EA CEO Addresses Loot Crates And Pay-To-Win Concerns

@h20-xcv: It's not the expense that is the problem, it's the mind games companies are playing to get you to part with more of your money without having to put much effort into it. Throwing a bunch of random items into a loot box and charging for them costs the company very little because the item was already created for use in the game. Also, artificially making those said items harder to get in-game compels more people to simply buy the items.

I don't mind spending extra money for items or leveling to speed up a game, I don't have tons of time to play games, but I don't like being taken advantage of to further get me to spend even more and not get a return of value on what I spent. Even worse is when I spend money to speed up progress in a game only to have the game developer "re-balance" the game potentially nerfing the advantages that were paid for. I don't know of too many examples of this happening but paying for levels certainly can have this happen and quickly devalue what was just paid for.

@h20-xcv: If that is what you read, then I'm not surprised you're unable to discern the overall impact this sort of design philosophy has on the industry.

This isn't about the pocket change I or anyone else has to throw at video games. This is about publishers finding a way to cut corners to the point where they're essentially releasing shit and being rewarded for their efforts. The problem is they finally found a way to get away with it. In the past, the same games we call "great" today would be ridiculed to death. Now every publisher is jumping on the bandwagon and we get overpriced shit. Heck, even the good games aren't immune. They release with their endings missing or something.

@eggs_benedict: You're right, I'm fine with that, but clearly such a system isn't nearly so addictive or profitable as a system with proper and meaningful loot.

@eggs_benedict: i also wanted to add the emotes and victory poses (i'm assuming taking inspiration from OW) were horrible. barely any distinction between one victory pose from another

@playstationzone: You're poor

@ltjohnnyrico: bot

@lion2447: I'm sorry but how do you know regular progress will be slow and tedious? shouldnt you wait until reviews for that?

@Thanatos2k: uhm, that aint true. All throughout developers have been talking about what people said it's wrong with the beta.

They kept saying things like "you though the flame troopers was too weak? we buffed him, you think the specialist ability was too strong? we nerfed it, you think the squad mechanics don't work? we are fixing them"

@Thanatos2k: But other games have lootboxes too :'(

He said

It's an industry problem, he said

Yeah, but no other game had it's complete and entire progression locked behind such a shitty and incomprehensible system. That is designed to milk as much money from a Star Wars fan as possible.

Good to know these higher ups are as disconnected as ever, saying the problem is not their game... it's an industry problem. SMH :/

@dudebropartyyo: This, they can keep the micro-transactions in the game. Just make them vanity items. (skins/outfits/color packs) but nothing that gives an advantage in game play.

@Richardthe3rd: You're a poor peasant and jealous you don't have money to spend in game. I'm rich so I will be buying a ton of the in game loot boxes while your getting owned in the game. Move out peasant!

@drysprocket: Nah; I've bought it, and I'll play it... Probably quite a bit, actually -- with friends. But none of us are into buying MT currency. We just like to hang out, chat, laugh, and shoot stuff. The base game is fine for that.

Even Fortnite was has been really good for that... $40 for 100+ hours of CoOp gaming, LONG before it will ever be "free."

MTs are what you make of them (or don't).

@7tizz: It was always about profit but Buyers were getting quality and both sides were happy , now we don't get anything and devs get money only OPEN your damn eyes.

@7tizz: It is about profit, but the way companies are moving is not an equal share of value anymore. What you get for what you pay is not the same as earlier games. These new systems are designed to get maximum profit with minimum value returned to the player. But not so little as to put off the player permanently. This means that mind games are being played to encourage spending more.

With loot boxes, they are inherently random meaning you will most likely have to spend more than once (based on wanting a single item) to get what you want. You will eventually get what you want, but at the same time spend more than simply buying it outright.

Using the excuse of everything being available in-game without spending anything also plays into spending more. If it was easy to get what you want by playing the game, you would not spend any extra. Your time has value and that is factored in by making it just hard enough to acquire any valuable items. The developers of these methods know many people will value their time over the cost of many items and buy instead. Throw that into a randomizer and further increase the chance of additional profit.

Taking into account what ThomasN7 mentioned about gaming not being what it was years ago forgets that the technology was not available to do this years ago. Consoles specifically did not connect to the Internet to be able to do this.

Taking into account what you say about gaming has always been about profit and combine that with the fact that there is technology now available to generate more profit means gaming is heading down an unknown path that does not favour the player. I believe what we see in gaming right now is the early days of testing various methods to maximize profit.