"What Led GameStop To See Disappointing ‘Star Wars Battlefront’ Sales?" - a crappy game? :lol
Star Wars: Battlefront
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
"What Led GameStop To See Disappointing ‘Star Wars Battlefront’ Sales?" - a crappy game? :lol
Or maybe,just maybe people are sick of EA's greedy S$&t tactics to get every last $ of you. There has been a massive amount of negativity towards their DLC's In social media. People are sick of it and hopefully this may be a turning point. It seriously immerses you in Star Wars and I'm having a great time playing it especially with my son but it's seriously lacking content.
Ben
Ben
Mektar
Sr Member
Ofc they are (Just look at how the old republic mmo went from a great mmo to a big sell out due to EA). I love anything star wars but i havent bought it yet. Not because the game is crappy but because of lack of content.
A bit less content and the actuall game would just be the size of a DLC :facepalm
Im playing hardline atm and its same thing altho not as bad as battlefront where majority of DLC's is premium which i find isnt worth it anyway...
A bit less content and the actuall game would just be the size of a DLC :facepalm
Im playing hardline atm and its same thing altho not as bad as battlefront where majority of DLC's is premium which i find isnt worth it anyway...
Solo4114
Master Member
I wouldn't say it's crappy, necessarily. It's just not as good as it could be.
Gamespot has their own digital download service, though. They'd include sales from that in any sales figures. But, to be fair, people finding other games more appealing...kinda speaks to the quality of this game. That said, there are a ton of other avenues for doing digital downloads these days, so there's no incentive to go with Gamestop over someone else. Particularly when there were (as far as I know) no chain-exclusive bonuses.
So, here's the thing. The base game? I'd say it's worth around, oh, $20-30. I'd get my money's worth for that price. But there isn't enough content, AND the gameplay itself isn't good enough to keep me entertained beyond that point.
But EA wants $60-70 for it. Plus another $50 for whatever additional, as-yet-unrevealed DLC they intend to release.
And you know what? Nope. Not doing it. I'm not rolling the DICE (GET IT?!?!?!) to the tune of $110 to maybe get additional content that I like. For all we know, the "additional content" could be simply reworking existing maps to work in different game modes. So, now you can play Heroes vs. Villains on the Hoth map, when you were previously limited to Sullust, Endor, and Blahbityblah. (or whatever. you get my point.) I've seen DICE/EA do this in the past with Battlefield Bad Company 2. They let you buy a preorder version that entitled you to all future DLC releases (Sweet!) which then very often turned out to be reworkings of existing maps into Squad Deathmatch (BOOOOOOOOO). Only towards the end did they release some classic maps from BFBC1 (e.g. Harvest Day).
So, yeah, I don't trust EA, and I'm not seeing value for the game merely because it's immersively Star Wars. Also, for that matter, I gather the immersion factor is weakening as people make non-canon-looking helmetless stormtroopers.
streetjudge79
Master Member
I absolutely love flying the snowspeeder taking out atst's at at's and ground troops!
Utinni
Sr Member
I think people are just friggen jaded... It's a beautiful looking and sounding STAR WARS game that you can be rebel or imperial or even a main character. I actually went out and bought a PS4 just for this game, and ended up having to spend another $300 for a new tv since I totally forgot our other tv didn't have HDMI. I don't have any regrets! I'm having fun blasting people....
- Jeff
- Jeff
Just an update, my internet provider finally sent someone out after not having service since sunday. The tech said they needed to bore under the road and run a line through my yard. They said they can make it out on December 4th...NO ***** WAY! I told the guy that is not even an option so just hook up the wire thats already there. Back and forth he finally agreed. BOOM, I'm setting up my PS4 and things are going good....Until I tried logging in on Playstation Network. I keep getting a "NW-31456-9" code and it wont connect. I'm about ready to just take it back.
Creating content for a triple-A game today costs exponentially more than it did just a few years ago. Every year the cost increases exponentially, with new special-skill positions being created all the time. (Some of Ubisoft's games have had 1000+ people working on them!) It's insane. And as much as one could argue that "graphics aren't everything", a AAA-game is (with one or two exceptions) dead-in-the-water if they're not breaking boundaries. And games aren't actually more expensive these days. Go back and look at what a typical Nintendo or PC game cost in 1989. (I remember seeing PC game price tags of over $100 at my local mall in '87...) Then add to the fact that only a handful of games (sometimes irregardless of quality) make back their money.
I'm not saying it's a great situation to be in, but after working for a publisher for a few years instead of developing, and seeing the economic reality from within, I have a hard time blaming the large publishers for their actions.
I've so far only played BF (mainly the fighter combat mode) for a little during lunch. My first impression was that the speeder bike tutorial alone was worth the price of admission, lol. I'm really glad that they went for a more casual approach though. I have very little time to actually play other games than the ones I work on and I almost never have time to get into the more hard-core titles.
Solo4114
Master Member
I started writing this and kinda went off on a tear. So, I'm spoilering the whole TLDR version.
Basically, my bottom line is this:I have my own sense of the value of entertainment in general. Ultimately, my sense of the value of entertainment is entirely about my own experience of it. So, if I don't see the creator's costs reflected in my experience of a piece of entertainment, then their costs are entirely irrelevant. All that matters is how much I enjoyed the end product.
Basically, my bottom line is this:I have my own sense of the value of entertainment in general. Ultimately, my sense of the value of entertainment is entirely about my own experience of it. So, if I don't see the creator's costs reflected in my experience of a piece of entertainment, then their costs are entirely irrelevant. All that matters is how much I enjoyed the end product.
I mean, that's cool, but to be honest, it's a problem of their own creation. I don't have a ton of sympathy for the publishers. I know games have been locked at about $60 for several years, but...that's what the market's willing to bear. Some games are trying to push this envelope with the "season pass" concept, but they're facing mixed reception, depending on what the season pass is.
Like it or not, the market wants what it wants.
While I find the insight into development to be interesting...it doesn't really sway my opinions. I can get a game I enjoy -- even if it's a year or two old -- for $30 or so. Why would I pay more if I don't absolutely have to, ya know?
The way I approach buying a game is very much from the mindset of a consumer with his own sense of what a game's value is to him. I understand there's a lot that goes into making a game, and tons of overhead, etc. But, to be honest.......I don't care. That's how much a game costs, not how much it's worth. I'm not paying the developers, nor am I putting the team together to make the game, nor setting the budget. That's the developer and/or publisher's problem, not mine. I'm the one who's paying money to have fun. I want to get my money's worth. And there are plenty of games out there where I more than get my money's worth for the amount I'm willing to pay. Likewise, there are AAA games out there where I don't get my money's worth.
I also measure that worth beyond simple time sunk into the game. There's a degree of entertainment that I want to experience for my money. For example, a couple years ago, I got Call of Duty Black Ops 1 on X360. It was...fine. Your typical COD game. I had zero desire to play the MP portion, so it was basically zombies and the SP campaign for me. And for that...yeah, it really wasn't worth $60 to me. I got it as a gift, fortunately, but even so, I wasn't all that impressed. I didn't have all that much fun. For my gaming dollars, that experience was worth about $10-15 to me. As in, that's what I'm willing to pay to get that experience. If that's not enough for the publisher or developer, hey, fine and dandy. Don't drop the price. I don't care. I'll play something else where I'll get my money's worth. Same deal for $60 games. I expect a stellar gaming experience for that amount. I'm talking on par with the first playthru of Mass Effect 1. Just a truly superlative experience that is enjoyed the whole way through. No frustration, no irritation, no nitpicking, just straight up, constant fun.
Some of this is due to the gaming economy, too. Publishers drop prices relatively quickly over the course of about a year. If you then wait for sales thereafter, the price tag further decreases. Activision has been fighting against this some, charging $20 for a 7-year-old game like COD:World at War on Steam (outside of a sale). And you know what? I ain't buying because I know the experience won't be worth it for me. If the gaming economy radically shifted, then yeah, eventually I'd probably bite the bullet and buy a game at some high price. But you can bet your ass I'd be extremely selective in what I bought. My time for gaming is limited and growing shorter. I have a wife and a baby on the way, so pretty much, any time I spend gaming had better be consistently awesome, because I only get so much of it. It's just like movie tickets. I don't care how much it cost Michael Bay to produce ****formers: Revenge of the Excrement. I don't care how much it costs theaters to operate and run. I'm the end consumer. All I care about is whether my experience is worth the money I pay, and I deem that Bay would have to pay me to go watch his films.
Like it or not, the market wants what it wants.
While I find the insight into development to be interesting...it doesn't really sway my opinions. I can get a game I enjoy -- even if it's a year or two old -- for $30 or so. Why would I pay more if I don't absolutely have to, ya know?
The way I approach buying a game is very much from the mindset of a consumer with his own sense of what a game's value is to him. I understand there's a lot that goes into making a game, and tons of overhead, etc. But, to be honest.......I don't care. That's how much a game costs, not how much it's worth. I'm not paying the developers, nor am I putting the team together to make the game, nor setting the budget. That's the developer and/or publisher's problem, not mine. I'm the one who's paying money to have fun. I want to get my money's worth. And there are plenty of games out there where I more than get my money's worth for the amount I'm willing to pay. Likewise, there are AAA games out there where I don't get my money's worth.
I also measure that worth beyond simple time sunk into the game. There's a degree of entertainment that I want to experience for my money. For example, a couple years ago, I got Call of Duty Black Ops 1 on X360. It was...fine. Your typical COD game. I had zero desire to play the MP portion, so it was basically zombies and the SP campaign for me. And for that...yeah, it really wasn't worth $60 to me. I got it as a gift, fortunately, but even so, I wasn't all that impressed. I didn't have all that much fun. For my gaming dollars, that experience was worth about $10-15 to me. As in, that's what I'm willing to pay to get that experience. If that's not enough for the publisher or developer, hey, fine and dandy. Don't drop the price. I don't care. I'll play something else where I'll get my money's worth. Same deal for $60 games. I expect a stellar gaming experience for that amount. I'm talking on par with the first playthru of Mass Effect 1. Just a truly superlative experience that is enjoyed the whole way through. No frustration, no irritation, no nitpicking, just straight up, constant fun.
Some of this is due to the gaming economy, too. Publishers drop prices relatively quickly over the course of about a year. If you then wait for sales thereafter, the price tag further decreases. Activision has been fighting against this some, charging $20 for a 7-year-old game like COD:World at War on Steam (outside of a sale). And you know what? I ain't buying because I know the experience won't be worth it for me. If the gaming economy radically shifted, then yeah, eventually I'd probably bite the bullet and buy a game at some high price. But you can bet your ass I'd be extremely selective in what I bought. My time for gaming is limited and growing shorter. I have a wife and a baby on the way, so pretty much, any time I spend gaming had better be consistently awesome, because I only get so much of it. It's just like movie tickets. I don't care how much it cost Michael Bay to produce ****formers: Revenge of the Excrement. I don't care how much it costs theaters to operate and run. I'm the end consumer. All I care about is whether my experience is worth the money I pay, and I deem that Bay would have to pay me to go watch his films.
Sometimes I don't even know why I tell myself I think i'll have time for something a rarely do as it is to justify buying games.
I've barely logged 2 hours on the game since it came out.
Gamestop already put out an e-mail saying people can get a guaranteed $30 trade-in if they do so by a certain date... like REALLY? IT JUST came out!
I've barely logged 2 hours on the game since it came out.
Gamestop already put out an e-mail saying people can get a guaranteed $30 trade-in if they do so by a certain date... like REALLY? IT JUST came out!
Oh, don't get me wrong. I agree with a lot of what you are saying and I wouldn't pay more for a game (or any product) than I really needed to or perceived it to be worth.
It's just frustrating when a large part of the customer base (not you, but gamers in general) have no sense of what things actually cost. They'll throw $10 on a fast-food burger that gets scarfed down in two minutes, yet with a piece of entertainment that they clearly like (often with dozens of hours of game time spent) they go off on tantrums about horrendous prices, even when the cost is lower.
For some odd reason, games specifically seem to have gotten a very skewed sense of perceived value compared to a lot of other entertainment.
Is there a reason why every game must be priced at $59.99 as a base? I only ask because I'm thinking it would be an excellent marketing strategy to sell at a lower starting base price to increase perceived value upon entry to make it a lot more enticing to the customers. Like mark it down to $49.99 and instantly the thought is it's $10 less than they normally pay on a new game, and when a $50 season pass comes, it still sucks, but doesn't feel as bad because you're also thinking, "Well it was a pretty good deal at the start and isn't that much more if you factor the $10 savings. Okay I'll pay it."
Even $49.99 is kinda steep especially when right before the game release they announce preordering $50 dlc passes.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Even $49.99 is kinda steep especially when right before the game release they announce preordering $50 dlc passes.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Well, prices do vary a lot more than that. The games I produce rarely cost over $40 at launch for example.
But it has to do with development cost vs estimated sales vs what people are willing to pay.
It's a pretty complex equasion and lowering the price might not result in enough extra sales to justify the cut. Cutting the price in half does not guarantee twice the sales and may even damage your perceived value and cripple you ability to invest in future games.
If you factor in hours of entertainment vs cost, video and computer games are inexpensive compared to many other forms of entertainment, as well as other consumables.
I understand why the question exists, as a game buyer myself, but it's just not easy to answer.
And regarding DLC... it's just the expasion packs of yesteryear (that no one had problems with) broken down into bite-size chunks.
Similar threads
