Gamers are overreacting to micro-transactions according to analyst

3.4
In the wake of the immense backlash surrounding Star Wars: Battlefront II, one analyst who proclaims to be a gamer himself took - what can be considered - a rather unpopular stance on the matter. In a note to investors, KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst, Evan Wingren explained that the recent outrage was an opportunity for them to add game publishers to their investment portfolios, claiming that gamers were simply 'overreacting'.

Star Wars: Battlefront II has been in the midst of controversy after gamers discovered the game unfairly benefited those who would pay for additional perks and unlockables. This was exacerbated even further after the Star Wars fansite noted that unlocking everything in the game could cost upwards of $2,000 - or over 4,000 hours of game play. EA, however, disputed these claims on Reddit, which unsurprisingly became the single most downvoted comment on the platform. The company has subsequently removed the in-game transactions, albeit temporarily, with the Belgium government initiating an investigation into these practices.

However, Wingren feels that, in his opinion, gamers have been undercharged when it comes to the price of games. According to him, the cost for a video game is still much lower to that of content on a platform like television, when compared to hours enjoyed. He noted that gamers should, in fact, pay more:

“Quantitative analysis shows that video game publishers are actually charging gamers at a relatively inexpensive rate, and should probably raise prices [...] Despite its inconvenience to the popular press narrative, if you like Star Wars and play video games at an average rate, you’re far better off skipping the movie and playing the game to get the most bang for your buck.”


Star Wars: Battlefront II launched on Xbox One, PlayStation 4, and PC last week, and suffered a 61% drop in sales compared to its predecessor. One can make the assumption that the overzealous use of micro-transactions - and the subsequent outrage - contributed to this in some way. The opinion that gamers are being undercharged is not new, however, if publishers wanted to improve their return on investment, introducing mechanics that skew the game in favor of those with a larger limit on their credit cards might not be the best way to achieve this.

Posted:
Related Forum: Gaming Discussion

Source: https://www.neowin.net/news/gamers-are-overreacting-to-micro-transactions-according-to-analyst

Comments

"Gamers are overreacting to micro-transactions according to analyst" :: Login/Create an Account :: 19 comments

If you would like to post a comment please signin to your account or register for an account.

ItalianPosted:

I will be completely fine if games cost more. I mean, you can spends thousands to get everything in a game. If I can spend $100 to get everything that is fine with me. And like Famous said, Pay2Win is going downhill real soon.

ScrubsCampPosted:

GAMERS ARE OVERREACTING TO MICRO-TRANSACTIONS ACCORDING TO ANALYST oh oh ok lets put if this way then will the Analsyt purchase these microtransactions for me then if he dont think there to bad ??????? will he **** as like

FamousPosted:

This is about to cause a big issue. I don't see Pay2Win lasting.

TOXICPosted:

Yeah i totally agree this is pretty dumb.

MuahaModsPosted:

Isnt this the guy that works as an analyst FOR -->EA

HuxPosted:

It's not the prices that bother gamers, it's the fact micro-transactions exist. You should be able to purchase a game, play it and that's it. Not spend anymore bloody money.

lbreadsticklPosted:

"the cost for a video game is still much lower to that of content on a platform like television, when compared to hours enjoyed. He noted that gamers should, in fact, pay more"

I don't understand this. Does he think everyone who plays, plays every game they own for a thousand + hours? I have about 6 games and I can only be on my console for 2 hours or less a night, and that includes Netflix ($10+tax monthly, $120+ annually) and amazon prime ($100+tax annually) which we pay for as well, not to mention our subscription ($60+tax annually) just to have our console be able to play online. If a game goes to more than $70+ after tax, good luck. They want us to pay more? Tell Microsoft and Sony to drop the damn $400+ price tag that we pay. While he's at it drop the price of gas to $1 as well.

MaggardoPosted:

LebronIs6 thats gotta be the dumbest thing ive ever heard. WOW. LEARN THEN. The fact that all sports games are pay to win, MWR put actual guns in them is mind blowing and breaks the game. Make it cosmetic, THATS IT, thats all it should be. Game publishers need to learn and take BF2 as the example. Hawaii and Belgium law makers are actually looking to ban loot crates because it is looked at as gambling. (I suggest anyone who reads this comment look that up, its actually pretty interesting)


I've actually been seeing youtubers talking about this. I wish they would make laws that consider loot crates and microtransactions in games to be considered gambling. If we play 60 USD for a game, then it shouldn't be play-to-win.

Activez-Posted:

FYI: Wingren works for EA.

-DeanoPosted:

What makes me chuckle is this same analyist is also a financial analyst for EA.
Seems a bit fishy that people are 'overreacting' when it affects your job...