Hiku said:
crissindahouse said:
Real football doesn't change much either and people still buy new season-tickets to watch it in the stadium or on TV with a TV subscription for a lot of money and for much more as they would ever pay for some TV shows where you get completely new ones every year.
Maybe some gamers just have to accept that many people on this planet love football (as game or in reality) and will pay hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for it and they don't think "ohh I could watch 500 different TV shows for the same money" because football still gives them something these TV shows or other games never could.
I mean, when I will watch the next match in the stadium I will see pretty much the same as weeks ago. Some people running after a ball trying to shoot it in a goal. And I have to say I don't care if it will be almost the same the next 50 years, it's awesome every new week (even with corruption and stuff^^)
|
I understand that completely since I follow both football and competetive fighting games on a weekly basis, and watch them on stream. I go out to see my favorite team live every once in a while as well. But that's a premium experience. And while the game doesn't change, the players competing, and the outcome of the match is what keeps things exciting. I wouldn't equate that to buying the game, but more like something extra on top of it.
It's not that I question the entertainment each iteration of the game may bring. Because that's subjective. It's the monetary value of it. There is an industry standard of $60 for new retail games. So there are certain expectations that comes along with that. If EA earn $100.000.000.000 on FIFA 17, then would you find it fair if they only invested $1 into the sequel and sell it for $60? No matter how fun or boring you may find it.
I'm making an extreme example here obviously, but the question is if there is a line to be drawn somewhere, and where to draw it.
If the amount of work and effort they put into a sequel is equal to what other gaming companies deem fitting for DLC at a reduced cost, should EA not take the same approach some times?
Yes, tons of people love this sport so much they'll never question the $60 price. Does that mean that a company should always exploit that, even if they know that some updates might as well be DLC at a reduced price?
|
I'm pretty sure that EA pays more for a single FIFA game as most devs do for their $60 games so that your question is pretty irrelevant talking about FIFA. They have to have many people following football and giving input to adjust all the player data. They have to pay for licenses which will probably cost a ton, they design new jersey for a crazy amount of teams and so on...
It's not as if EA does get the licenses for free and if they randomly throw numbers on player ratings (well, sometimes it seems like it 
) and if they change nothing except for the numbers.
It's not as if EA has only 3 people working 10 hours a week on FIFA. This is simply not true, they have big teams working as much as those working on other games.
I'm sure that FIFA games are not cheap to produce. That they would be probably profitable with 5m instead of 20m sales may be true but that's the same with every game which does sell so much so that you could tell every dev to sell the game for half the price if they know it will sell like 15m+
Other games may change more visibly but that doesn't mean that more hours of dev time went into them (not talking about games with 200 people working 3 years on them but average sized games)
If one of the next FIFA games will show that only a small team put some hours into it then we can speak about it but I don't see that the last years .
