EA Forums - Banner

Release cycle overhaul.

Prev13
So I mentioned in another thread an idea similar to what CSGO and Rocket League use to support the continued development of their games despite charging a one time fee to play the game.

Both games offer boxes gained from playing the game as random drops. Then you buy keys to open the box and get a random skin of varying rarity. These items can then be traded and sold between users for Steam money/items.

The buying of the keys is how the company makes money and is able to continue to support their game. EA already has the UT drawing in money. Why not add in boxes with different skins.

For example in NHL alone they could have, sticks, skates, gloves, logos, jersey styles, socks, arenas, helmets, special fans for in the crowd, "ads" for the boards in your arena.

So many options and you let the community come up with some of the artistic ideas for the different skins so it's not even licensed products just stuff people drew up to look cool.

This way they release the game, NHL, Madden, NBA, MLB, etc. Except instead of having a year on it, it's just the league name and its going to be continuously supported by them and they make money through cosmetic micro transactions.

Replies

  • Ya setting up a sales system to make less money is great idea.
    You must unlearn what you have learned!
  • How do you figure less money? Do you have any idea how much money csgo skins bring in?

    If it's such a bad idea why are games like rocket league, pubg and others following that same idea to make money for their games?

    All you have to do is sell 24 keys at 2.50$ a piece to every player and boom 60$ a year.

    Just because it's unknown to console users doesn't mean it doesn't actually make more money than ea sports entire catalog. I'd be willing to bet csgo pulls in more with just keys and cases than ea sports does across every game.

    People on here are always saying how they wish the game was supported properly and this and that. Well this is a possibility that has proven to be a solid system and has shown that it makes a lot of money for those who use it, and use it properly.

    The games become better and you sell more base games thus selling more skins. It's proven and just because it's different doesn't mean there's less money coming in.
  • COGSx86 wrote: »
    Ya setting up a sales system to make less money is great idea.

    C'mon cogs... you could do better than that. You really don't have any idea whether this sales idea would bring in more money or not. Doesn't mean you have to crap on an idea that someone had. I think, taking the money part out if it, every player here would benefit from a non yearly release cycle, no? And you don't have to spell out for me that money is the most important thing to a company... I already know.
  • All I'm saying is I saw CSGO start this kind of thing. It blew up huge for them. Now I've seen 3 or 4 other games implement similar things. If it worked as well as it did for one company to the point that others also want to follow suit. How could it be that bad?

    Also EA already has a microtransaction system setup to draw money in through the UT. Adding random case drops and a system to buy keys to open them would not at all be hard. The only thing they would be missing is the Steam marketplace where users can buy/sell (with real money added to steam wallets) and trade their skins/cases/keys.
  • My idea isn't for it as a service though. Mine is a one time fee supported by microtransactions
  • My idea isn't for it as a service though. Mine is a one time fee supported by microtransactions

    I think a service would more realistic in terms of what a company would do.. And then they would have microtransactions on top of that annual charge.
  • Santini3 wrote: »
    My idea isn't for it as a service though. Mine is a one time fee supported by microtransactions

    I think a service would more realistic in terms of what a company would do.. And then they would have microtransactions on top of that annual charge.

    Why then are csgo, rocket league, pubg, Dota, etc all one time fees supported by just micro transactions?
  • Ryujinsum
    62 posts Member
    edited September 2017
    How about EA just invests a little bit more into their own product? HUT makes a ton of money, what makes you think adding even more microtransactions will help the game? What have the HUT sales done for the game? Absolutely nothing, game is still inferior to the last gen games in my opinion. We're still missing plenty of features and small details that won't ever see the day of light. Also going after the CS:GO model will not work for this game and its fans. Let's say they go the CS:GO route. On PC you can push updates for your games whenever you like. For consoles that's not the case, you have to get it checked out by Xbox or PS for authorization first. If EA wants to constantly change or try things we're going to have to wait extended periods of time. It also doesn't help that EA themselves are slow to push out patches. Moving on to the idea of customization, people complained about clown gear in the previous games. Personally I would not spend any amount of money on customization like this for my EASHL player. Your already limited in what you can have and cannot.
  • If they refuse to go away from the yearly cycle.... I wouldn't be against a one time purchase at full price and then half price for repeat customers on future iterations. $80 CAD is too much to ask for a recycled game every year and part of the reason why people do not keep buying the game.
  • @Ryujinsum

    See you say that about "clown gear" and people did for csgo and now most are like I couldn't live without some skin.
  • Santini3 wrote: »
    My idea isn't for it as a service though. Mine is a one time fee supported by microtransactions

    I think a service would more realistic in terms of what a company would do.. And then they would have microtransactions on top of that annual charge.

    Why then are csgo, rocket league, pubg, Dota, etc all one time fees supported by just micro transactions?

    Well those are all single iteration games and were never meant to be yearly releases. They're also not published by a business monster like EA.
  • EA can either be a business monster, or skeleton staffed. Let's face it. The annual release thing has proven too much for developers the subscription plan. Maybe with a larger layout when huge changes, such as if frostbite ever arrives... makes much more sense in today's world. Heck, even Photoshop is a subscription.. listen, if it was working that would be one thing but we're pretty deep into dumpsterfire here and it's time to correct the course before it's too late.

    Btw..I'm waiting for the price drop this year. It's just not a AAA game.
    All Comments pertain to 6v6 drop in unless otherwise stated..
  • See a subscription service is not necessary for this game. I see too many free to play games supported by only microtransactions, plus the other games that have been mentioned with one time fees and support from microtransactions. The only reason I've seen given for why this should be a subscription is that it's a yearly release and the others aren't.

    To me that is bull bird. No game should be a yearly release in this day and age. Back before the internet when roster updates had to be pushed through an entirely new title, sure sports games need to be released yearly. Today there is no reason for it and they could easily make just as much without a subscription service and getting rid of yearly releases and going to more microtransactions for cosmetic things.

    Early on they might make less, but as the game continues to see vast improvements because the team can actually work on fixing things instead of just adding new features. Then you start to get more word of mouth sales, and that allows you to spend less on marketing which last I checked EA spends more on than R&D, which is also wrong.

    Basically if this game goes to a subscription I am still out. One time fee with UT and Cases/keys is more than enough to support these sports games.
  • kezz123
    600 posts Member
    edited September 2017
    COGSx86 wrote: »
    Ya setting up a sales system to make less money is great idea.

    Sometimes making less money short term is making more money long term.

    But they could also keep the existing release cycle and continue to bleed out more and more sales each year.

    and thats ignoring the fact that selling microtransactions has proven way more lucrative. Blizzard makes "Billions" in each of its "events" which are super scammy but it just goes to show.
  • See a subscription service is not necessary for this game. I see too many free to play games supported by only microtransactions, plus the other games that have been mentioned with one time fees and support from microtransactions. The only reason I've seen given for why this should be a subscription is that it's a yearly release and the others aren't.

    To me that is bull bird. No game should be a yearly release in this day and age. Back before the internet when roster updates had to be pushed through an entirely new title, sure sports games need to be released yearly. Today there is no reason for it and they could easily make just as much without a subscription service and getting rid of yearly releases and going to more microtransactions for cosmetic things.

    Early on they might make less, but as the game continues to see vast improvements because the team can actually work on fixing things instead of just adding new features. Then you start to get more word of mouth sales, and that allows you to spend less on marketing which last I checked EA spends more on than R&D, which is also wrong.

    Basically if this game goes to a subscription I am still out. One time fee with UT and Cases/keys is more than enough to support these sports games.


    This game has all the required criteria to be a perfect free to play + microtransaction model.
    The majority of clients play online.
    its competitive
    People do not get tired of playing EVEN without microtransactions and unlocks (in general)
    It needs ongoing updates and support.

    The danger is this:
    -they may do like what they do now with HUT...make a lot more money from a lot less users and not expand the dev team or network and just juice for more money instead. There is a clear management issue currently and nothing fixes that except low sales.
  • kezz123 wrote: »
    This game has all the required criteria to be a perfect free to play + microtransaction model.
    The majority of clients play online.
    its competitive
    People do not get tired of playing EVEN without microtransactions and unlocks (in general)
    It needs ongoing updates and support.

    The danger is this:
    -they may do like what they do now with HUT...make a lot more money from a lot less users and not expand the dev team or network and just juice for more money instead. There is a clear management issue currently and nothing fixes that except low sales.

    Insightful post. (thumbs up)
    Dad. Gamer. Rocker. Geek.
  • That's exactly what I think it is. This is like a stock for them, and instead of reinvesting in the stock to gain more money long term, they selling bits of it to buy more things around the house.
  • Release cycle overhaul.

    Release cycle overhaul.....
    Release cycle overhaul.....

    Recycled release overdone?
  • kezz123 wrote: »
    COGSx86 wrote: »
    Ya setting up a sales system to make less money is great idea.

    Sometimes making less money short term is making more money long term.

    But they could also keep the existing release cycle and continue to bleed out more and more sales each year.

    and thats ignoring the fact that selling microtransactions has proven way more lucrative. Blizzard makes "Billions" in each of its "events" which are super scammy but it just goes to show.

    Apple
    GMC
    FORD
    SAMSUNG
    GAP
    Activision
    and Electronic Arts.


    What do they have in common? YEARLY RELEASE!!!!

    Comparing a company who makes one of the most supported games, Warcraft (didnt know that), to EA sports NHL team who barely reaches a million sales each year, is like comparing one of the most sold vehicles like a Honda civic to a chevy Aveo ( I personally would say a Porsche Cayenne = NHL) but either way, you guys are hilarious on here trying to re-create how EA markets its video games.


    EA has micro transactions already with HUT, making a killing. Not only do they get their 800k to 1 mill in sales every year they also get their micro transactions.


    You must unlearn what you have learned!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!