BPX023: MS Opening An EA Sized Lootbox?

[MartyG]

The cost of the Star Wars licence, combined with the need to pay royalties, combined with the high dev and marketing budgets of the games themselves mean any publisher is going to plan aggressive monetisation to try to ensure a worthwhile return. And effectively that will mean a GaaS style design with lootboxes, since it's the path of least resistance.

If you can't make money off a Star Wars game without filling it with microtransactions, frankly you've made a crap game. Star Wars sells on its own. EA themselves have told their investors that the lootbox backlash would not impact on their profitability.

Lootsboxes & other microtransactions aren't about making a profit, they're about squeezing out every last drop of profit.

"This change is not expected to have a material impact on EA’s fiscal year 2018 financial guidance."

[QualityChimp]

lol its so not in your face i didn't even know it existed

I had to log into the PS store before posting, just to find out what's available!

[wakka]

If you can't make money off a Star Wars game without filling it with microtransactions, frankly you've made a crap game. Star Wars sells on its own. EA themselves have told their investors that the lootbox backlash would not impact on their profitability.

Lootsboxes & other microtransactions aren't about making a profit, they're about squeezing out every last drop of profit.

Yep, I take your point. It is totally about squeezing every last drop of profit, but then that is what publicly traded companies do. Star Wars sells itself to a certain extent, but you still have to drop $100m on advertising - in fact, the obligation to do so is probably enshrined in the licensing agreement.

I'm not trying to excuse exploitative game design - it's utterly crap - but when you're a PLC that has all the expense of a usual big game plus extra licensing and royalty expenses, you look at how you can offset those additional costs to maximise profit. You're obligated to.

It's still totally ****, of course, since you could simply make a really really good game that didn't contain exploitative practices and was just a massive hit because a) it's Star Wars but also because b) it's so good. But I bet monetising via lootboxes feels like a much surer bet to the board than planning to 'just make a really good game'.

[Digfox]

Yep, I take your point. It is totally about squeezing every last drop of profit, but then that is what publicly traded companies do. Star Wars sells itself to a certain extent, but you still have to drop $100m on advertising - in fact, the obligation to do so is probably enshrined in the licensing agreement.

I'm not trying to excuse exploitative game design - it's utterly crap - but when you're a PLC that has all the expense of a usual big game plus extra licensing and royalty expenses, you look at how you can offset those additional costs to maximise profit. You're obligated to.

It's still totally ****, of course, since you could simply make a really really good game that didn't contain exploitative practices and was just a massive hit because a) it's Star Wars but also because b) it's so good. But I bet monetising via lootboxes feels like a much surer bet to the board than planning to 'just make a really good game'.

I know it isn't your point, but ultimately if something is wrong, then it doesn't make it right. The developers and publishers love because lootboxes and microtransactions as they are unlimited donations for them with no comeback atm. Regulation may deter some, but ultimately there are many ways a game can be very profitable without the need to exploit their customers. If other entertainment industries had similar business models being implemented I'm equally sure there would be a similar outcry.

[Neon Ignition]

It's this fixation on AAA design. It's utterly stupid that a game can sell millions then be followed up by a studio closure due to unsatisfactory sales, if it required such high sales in the first place to make a profit it should never have been commissioned in the first place.

You get games like Hellblade and Battlegrounds that have been successes off the back of much lower scales and it shows that mid-tiered titles still have a purpose if only companies took it seriously enough.

If EA made a fairly straight forward, UE4 engined DS1 styled Dead Space 4 that didn't aim to cram a thousand pieces of eye candy or a loot crate crazed online aspect they'd be able to keep its budget down and it'd probably do them proud but instead everything is fixated on 10m minimum sales, monetised games as a service.

It's stupid, even if gamers loved the concept they simply cannot afford the time and money to support the volume of titles taking that approach. If you create a game that follows that model ala Overwatch then fair enough but if you adapt every one of your games historically and going forward you're going to see failures to the titles and brands more often than successes and that risk has to be more than keeping an economical AA tiered title in development

[Family Fry]

I know it’s not relevant to lootboxes but there was a really great interview between Amy Hennig (uncharted series, Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver) and Sean Vanaman (ex-telltale lead writer for Walking Dead S1, now head at Campo Santo, indie studio behind Firewatch.

Well worth a read just to hear them talk about two very different sides to the videogame development and publishing industry.

https://www.polygon.com/2018/1/12/16880484/amy-hennig-sean-vanaman-interview-year-in-review

[wakka]

I know it isn't your point, but ultimately if something is wrong, then it doesn't make it right. The developers and publishers love because lootboxes and microtransactions as they are unlimited donations for them with no comeback atm. Regulation may deter some, but ultimately there are many ways a game can be very profitable without the need to exploit their customers. If other entertainment industries had similar business models being implemented I'm equally sure there would be a similar outcry.

Yep, I agree. I'm just sharing what I think is the rationale behind Battlefront 2's design, and why I think Ubi and Activision wouldn't be any different if they had the license.

I think when you mention regulation, that's the key. Games publishers will always try and squeeze every last cent out of these games, especially when they're losing a percentage to royalties and licensing fees. The only thing that will stop predatory, game breaking loot box design is firm legislation.