EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

[grunt]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

yea that analogy really does not work


I am of the Opinion that DLC is a good thing. Its not like you have to pay anything extra in any EA Sports game to play it, They basically charge for Cheats and Ultimate team. I really do wish they would start creating DLC that added to the game like different broadcast packages or Stadium packages. Hell if I were in Charge of EA i would have teams that created DLC like stadium packages or Changes to the game that could not be added until the following year.

That would basically allow EA to cash in on their current game but make the following years game better by having more content.

The DLC is just fluff or things we use to get for free.

EA will put more money in marketing than in game development.

[permanent1]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

I am not against anyone making money that is just capitalism,BUT do they really need to make more money i mean it is not like they are not already making money hand over fist on madden they sell what 4-5 million copies atleast every year at $60 a pop,that is what around 240 million(in no way i am saying those numbers are correct) or so,no biggie really i guess just seems a little excessive.

[jdsmoooth]

Consumers proved that they would pay for DLC long before Zynga and others really caught on... If anyone has played or remembers Everquest and Ultima Online? People were earning items or money that were available in the game and selling them as a true cash commodity on Ebay. We're not talking chump change here either, some items or accounts could go for over $1K. What I'm saying is that some consumers have shown that they are willing to pay extra for game add ons that enhance their experience. It doesn't mean that many, if not most, players won't already be happy with their game as is.

What this does mean is that large companies will have to listen very closely to the pulse of their core buyers if they intend to make money from in game purchases. I think that EA has shown that they will support a game post launch with title updates. People purchasing DLC, should in theory, give EA the ability to financially support a title for a longer period of time. Meaning more free title updates and game tweaks and enhancements for everyone.

[Dazraz]

There are 2 issues to look at here.

Firstly DLC. There is no doubt the option to expand on a game with DLC can help give a game extended longevity. Downloads such as additional courses on PGA for example. The question is where is the line drawn. At what point do developers take the idea too far. Are we heading to a point where games are released in their bare bone states with key modes & options requiring separate purchases. Imagine if you bought Madden & then had to pay for a download to play Franchise Mode!

As for in game advertising. I have no idea what sort of revenue these ads bring in but there is an argument that these ads do add to an authentic broadcast feel to certain titles.

[Gordy748]

DLC... Well I've spent 2 years buying EA's cheats for offline franchise. I won't again, mainly because it's starting to detract from what fun I have playing Madden. In my current franchise I haven't bothered activating the World Class Staff or Star PLayer, for example. If I draft a lemon, then that's them apples, and it makes team building more challenging (read, more fun).

Still, it's a source of revenue for EA. I guess the Madden moments are interesting. Would I be prapred to pay not only for the greatest moments of 2010, but the greatest moments of all-time? Or access to every Superbowl in the modern era? Or to be able to start a franchise in, say, 1982 and see if I could stop the Bears? Or pay for additional uniforms? Or to buy certain teams so you can pitch the 72 Dolphins against the 85 Bears? Actually, yes I would.

The question is whether they could get the license for past teams and players. Sadly I doubt they could, but if the DLC is going to be relevant and priced right, then for sure I'd be happy to pay.

The other question is whether they'd charge for features that currently come for free. And if they did, whether they'd drop their retail price. I don't mind paying $30 for a one-season only Madden 11 Basic then adding 10 for offline franchise, but if they start at 60 then expect dollars on top then I'll stay away. Chances are many others would too.

I'm surprised about EA's attitude to in-game ads, though not surprised they're not earning any money from it. Advertising revenue is based on charging for space (be it billboard, mag pages or tv slots) for a limited time. But the in-game advertising in Madden, indeed all games, is fixed. Why? Why not tell Snickers that their Chompetition sponsorship will last 5 franchise years, then after that they need to pay extra, if not then Coke, or whoever, can take up the sponsorship. Same goes for banners in the stadium. Equally stadium sponsorship. Why the fictional brands? Get companies to pay to get their names in the game! Make the Extra Point more interesting by sponsoring that. For PLay Now games, allow companies to pay for their logos in, say, August, then allow them to either pay up for September of get another company in. It would actually help keep Madden fresher for a little bit longer.

And stop advertising Madden in-game. Why do I get the Madden NFL blimp flying over my stadium? Wouldn't Reebok be happy to pay for that bit?

Seriously. EA's in-game advertising strategy is failing because it's the wrong strategy, not because in-game advertising doesn't work.

[jmurphy31]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

I for one dont mind(and I completely understand) EA wanting to to make additional revenue off of MTs just as other games do. But, as others pointed out before, it shouldnt be something that used to be in the game (not saying this is what it will be). MUT and Franchise cheats are fine, but if they start making portions of fanchise, commentary tracks, or roster updates cost money than you will see a ton of negative feedback from people.

[carnalnirvana]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

i got no beef with EA making money, but they just dont get it... put out a good product and you will sell millions of copies......but they rather release stuff that upses the users and then nickel-dime the few who bought the product........



i am a gaming nut, they could get my money but you gotta be creative with dlc or additions

[seriousluboy83]

Why are people so against companies attempting to make money?

Like they say "the best things in life are free"

[stp2081]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

I actually like diverse in-game ads. They aren't too intrusive to me, EA has done a good job of keeping them from getting in the way, and real NFL broadcasts are full of advertisements and commercials, and I think it makes the experience more authentic.

However, as far as the microtransactions concept goes, the Facebook analogy is flawed. Facebook doesn't cost $59.99 to sign up, and you can enjoy many, many features for free. The idea that Madden microtransactions/DLC might (to the extent they haven't already) encompass things that were once already paid for as part of the initial purchase price of the game, or cause a diversion of apparently already severely limited EA attention/resources to things like MUT, is enough to make me want to puke, and switch to another sport's game where EA doesn't possess anything close to an exclusive license.

[jbrew2411]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

I don't have a problem with EA wanting to add more DLC. I do have a problem if it takes features away from a mode. I don't purchase Madden or NCAA for the play now games or online gaming. I purchase both game for the franchise/dynasty modes. If I have to pay $59.99 for the game then have to spend more money to just play those features then I will not purchase the games at all. I have always felt like the DLC is marketed for the casual gamers which is not what I would consider myself. I don't mind them offering add-ons like the recruiting adviser in NCAA or max training. Those things don't bother me. Now if they started making roster updates as DLC then I would have an issue.
A place where I always thought EA dropped the ball was the naming of stadium rights. We have names like Tee Maker automakers. There was nothing I hate more then seeing 4-5 stadiums with the same name. I think if they had went about it a different way then they could make money.

[stp2081]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

A place where I always thought EA dropped the ball was the naming of stadium rights. We have names like Tee Maker automakers. There was nothing I hate more then seeing 4-5 stadiums with the same name. I think if they had went about it a different way then they could make money.

That has sort of baffled me too, but I figure that if the game allowed you to rename Gillette Stadium as Pepsi Stadium, Gillette's parent (Procter & Gamble) might have a problem with it, moreso than if you rename it with an absurd fictional name like Vandelay Bank. But that's just a guess.

[toadiev]

I remember Madden cards during the PS2. I don't like paying for things that used to be free. I also want value when a company can put all those MT in a game but doesn't touch their franchise mode. If anyone think the profits from MT is going to the development of the game, then I have a bridge to sell.

Doesn't it seem kind of a fine line here. You are ok with them making money but only so much? What is the threshold for too much money? When should they start giving you things for free?

If you feel they aren't treating you correctly, do not give them your money. Otherwise its just simple supply and demand. If people are willing to pay then why not charge?

[PacMan3000]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

I admit that I don't follow other videos games as intently as I do sports games, especially the Madden franchise. But I feel, year after year, that I hear more about how EA plans to generate more revenue than I do about how they plan to simply make a better, stronger game for their avid fan base.

[dickey1331]

I am not against anyone making money that is just capitalism,BUT do they really need to make more money i mean it is not like they are not already making money hand over fist on madden they sell what 4-5 million copies atleast every year at $60 a pop,that is what around 240 million(in no way i am saying those numbers are correct) or so,no biggie really i guess just seems a little excessive.

Im not sure if you have paid attention to the news but EA is not hand over fist in money. If EA had "too much" money I dont think they would lay people off. Also I dont think anyone can have "too much" money. They are free to make as much money as they like.

[kjcheezhead]

Re: EA Going Away From In-Game Ads? Microtransactions Proving Far More Lucrative

Why are people so against companies attempting to make money?

Grunt
I remember Madden cards during the PS2. I don't like paying for things that used to be free. I also want value when a company can put all those MT in a game but doesn't touch their franchise mode. If anyone think the profits from MT is going to the development of the game, then I have a bridge to sell

This is how I feel as well. It doesn't bother me EA tries to make money, it bothers me they ignore franchise, superstar, the minigames and online franchise modes and proceed to pour most of their resources into MUT and Facebook apps.

Being the only football game getting produced, that's disrepectful to their fanbase and just plain greedy to me.