Aye they already said they would do that months ago.

https://gamerant.com/anthem-microtransaction-release/

"While discussing the publisher’s projected sales expectations for the game, Jorgensen made a comment in which it was suggested that the game will only be receiving other monetizable additions sometime after launch."

This is one of those titles I'm hoping just comes out and tanks but I think with the amount it has been pushed and pushed at the last E3's it'll be more likely to see it included with bottles of mountain dew than allowed to go gracefully into the night if it isn't successful at launch. EA will do everything to make Anthem a success because they've invested a lot of money into it already, their shareholders want returns.

Nope. This is just another "lose-lose" situation. If it succeeds, they will keep pushing Bioware to make sequels at lightning speed, while monetizing the hell out of it. If it tanks, they will kill the studio to compensate for the expenses.

I know if it fails there is that point where it would be throwing good money after bad... but I think with the amount invested in this they're going to be very slow to walk away from the potential that this could have for them to nickle and dime the shit out of anyone that walks in the door of the franchise, I would say EA spent almost as much time and energy coming up with ways to extract money from their players than actual content in the game at this stage.

Black Ops 4 didn't when it released either. Once all the reviews were already finalized thoigh...

Exactly. Publishers like EA/Acti will continue going at it for as long as they can. They just want more money and they'll do whatever it takes to get it. We may see them touching the fire and seeing them hurt from it, but they'll always put their hand into it, each and every time. The only time they'll ever learn is if they die as a company, but by then it's far too late, and even then their "learning" was forced and not felt naturally. 

My dude, they spent money and 5-6 years and two studios merged together, to make a new C&C game. They wasted both time, money and effort, as well as two studios to try cobbling one RTS together and they still managed to screw that up. They washed their hands of all of that soon after, and yet the only ones who suffered were the studios and the fans. 

Breaking news: business wants to make money. 

If the loot crates are only cosmetic and not pay to win then it's absolutely fine as long as you can also buy the cosmetics separately with real money or in game credits. 

Breaking news: You can make money by making good games. You don't need to have MT'scrammed into a game all the time. Other games out there have proven this time and time again, while those that cram them in end up being pushed away or inciting rage from gamers.

It's not fine with folk like myself or others like Jim Sterling. Just make the game and don't shove MT's into it. 

Oh ya I know and good guy Sony are doing exactly like you said so I can't disagree with you there. Very valid point. But I can't hold it against a company like EA having cosmetic means to make money if it means we get the actual game content for free. That's an awesome tradeoff.

Battlefront 2 how it launched is the definition of how how not to do it. BF2 now is absolutely perfect. If they launched it with the current system there would have been no backlash and it would have sold millions more. They might even be known as good guy EA but that term is held for a select few who consistently do it right. 

Yeah, and others are doing it besides Sony. 

I can hold it against them, because there is a fine point between making money and just pure greed. I know fully well that being greedy is looked down upon by society. Those that do not look down upon it are also greedy themselves.

Before all this, we used to get said "free" content within the base game, or even follow up expansions, content we could unlock within the game, either via secret areas, codes or challenges. Back then that was something else and awesome in it's own right, but paying to "unlock" what we could unlock back then for free?, hell no, that's not awesome. 

BF2 and many games have proven that it's not a viable model to make use of, not when you;'re clearly asking for a lot of money up front. This is why the model has thrived and worked far better with F2P games than it has for fully paid £55-70+ games (The mobile market proves this).

Why would they be known as "good guy" EA, for asking and basking in pure greed?. That's like a twisted way of looking at simply making a good game and reaping in the rewards of making said game, rather than trying to deliberately milk me for everything I own.