This site may earn affiliate commissions from the links on this page. Terms of use.

Andrew Wilson, Electronic Arts' CEO, took the phase at the BC Tech Tiptop on Tuesday, and heroically declared that his company isn't trying to be a "corporate creature." His comments repeat remarks made tardily last year by Chief Fiscal Officer Blake Jorgenson, who similarly argued that EA had no interest in "nickel and diming" gamers.

"If yous understand the video game business, EA — the branding is this corporate beast that merely wants to accept coin from them while people play our games," said Wilson. "That's not actually what we're trying to do."

Jorgenson's comments weren't exactly greeted by adulation from the publisher'southward fans, and it'due south hundred-to-one Wilson will have improve luck. EA has been repeatedly voted the worst company in America, and while I personally disagree with that assessment — I'd argue there are companies that appoint in far worse beliefs than annihilation a video game publisher has ever done — it'south obvious that in that location'due south a peachy deal of lost trust and anger between EA and its customers.

EA lost to Comcast in 2015, which is progress, we guess.

EA lost to Comcast in 2014, which is progress, we gauge.

At the conference, Wilson went on to explain how services like EA Access, which gives Xbox Ane gamers access to a back catalog of titles and early access to upcoming products, proved that the visitor had gamers' best interests at center. In and of itself, EA Access sounds like a decent concept, but Wilson's description of its earnings potential isn't all that encouraging.

"For the longest time in culture, we would spend money as man beings, then we would spend time where we spent our coin. That'due south reversed now," Wilson said. "You come up in, and play a bunch of games, and ultimately y'all invest after that."

Beginning, allow's tackle the obvious: EA Access isn't going to make a business organization model out of selling every $sixty to $90 title that EA ships every bit a $five all-you-can-play game. Given that game budgets have ballooned to the point that titles need to ship 3-five meg copies just to break even, EA Access would need a huge chunk of US households to subscribe to make up the difference.

EA has shown no inclination to raise game prices, and so nosotros won't exist seeing $70 – $80 titles someday before long. That leaves 2 bones options — utilize microtransactions to fund products, as it did with the disastrous Dungeon Keeper reboot or Dead Space 3, or continue churning out DLC. DLC is incredibly popular with publishers as a way to earn additional revenue — we've visited the topic of what makes DLC good or bad in the by — and and so far, it looks like the model EA wants to continue to push button.

Consider Battleground 4. The game is now over two years' old, and the basic "Standard Edition" sells for $nineteen.99 on Origin. Groovy. The "Digital Deluxe Edition" is $29.99 and gets you lot one DLC, China Rising. The Premium Edition is nonetheless $49.99, with all v DLCs.

If yous terminate and remember near information technology, that'south vivid — at least, from EA's betoken of view. Normally, ii-year-old games, particularly multiplayer games, have a short shelf life. The business model is designed to entice you lot, either with a relatively small upwards-front end cost ($20) or a $5 monthly fee, then sell the DLCs at regular price (games on EA Access don't include DLC).

But for fun, I created an image of all the different things EA will sell y'all in Battlefield four, not counting the actual game. The list beneath includes the standalone DLCs (available for $49.95 collectively, as previously mentioned).

BF4-Purchasing

Nope. No nickel and diming. Not here!

Is it any wonder that gamers experience EA is greedy or attempting to nickel and dime them? True, none of these add-ons or packs are required to play the game. But once yous kickoff monetizing equipment unlocks, you introduce perverse incentives to brand those weapons more difficult to earn inside the game itself.

I've e'er believed that DLC has a identify in the modern game ecosystem, and that it can exist used to deliver genuinely great value to players who desire more content in a beloved title. And so long as EA pursues an aggressive strategy of breaking down every facet of a game into something information technology can sell, however, it's going to take a tough time disarming gamers it prioritizes their happiness and experience over their greenbacks period.