Forum Discussion
Game development is not cheap. Engine upgrades, paying developers and console license fees, marketing....all of this stuff is crazy expensive and producing game is risky even for big publishers like EA.
There are plenty of unethical things I can point to that EA does but they are related to quality: bugs, balance, anti cheat and occasionally network issues. If you want to argue that quality and refinement, historically speaking, doesn't justify the price then we can find common ground on that.
But most people aren't coming from that angle. They're arguing from a content standpoint. To them, a game with 50 garbage maps and 100 trash weapons is better than one with 10 quality maps and 30 well balanced weapons. Such thinking will only encourage developers to pump out half baked content so they can boast about the volume of content players are getting.
On the flip side you have people making fun of players with 1000 hours saying a game is bad. Again it's not about the sheer number of hours its about the quality. What if a large amount of those 1000 hours were spend in frustration dealing with crashes, bugs and balance issues? What if the player just stuck around because they devs kept saying "don't worry, next patch will be fixed" only to see them break something else even more severely? What if the player would just jump to a competitor but can't because that's the only game in its specific genre?
Bottom line is that its about the quality and value being delivered. Why this is such an esoteric concept is beyond me. Ultimately you need to judge for yourself once you have had the chance to play it. Do the graphics, sound design, gameplay and content justify the price I paid?
For me personally, yes in theory it does. There is so much we don't know yet though and then we have to see if they can actually execute better than they have in the past.
they can charge whatever they want.
you can choose to buy or not to buy.
that's how the market works.
in videogames you can wait if you don't like the price and generally speaking the price eventually goes down to almost zero for most games.
- 4 years ago
@trip1ex Of course they can change what ever they want, it doesn't mean it's a justifiable change from the consumer perspective.
I can vote with my cash and choose not purchase, that's my privilege as a consumer, but that means the change hasn't worked from a marketing perspective.
But this isn't how the market works, it's how EA's pricing scheme works, the proof is that the rest of the market has not adopted the same scheme.- VOLBANKER_PC4 years agoSeasoned Ace
Amazing how quickly some people forget.
What we paid to get BFV bought us a hell of a lot of frustration, anger even at times.
Who knows if this next BF title will be any better.
DICE are great at making trailers and building hype. Unfortunately there tends to be the same problems with their games over and over: Lacking team balance, lacking anti-cheat, lacking game balance, way too much focus on adding gimmicky stuff…
- 4 years ago
Pricing does seem a bit random for next gen:
PS5 battlefield, amazon 65 marked down from 70, game 65 full price, psn 70 full or 63 with ea play discount.
Was looking at hitman 3 and game had ps5 version £5 more expensive then ps4, amazon the other way round and psn both the same in a 50% sale.
But games normally go up in price when a new console comes out and yes you probably are paying more for polygons and lighting and some extra square footage rather than actual game. I was expecting £60 rather than £70 though. And you probably need the subscription for online too?
About Battlefield 2042 General Discussion
Recent Discussions
- 13 hours ago
- 14 hours ago
- 19 hours ago