If your submission does not appear, do not delete it. If it hasn't shown up after more than 5 minutes, simply message the moderators and ask us to look into it. Do NOT private message or attempt to use reddit chat to contact moderators about moderator actions.
Mark your spoilers and NSFW submissions, comments and links. Ea loosing money hand over fist the rules of promotion. This is not the place to spam your channel or stream. Posts and comments, whether in jest or with malice, that contain racist, sexist, homophobic content, threats, or other forms of toxicity will be removed, regardless of popularity or relevance.
For AMA rules, click here. Believe it or not, this could actually be the start of a long-term trend. Many regulators are taking a close look at their practices. They may have seen their peak. DLC has shifted to mean Ea loosing money hand over fist things. Battlefield 3, 4, 1 are perfect examples. Only a percentage of players buy the premium pass and have access to all of the maps.
Even with Battlefield 2, once Armoured Fury and Euro Force came out there was a distinct difference when gaming. When you have 14 people all trying to join a server, finally you get a one with a good ping to everyone, that isn't full, then when 9 people have joined you realise two guys can't play as they don't have the expansions.
A lot of this dlc supports the developers making the content. Without any paid dlc, I don't think they have Ea loosing money hand over fist incentive or money to continue work on the game or even can? Well if more of the money went to developers I would understand this reasoning. Currently though, development studios and developers themselves get pissed on in terms of their cut of sales.
I wasn't too sure about this. I'll look more into this: Thanks for correcting me without reddit salt: Adding even free DLC can often result in a spike in sales. I like this guy's take on it.
Continuing sales are an incentive. It's not much of one for games that have a continuous cost like server hosting, but it's possible for a game to have small release and eventually sell a lot over the fullness of time.
There's a difference between adding content and adding maps. Like in a previous example the expansion to the Witcher 3 was added content, more to do etc. When it comes to fps "dlc" witch is just more maps isn't as intense as a job, hell people have been making maps for free for counter strike since it started.
Unlike the Witcher 3 where I can play through the whole game and experience it in all of its glory on purchase and than Ea loosing money hand over fist I want more content go back and buy it. Thats a lame pov. If i like a game I want to support the team and pay them to make new content for me. The playerbase that owns the game wants the dlc than make it. I also want to buy a complete product at launch, they should def not take content out to charge later.
There is a difference. There was a game that I can't remember now that used to update things like posters that were on the walls in-game with new advertisements for real-life products. Battlefield used to do that. I remember some levels having billboards advertising 5 gum, and other stuff like that. Planetside 1 did this for a time.
I remember seeing ads for sodas on in game billboards while waiting in the sanctuary continent. There is the big push when a game launches, a bunch of people buy your game, then people stop buying your game, then you make free DLC, your game is back in the gaming news, more people buy your game. This was for example why TF2 had so many patches after it was launched but before it went free to play.
Because the expansions got more people to buy the game, made them more money. Charge for cosmetic items etc, I
Ea loosing money hand over fist after the EA shit storm most publishers will shy away from loot boxes hopefully and try to think of other ways to get additional revenue. Developers are paid regardless and part of the budget of a games development costs. The majority of players do not buy either DLC or loot boxes, its mearly the "fat cats" so to speak that provide most of the revenue from those.
Loot boxes are absolutely more profitable.
It's the reason Heroes of the Storm switched from direct buying power to a loot crate system. Loot crates are addictive, especially to those with addictive personalities and gambling problems, even just to ordinary whales. Micro transaction driven revenues already only ride of the small percentage of whales in the population, loot crates make more money off whales than direct buying power. I noticed this about Heroes of the Storm.
They used to sell skins individually before they switched to a loot box system, and I would pick up whatever skin was on the weekly sale if I liked it. Since the switch to lootboxes though I have spent 0 dollars on that game, when it was easily a hundred bucks spent before that, because of a 4 dollar skin every week or two for a year.
Yes but the big spenders are now spending even more and more often. Look at how they've flooded loot boxes in HotS with all sorts of sprays and emotes. True, I guess I just don't see it as I am not a big spender for f2p. I honestly shocked my self looking at how much I spent on HoTS skin sales from alpha to when they switched to boxes lol. That's basically my point. It depends how they end up regulating them. If they do label loot boxes as gambling they would be in a real sticky situation since some US states don't allow gambling until the age of This would really affect their target demographic.
Being able to buy specific items would never make more money, or even remotely do as well for that matter, than loot boxes. Yeah the problem is you're not account for the largest source of income from loot boxes. There are people who have actual gambling problems who spend hundreds of dollars on loot boxes.
Remove loot boxes and its just loot, thereby removing these whales from the equation. With a reduced incentive to spend so much time on loot with decreased profits, the hope is devs will go back to making actual videogames again. Your a big minority. There's a reason most do lootboxes. That's what make people buy. Not picking what you It's dumb buts its true.
You may not be spending any money on them, but a lot of people are. Market research has shown people are more inclined to buy lootboxes containing cosmetic items, rather than buying individual micro-transactions that grant specific cosmetic items. That is why Call "Ea loosing money hand over fist" Duty shifted from selling camos, voicepacks, ect, and started selling loot crates.
Then started the slow downward spiral into pay to win and locked content If anything, EA will probably back off, and take the Overwatch approach. Cosmetics only, but make them really fucking good cosmetics. Overwatch has been really successful with its cosmetic lootboxes. If companies could make more money selling individual items, they would do it that way. They sell skinner boxes, which are addictive and far more profitable. For example, I had to have the cultist Zenyatta skin.
Sure, I might have gotten a victory pose I equipped for 2 or 3 heroes I barely ever play, but do you see why RNG skinner boxes are so much more profitable? With the alternative, you don't have to keep blindly throwing money at the game until the odds give you what you want. You spend exactly what you want to spend, you track it and don't go over a certain amount. In HotS, Ea loosing money hand over fist used to do it this way, but then they changed the store and put in loot boxes much like in OW.
Some people think that they found they could make more money from this method. I don't know whether that's true or not, as Ea loosing money hand over fist spent more money when I could just buy a skin, but I don't think Blizzard intends in any way to go back in that direction, in any game.
There have been many studies that show that a system of variable rewards is the strongest behavior reinforcement. It's very addictive to get random rewards and to keep doing whatever is giving them to you. You are right in the sense that this doesn't work for people like you and me who would never even buy a loot crate, but might buy a specific item.
Way more than the people like you and me. If lootboxes get regulated they will be rated Ao.
I dunno why you're getting so many upvotes. You can't really use a personal anecdote as evidence and extrapolate it to every other customer.
Cosmetic items for most games used to be sold on a specific cost I'm not sure whether loot boxes will be regulated or not, but I am definitely sure that a loot box model generates more profit than a specific cost model. There are games that switched from that model to loot boxes specifically because loot boxes sell more.
Only with credits, which are from loot boxes as a drop or if you get a duplicate. Electronic Arts is in the business of selling games, but it could soon be more. Sony by all accounts is losing money hand over fist on Now. Companies around the world are losing money hand over fist as oil prices continue to plummet.