"Battlefront 2" may have just killed EA.
People who consider themselves "hardcore gamers" may be familiar with Electronic Arts, one of the giants of the gaming industry. They're known for "Fifa", "Madden", and aggressive in-game moneymaking strategies. They literally try to get you to pay extra money to unlock content for a game you already purchased. They're called "microtransactions."
In the early days in which microtransactions first started being utilized, the companies that included microtransactions used them for what could be considered "extra" or "bonus" content. Those who chose a more "vanilla" form of the game wouldn't necessarily miss out on the vast majority of the game's content, especially content advertised as a primary selling point of the game. Some games, like "Team Fortress 2", continue to use this strategy in such a way; players can pay real money to unlock special hats or costumes for their in-game avatars. They don't affect gameplay in any way, they're just goofy and fun. Through this approach, "Team Fortress 2" made so much in microtransactions that its developer, Valve, was able to strike the retail price altogether, making the full game free to play.
As time went on, EA's use of the microtransaction strategy became more and more aggressive.
"Battlefront 2" is the latest and worst example of their abuse of microtransactions. First of all, most of the game's content is stuck behind a "pay wall." Not bonus content, just regular content. In the original version of release, some playable characters highlighted heavily in the advertisement of the game, such as Darth Vader, are only available if you pay an estimated $80 in addition to the game's retail price.
I say "estimated" because this was originally to be carried out via an in-game currency, which have since been stricken from the game. The other option is to play the game for an unreasonable amount of time. Let me put it this way: each 15-minute match earns you around 500 credits. When the game first came out, Darth Vader cost 60,000 credits to unlock. Since then it's been knocked down to a "generous" 15,000. Polygon estimated that with the original 60,000 credit price, a player would have to spend at least 40 hours playing before Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, or other top-tier characters would become playable.
The other thing is, you don't get more credits for playing well, you get rewarded for the time you sink into the game. That means you can literally leave the game running, sit at the spawn point, never get a single kill, and get the same amount of credits as the game's MVP. The upgrade system is also closely tied to this microtransaction model. Even if it weren't, functionally it's a mess of bad game design decisions, possibly to frustrate your rational mind into oblivion so that you'll spend money trying to unlock content that you thought you already paid for, or remain competitive; most of the best guns are locked behind the same paywall, and reports from Giant Bomb.com have said that there is a clear difference between players who paid vs. those who "just played" - the payers tend to dominate due to their superior weapons, which are unlocked using loot boxes, which depend on how many credits you have.
EA attempted to defend their design decisions on an AMA on Reddit.com, resulting in said comment becoming "the most downvoted Reddit comment ever." Mat Everett, one of EA's Community Managers, tweeted an irate comment about "armchair developers", which he later retracted after "hordes of angry gamers" tweeted back at him. CNBC reported two days ago that EA's stock is down 8.5%, causing a crushing $3 billion loss in stock value. Also yes, fucking Belgium is investigating the game's pay-to-play mechanics to see if it technically falls under the government's criteria for gambling, thus being subject to additional regulation.
So, what does this mean for EA?
EA has not exactly been on the ball lately; earlier this year, they released "Mass Effect: Andromeda", which was a pile of hot garbage due to buggy gameplay, wooden or annoying characters, and truly historic examples of bad voice acting, and that had nothing to do with microtransactions. To be sure, they have gotten a tremendous level of flak from fans over similar microtransaction controversies in "Dead Space 3" and "Need for Speed", the latter of which also came out this year. Still, even though those games were ultimately profitable, even though such mercenary practices have earned them "Worst Company in America" not once but twice, no controversy has ever resulted in a $3 billion loss in stock value.
In case you're wondering, yes, that's bad. That's very, very bad for them.
EA paid Disney a lot of money when they bought the rights to make Star Wars games, let alone to be the sole company allowed to do so. Controversies like this don't just reflect poorly on EA, they make Disney look bad, too. Controversies that are bad enough, ones that mar the reputation of companies like Disney to a significant extent, could cause significant changes to their business models. In other words, EA's handling of "Battlefront 2" and its subsequent backlash could lose them the rights to make future "Star Wars" games.
Only time will tell if EA learns their lesson, if Disney even gives them that chance.
I would also highly recommend listening to Jeff Gerstmann's rant on "Battlefront 2", just below, for further insight into how "Battlefront 2"..."happened." He's got more firsthand industry experience than me, and I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head.
People who consider themselves "hardcore gamers" may be familiar with Electronic Arts, one of the giants of the gaming industry. They're known for "Fifa", "Madden", and aggressive in-game moneymaking strategies. They literally try to get you to pay extra money to unlock content for a game you already purchased. They're called "microtransactions."
In the early days in which microtransactions first started being utilized, the companies that included microtransactions used them for what could be considered "extra" or "bonus" content. Those who chose a more "vanilla" form of the game wouldn't necessarily miss out on the vast majority of the game's content, especially content advertised as a primary selling point of the game. Some games, like "Team Fortress 2", continue to use this strategy in such a way; players can pay real money to unlock special hats or costumes for their in-game avatars. They don't affect gameplay in any way, they're just goofy and fun. Through this approach, "Team Fortress 2" made so much in microtransactions that its developer, Valve, was able to strike the retail price altogether, making the full game free to play.
As time went on, EA's use of the microtransaction strategy became more and more aggressive.
"Battlefront 2" is the latest and worst example of their abuse of microtransactions. First of all, most of the game's content is stuck behind a "pay wall." Not bonus content, just regular content. In the original version of release, some playable characters highlighted heavily in the advertisement of the game, such as Darth Vader, are only available if you pay an estimated $80 in addition to the game's retail price.
 |
| I have been waiting so, so long to use this image for something. |
I say "estimated" because this was originally to be carried out via an in-game currency, which have since been stricken from the game. The other option is to play the game for an unreasonable amount of time. Let me put it this way: each 15-minute match earns you around 500 credits. When the game first came out, Darth Vader cost 60,000 credits to unlock. Since then it's been knocked down to a "generous" 15,000. Polygon estimated that with the original 60,000 credit price, a player would have to spend at least 40 hours playing before Luke Skywalker, Darth Vader, or other top-tier characters would become playable.
The other thing is, you don't get more credits for playing well, you get rewarded for the time you sink into the game. That means you can literally leave the game running, sit at the spawn point, never get a single kill, and get the same amount of credits as the game's MVP. The upgrade system is also closely tied to this microtransaction model. Even if it weren't, functionally it's a mess of bad game design decisions, possibly to frustrate your rational mind into oblivion so that you'll spend money trying to unlock content that you thought you already paid for, or remain competitive; most of the best guns are locked behind the same paywall, and reports from Giant Bomb.com have said that there is a clear difference between players who paid vs. those who "just played" - the payers tend to dominate due to their superior weapons, which are unlocked using loot boxes, which depend on how many credits you have.
EA attempted to defend their design decisions on an AMA on Reddit.com, resulting in said comment becoming "the most downvoted Reddit comment ever." Mat Everett, one of EA's Community Managers, tweeted an irate comment about "armchair developers", which he later retracted after "hordes of angry gamers" tweeted back at him. CNBC reported two days ago that EA's stock is down 8.5%, causing a crushing $3 billion loss in stock value. Also yes, fucking Belgium is investigating the game's pay-to-play mechanics to see if it technically falls under the government's criteria for gambling, thus being subject to additional regulation.
 |
| Still, you just know that Kylo Ren would be fucking psyched if he knew he was in a video game with Darth Vader, let alone the same room. |
So, what does this mean for EA?
EA has not exactly been on the ball lately; earlier this year, they released "Mass Effect: Andromeda", which was a pile of hot garbage due to buggy gameplay, wooden or annoying characters, and truly historic examples of bad voice acting, and that had nothing to do with microtransactions. To be sure, they have gotten a tremendous level of flak from fans over similar microtransaction controversies in "Dead Space 3" and "Need for Speed", the latter of which also came out this year. Still, even though those games were ultimately profitable, even though such mercenary practices have earned them "Worst Company in America" not once but twice, no controversy has ever resulted in a $3 billion loss in stock value.
In case you're wondering, yes, that's bad. That's very, very bad for them.
EA paid Disney a lot of money when they bought the rights to make Star Wars games, let alone to be the sole company allowed to do so. Controversies like this don't just reflect poorly on EA, they make Disney look bad, too. Controversies that are bad enough, ones that mar the reputation of companies like Disney to a significant extent, could cause significant changes to their business models. In other words, EA's handling of "Battlefront 2" and its subsequent backlash could lose them the rights to make future "Star Wars" games.
Only time will tell if EA learns their lesson, if Disney even gives them that chance.
I would also highly recommend listening to Jeff Gerstmann's rant on "Battlefront 2", just below, for further insight into how "Battlefront 2"..."happened." He's got more firsthand industry experience than me, and I think he pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Comments
Post a Comment