| Nymeria said: We can yell at EA, Activision, etc. all we want, but the market is really to blame. You make a single player masterpiece and sell millions, but some cheap game with microtransactions generates 10x the revenue at 1/50th the cost. The people out there who rationalize dumping 100s to 1000s of dollars into a single title because they keep buying loot boxes encourage this behavior. I'm sad for the industry as an artform, but I cynically get it as a business move. |
Except EA isn't making that. They're making games that cost MORE to make than most singleplayer games would if they were efficient in even the most remote sense of the word in hopes of creating a game that will give them endless ammounts of money.
People keep saying they get this business move but from a more indepth perspective it makes no sense. They were faced with rising development costs but rather than do the conventionally wise thing - focus on becoming more efficient - they decided to *accelerate* development costs, creating these sprawling, nebulous games that they can plug in endless ammounts of DLC, microtransactions, etc.
Basically, they found themselves unwittingly sitting at a a high rollers table and in their panic...they ran to an even HIGHER rollers table. These games actually constitute a higher risk in many instances because they've allowed costs to balloon even further and are betting it all on microtransactions.
