• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

EA: "Hardcore gamers won't like to hear this...F2P is an inevitability"

Hold on to your butts.

EA's chief operating officer has expressed his belief that free-to-play is an "inevitability" for all mainstream games.

Speaking with Kotaku, Peter Moore suggests that a F2P future would be a good thing, as it would constantly bring in new players and potential customers.

He explained, "I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but the game itself or the access to the game will be free.

"I think there's an inevitability that happens five years from now, 10 years from now, that, let's call it the client, to use the term, [is free.] It is no different than... it's free to me to walk into The Gap in my local shopping mall. They don't charge me to walk in there. I can walk into The Gap, enjoy the music, look at the jeans and what have you, but if I want to buy something I have to pay for it
."

It comes in the wake of rumours that Bioware's MMO Star Wars: The Old Republic, which EA publishes, is looking at the viability of adopting a F2P model. If EA were to roll it out to their other titles though, it begs the question of how it would work. Microtransactions could be easily integrated into the likes of Madden NFL 13 or SimCity, but it's less apparent how they'd work with titles such as Mass Effect 3.

While Moore accepts that the proposed F2P revolution may not be imminent, that's not to say he didn't suggest changes are happening right this instant. Prefacing his claims with the warning that "hardcore gamers won't like to hear this", he explained that companies are increasingly taking notice of platforms other than the consoles.

"We're going through, as an industry, just an unbelievably difficult transformation, that is not from one business model to another but from one business model to a myriad of different business models," he said.

"Consoles are still going to be a very important part of what we do. But so are browsers. So are iOS devices. So are Android mobile phones. So are PCs, which are feeling a renaissance. It's all coming together in this potpourri..."

None of this is hugely surprising. When we recently spoke to Moore about the public perception of EA, he revealed to us that he feels "The $60 game is dying. The mid-range game is no longer profitable. EA has to focus its energies elsewhere in order to meet those quarterly targets."

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/21/eas-peter-moore-free-to-play-is-an-inevitability

Kotaku said:
Kotaku: "I understand how that would work for Madden. I can't imagine how that would work for a Mass Effect. That's a storyline game."

Moore: "That's the point. If the business model... what do you do? It may well be that there will be games that survive and they are the $60 games, but I believe that the real growth is bringing billions of people into the industry and calling them gamers. Hardcore gamers won't like to hear this. They like to circle the wagons around what they believe is something they feel they have helped build—and rightly so. But we have seen, whether it was with the Wii getting mom off the couch to do Wii Sports or whether it was, more recently EA Sports Active, where we get females who love to work out, all the things that social gaming did—Rock Band did it, Guitar Hero did it—all of the things that elevated it from being a dark art of teenage boys usually sequestered in the bedroom—that it was testosterone-filled content that everybody railed against—to where everybody is a gamer...if you can move your index finger and swipe it this way, your'e a gamer. And that has got to be the way it goes."

http://kotaku.com/5919847/the-stran...ng-future-of-video-games-according-to-a-giant

Kotaku said:
Moore: "We've got to listen better as an industry, but at at the same time we've got to pick our way through these things. Stephen, we can't end up being music. Music used to make money selling music. They don't make money selling music anymore. Apple makes money selling music. God bless them, because they sorted out the problem that was BitTorrents and LimeWire, Kazaa..."

Kotaku: "My kitchen table is LimeWire's kitchen table, because they went out of business and my wife and I needed a new table."

Moore: "I remember going to a lot of going-out-of-business sales in 1999, south of Market, but this ability for us to learn from the lessons of music... Maybe we don't sell our games up front and it's all about [making money later]. Maybe it is like music. Music is now all about going on tour and concerts, go do corporate appearances, sell your merchandise, build your online website, find ways to do it that way, because they don't make much money after Apple takes its cut, and that's where most of us get our music.

Kotaku said:
Kotaku: "How do you balance the effectiveness of any microtransaction-based game design or business model with the anxiety a gamer might feel that they're being nickel and dimed?"

Moore: "I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but the game itself or the access to the game will be free. Ultimately, my goal is... I measure our business in millions of people have bought our game. Maybe when I'm retired, as this industry progresses, hundreds of millions are playing the games. Zero bought it. Hundreds of millions are playing. We're getting 5 cents, 6 cents ARPU [average revenue per user] a day out of these people. The great majority will never pay us a penny which is perfectly fine with us, but they add to the eco-system and the people who do pay money—the whales as they are affectionately referred to—to use a Las Vegas term, love it because to be number one of a game that like 55 million people playing is a big deal."

Kotaku: "You're saying inevitably all games are going to be that model?"

Moore: "I think there's an inevitability that happens five years from now, 10 years from now, that, let's call it the client, to use the term, [is free.] It is no different than... it's free to me to walk into The Gap in my local shopping mall. They don't charge me to walk in there. I can walk into The Gap, enjoy the music, look at the jeans and what have you, but if I want to buy something I have to pay for it."
 

Brazil

Living in the shadow of Amaz
The GAP analogy... Actually makes sense.

And, yeah. People will have to deal with it.
 
ibqtducBeUq3by.gif
 

Pie and Beans

Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
alternative topic phrasing:

"Hardcore gamers won't like to hear this...an industry crash is an inevitability"

That GAP store analogy is truly terrible. Next time GAP creates an entirely fantasy world based store where I can stab/shoot/slice/jump on fellow clientele before even buying any clothes, let me know.
 
We don't like to hear it at the moment because 90% of the F2P industry is made up of terrible people. That will change. Valve is the beginning.
 

daviyoung

Banned
The GAP analogy is stupid. A game isn't a store, it's a game to be played. Does EA think Origin is a game? Well it's not a very fun one.
 
Help me out here, because I'm economically challenged - how exactly does f2p make more money? Only way I see it working out is if they spend less money on the games to start with.
 

Stahsky

A passionate embrace, a beautiful memory lingers.
Closing in on 900 hours played on Dota 2. I guess I'm not hardcore enough.







Help me out here, because I'm economically challenged - how exactly does f2p make more money? Only way I see it working out is if they spend less money on the games to start with.


Less risk involved with the consumer equals more opportunity for them to get interested in the game.
 

Morokh

Member
Meh, the most hardcore game, DOTA2, is already F2P.

And it actually does F2P right, but many will make F2P "pay to win games" and that will be the biggest mess ever for us gamers (but as Diablo 3 proved, it works even that way to make money .... )
 

sphinx

the piano man
The GAP analogy... Actually makes sense.

And, yeah. People will have to deal with it.

it's like the entrance to a bar or club being free, then watching what goes on and staying and buying the drinks and stuff IF you feel like it, otherwise you can go away and go to the next club. Sounds fair.
 

StayDead

Member
Maybe if companies like EA didn't spend so much money making more and more "blockbuster" "AAA" titles and used their money wisely to make games that are good for gameplay and not mindless shooters, this wouldn't actually happen.
 

alstein

Member
I disagree on the mid-range being unprofitable: Paradox seems to be doing well. Stardock- let's just say if Elemental: War of Magic could turn a profit (hate ragging on Stardock, they're good guys, and FE in beta is already very good), and Atlus is doing well as a company, then the mid-range game is doing well.

As for F2P- it's a bubble like any other model. Gamers have limited time, and how many F2P games can one invest in? At least with the traditional model, you can spend a few bucks and get through a game cheaply that you didn't plan on.

The traditional market- I suspect the older folks among us understand what a poor value proposition F2P is in the long-term compared to the traditional model for a great game, and will reject it.

F2P is great for mediocre games, not so much for great games, with some exceptions (TF2 being the big one due to how Valve used/marketed that game)
 

hamchan

Member
Help me out here, because I'm economically challenged - how exactly does f2p make more money? Only way I see it working out is if they spend less money on the games to start with.

The potential userbase is much bigger since it's basically a $0 entry fee. The small microtransactions make it easier for people to buy things on impulse and that could potentially build up to something much bigger than just $60. Then you have the few crazy people that spend thousands upon thousands on one game.
 

daviyoung

Banned
Help me out here, because I'm economically challenged - how exactly does f2p make more money? Only way I see it working out is if they spend less money on the games to start with.

You know Office Space, where the guys take all the small fractions of numbers that the system rounds off and then shoves those fractions into another bank account so that over time, millions and millions of quarter-pennies build up into something substantial. Well that's F2P.

Also, it allows companies to not waste resources on things that are unpopular or will be received negatively, it provides instant feedback on what people will or won't buy.

Also, it's psychological, you're more likely to spend $250 in 50 chunks spread over a few months than $100 all at once. The numbers matter.
 
Less risk involved with the consumer equals more opportunity for them to get interested in the game.

Wouldn't demoes for every game do the exact same thing? OnLive-style free trials - get 30 minutes or so of the game and if you buy it you can continue from where you left off.
 

Touch

Member
it's like the entrance to a bar or club being free, then watching what goes on and staying and buying the drinks and stuff IF you feel like it, otherwise you can go away and go to the next club. Sounds fair.
the bar/club with the entrance fee is where the party's at though
 
I feel these types of comments are way too similar to the ones being thrown around in the first few years of WOW that the future was MMOs.
 

Brazil

Living in the shadow of Amaz
Maybe if companies like EA didn't spend so much money making more and more "blockbuster" "AAA" titles and used their money wisely to make games that are good for gameplay and not mindless shooters, this wouldn't actually happen.

It's pretty clear that the guy's talking about the whole industry, and not just EA, but alright.
 
Is he talking about every type if game going f2p? Because if I lose good single player experiences because of this, I will seriously just quit gaming.
 

Wallach

Member
Help me out here, because I'm economically challenged - how exactly does f2p make more money? Only way I see it working out is if they spend less money on the games to start with.

It's because the top spender category spends enough on the title to make up for the loss of revenue of the majority of users who put no or very little money into it. Coupled with the massive increase in number of potential customers who spend any money at all and the overall revenue becomes greater.

Edit - It's sort of a similar to how Steam generates more revenue for a title during a heavily discounted sale than when the game is sold at full price. When the physical product step is pushed out of the equation, models like this can generate significantly more revenue because you are essentially just selling access (and bandwidth) and are no longer limited by a physical (retail) price floor and risk proposition.
 

SparkTR

Member
As a hardcore gamer, I'm okay with this. Bring on Mechwarrior Online, Planetside 2, Dota 2, Dust 514 and Path of Exile.
 
The problem isn't the F2P model per se, it's being a greedy dumb cunt about it.

For some obscure reason, people don't trust EA on that part. I really can't see why.
 
The potential userbase is much bigger since it's basically a $0 entry fee. The small microtransactions make it easier for people to buy things on impulse and that could potentially build up to something much bigger than just $60. Then you have the few crazy people that spend thousands upon thousands on one game.

You know Office Space, where the guys take all the small fractions of numbers that the system rounds off and then shoves those fractions into another bank account so that over time, millions and millions of quarter-pennies build up into something substantial. Well that's F2P.

Also, it allows companies to not waste resources on things that are unpopular or will be received negatively, it provides instant feedback on what people will or won't buy.

Also, it's psychological, you're more likely to spend $250 in 50 chunks spread over a few months than $100 all at once. The numbers matter.

Mm, that makes sense.

Now that I get it, I don't like it - gonna make me spend more money...
 

StayDead

Member
It's pretty clear that the guy's talking about the whole industry, and not just EA, but alright.

When I said EA I was referring to the many different developers who do exactly the same thing. There's companies in Japan who get sales of like 100k+ not even reaching 1million sales on their games that still manage to survive and make money and that's just inside the Japanese market.

Why is it that some companies (no matter where they're based) think that to make a good game you need to spend loads of money?
 

Mareg

Member
I'm actually pretty cool with that.
I've been building a HUGE backlog, like many gaffers, for this day an age when everything goes to shit. It is like an insurance. I've paid it for such a long time. My body is ready for the golden age of retro-gaming.

I'll continue to support any developper that puts his heart in a complete product.
 
Why isn't there room for both? I mean, the market survived till now with a traditional model, sure maybe it'll get smaller but there HAS to be room for both models, there's a significant amount of people that would pay $60 bucks for your traditional game, I mean, BF3 did pretty well didn't it?

Not to mention that a F2P model significantly reduces the types of games you can make.
 
Top Bottom