me wrong EA. I would love to get Anthem when it comes out and feel like I'm not being told to have my wallet ready to pay more than the $60 price tag.
 

XaviConcept

Art Director for Videogames
Verified
Oct 25, 2017
4,900
The Star Wars game always seemed like a reach for monetization, but Anthem is a game where it -can- feel very natural and not forced as long as the presentation is done halfway decently
 

Bufbaf

Don't F5!
Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,636
Hamburg, Germany
By selling the game for fucking 70 bucks.


I can't believe we take microtransactions, season passes and running costs on single player games for granted by now. I know the industry does, but jeez.
 

Deleted member 14002

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,121
Ideally I'd want $25 paid expansions bi-annually and that's it.

I wouldn't mind paying a $10/Mo. sub (in lieu of a $60 purchase) if it was actually given the full MMO treatment (dedicated servers, guild/raid finder, steady flow of events and in game content, cross play, gfx options, auction house, etc.)

If it's going to go full lootbox microtransactions I don't want it to go only cosmetic, I want the content to effect the way I play the game so my levels are meaningful. I want ME3 style lootboxes.

I want to see very little to no duplicates and permanent unlocks. I want new classes/weapons/skills added to the game on a regular basis and activities built around the PvE grind.

What I think is most likely to happen is overwatch/destiny style lootboxes or PvZ Garden Warfare style card packs. I'll begrudgingly tolerate these options, but will likely not purchase them.
 

Wissenschaft

Member
Oct 28, 2017
21
Remember when Bioware made engrossing single player RPGs........I miss those days.

This game looks like its EA's Destiny and just like that game, I'll be skipping this as well.