EA CEO on $60 Games, VR, and the Company’s Digital Business

"Electronic Arts Chief Executive Officer Andrew Wilson doesn't think that the glut of free-to-play content on mobile devices and other platforms make it harder to justify $60 console games.

“It doesn't matter how much money you spend, as long as you feel like you got value,” Wilson told The New York Times in an interview. “People spend $300,000 on a Ferrari and feel good about it.” Wilson explained EA is just as focused on investment of time as investment in money. “Engagement is the world’s new profit metric,” he said."

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-...paign=homepage

EA CEO is apparantly also out of touch with reality and suffers fromd elusions of grandeur by comparing $ 60 dollar games with $ 300,000 dollar cars
and seem to forget that not everybody has 300 grand to spare
for alot of people a few full priced games are a significant cut from their budget

which is why people look for bargains and buy used games
and which is hwy sales are so popular the steam and gog sales prove that much

You should really look into using the quote tags if you're gonna keep posting every bit of news on the forum,
Because right now the only way I could tell the newsbit ended and your reply began, was by the huge increase of spelling errors.

The problem isn't $60 games. I agree with Wilson. If people feel like they're getting a good value, they will spend $60. Last time I checked Steam and GOG sales weren't pulling in $1 billion on single games like Black Ops 2 or GTA5.

The problem is that recent EA games suck. But lowering the price isn't going to magically make them better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoVamp

You should really look into using the quote tags if you're gonna keep posting every bit of news on the forum,
Because right now the only way I could tell the newsbit ended and your reply began, was by the huge increase of spelling errors.

---

" "

they arent just there because i think they are pretty

nor do i place the link of the article in between the part i quoted and where my reply begins
no not at all

not clear at all

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KitsuneNight

" "

---

Not those kinda quotes dumbass.

Quote:

---

quote like this

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoVamp

You should really look into using the quote tags if you're gonna keep posting every bit of news on the forum,
Because right now the only way I could tell the newsbit ended and your reply began, was by the huge increase of spelling errors.

---

Buuuurrrn...

It's a pretty bad comparison. A car is an investment, a video game is not.

I understand the problem of rising development costs as games become increasingly complicated but people are still only going to be able to spend so much money on their entertainment budgets.

Maybe it's time to stop pushing the complexity of the technology in favor of making sure the games are actually fun.

The AAA game industry has come to very closely resemble Hollywood. Production costs have skyrocketed and innovation has practically disappeared. It's too risky to try something new when you've invested $200 million in a game. Just more of the same with massive marketing budgets.

But the indie game industry is stronger than ever thanks to distribution platforms like Steam and crowd funding, and I really think it resembles game design of the past: a small team working around an innovative idea and building a game from that. Sales depend entirely on how good the game is, not on the advertising or pretty graphics.

Neo

Kitsune just a little boy

He's still learning

What a stupid comment. How many people spend $300k on a Ferrari? Precious few, even if they do "feel good about it". What EA needs is sales, not good feelings.