Are ZOS and EA strategies all that much different?

Megabear

To be honest I don't find ZOS sales tactics all that different from EA. Perhaps a small step down from EA, but still practicing same/similar sales tactics. I know that many fans would not like to see this being discussed but I believe the similarities are rather apparent.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/15/wall-street-is-getting-worried-social-media-outrage-over-eas-star-wars-game-may-hurt-sales.html

Rawkan

Of course this thead had to be made like on every other game forum.

Megabear

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Rawkan wrote: »

Of course this thead had to be made like on every other game forum.

Well, I did post same thread on other forums as well.

Skoomah

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Fight the power!!!

Cadbury

I remember when EA and Ubisoft were considered the "evil" companies.


Also, IBTL

Bhaal5

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

But most larger publishers are the same, decreasing content, increasing mirco transactions, releasing smaller dlc while creating larger issues, server quality lowered to profit gained. This list could keep on going

"Corporations ...... Corporations never change"

Rawkan

Bhaal5 wrote: »

But most larger publishers are the same, decreasing content, increasing mirco transactions, releasing smaller dlc while creating larger issues, server quality lowered to profit gained. This list could keep on going

"Corporations ...... Corporations never change"

As long as that makes them more money and people keep buying in-game currency that trend will continue. People have to vote with their wallets.

Strider__Roshin

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Man was I happy to hear the director of Monster Hunter World say he would rather people enjoy the game rather than purchasing loot crates to get items. I love that mentality.

kargen27

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

AuraNebula

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

Rawkan

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

An expansion is p2w now?

AuraNebula

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Rawkan wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

An expansion is p2w now?

He said they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a pay wall. They did do that. I never said it was p2w. Don't put words in my mouth.

kargen27

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

No they didn't. Would have to be part of the base game for that to apply.

AuraNebula

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

kargen27 wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

No they didn't. Would have to be part of the base game for that to apply.

How so? It's a class that you can't play unless you purchase the dlc.

Colecovision

Rawkan wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

An expansion is p2w now?

lol - I mean, who cares what she actually wrote, just blast away.

Cadbury

Colecovision wrote: »

Rawkan wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

An expansion is p2w now?

lol - I mean, who cares what she actually wrote, just blast away.

I agree it wasn't what they were implying, but let's not go all white knight here

Personally, I feel Square Enix is one of the more "honorable" MMO companies out there. They still have a strong sub-based gaming community. They even apologized for FF14's poor initial launch! How many gaming companies do that?

jlboozer

ZOS and EA sales are very different.

ZoS has their faults, but EA is the embodiment of greed!

Remember the boxes in CoD, actual P2W...ZoS has kept it cosmetic atleast.

Recremen

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Is it selling accessory content which has already been downloaded to your machine for cash? Then yeah, it suffers the same fundamental problem. Obviously there are numerous complications and they need money to fund servers and content development, but the way in which they're making that money is commensurately problematic.

zaria

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

Warden is not P2W, yes its good in PvP but not to the degree of maelstrom weapons, or some stuff from dlc dungeons / raids.

Fact is that DLC content has to have relevant content, some of it will be obvious bis.
This is nothing new, without the last WOW expansion you can not even touch current endgame.
I also feel its an trend to mix content like mixing an questing zone and an trial is an way to get more to buy it.

No Zenimax is unlikely to go EA, if they had Elder scroll 8 would had been released or at least announced now.
Feel they take an longer view, how much can we earn this decade rater than how much can we increase earning over previous year.

Yes you have similarities like idiotic overpriced loot crates even if the ESO ones just has fluff.
And its not likely to change as it kills games pretty fast.

Megabear

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Cadbury wrote: »

Colecovision wrote: »

Rawkan wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

An expansion is p2w now?

lol - I mean, who cares what she actually wrote, just blast away.

I agree it wasn't what they were implying, but let's not go all white knight here

Personally, I feel Square Enix is one of the more "honorable" MMO companies out there. They still have a strong sub-based gaming community

Yeah very true. I didn't like the game, but the community was better and the devs were MUCH better.

Runefang

ZOS and EA sales are very different.

Microtransactions are common and clearly effective. But the similarity in the two approaches ends there.

Take FIFA for example (which is a masssive profit earner or EA). If you don't spend cash opening packs it's almost impossible to get the high end players like Ronaldo, Messi. On the other hand I can get 90% of BiS gear in the base game and without any more difficulty than a person who either subs or buys crowns.

AuraNebula

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

zaria wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

Warden is not P2W, yes its good in PvP but not to the degree of maelstrom weapons, or some stuff from dlc dungeons / raids.

Fact is that DLC content has to have relevant content, some of it will be obvious bis.
This is nothing new, without the last WOW expansion you can not even touch current endgame.
I also feel its an trend to mix content like mixing an questing zone and an trial is an way to get more to buy it.

No Zenimax is unlikely to go EA, if they had Elder scroll 8 would had been released or at least announced now.
Feel they take an longer view, how much can we earn this decade rater than how much can we increase earning over previous year.

Yes you have similarities like idiotic overpriced loot crates even if the ESO ones just has fluff.
And its not likely to change as it kills games pretty fast.

I don't think the warden is p2w I never said it was. If you want to have that class though you must buy the dlc. So yes similar in the idea although the approach is different. EA took a very lazy and obvious money grab ploy, as with what you said ZOS has put the majority of bis weapons and armor in dlc content. While we get some awesome content to go along with it and we have to work at getting the weapons and armor. Although we would never be able to get it at all unless we pay for the dlc in the first place. I don't think ZOS would go full out like EA did, but similarities are there and are in most games available today.

Aurielle

ZOS and EA sales are very different.

Runefang wrote: »

Microtransactions are common and clearly effective. But the similarity in the two approaches ends there.

Take FIFA for example (which is a masssive profit earner or EA). If you don't spend cash opening packs it's almost impossible to get the high end players like Ronaldo, Messi. On the other hand I can get 90% of BiS gear in the base game and without any more difficulty than a person who either subs or buys crowns.

Agreed. The problem with Battlefront is not that it uses RNG loot crates and microtransactions; the problem is that progression in the game is gated behind these things: https://www.gamespot.com/reviews/star-wars-battlefront-ii-review-in-progress/1900-6416810/

By relying on randomly yielded weapons, resources, cosmetic items, and Star Cards of varying grades, Battlefront II ties its progression to dice rolls. You can acquire and upgrade Star Cards on your own by using crafting components (also found in loot crates), but this also leads into the problem of gating. To upgrade a card, you have to ensure that your class level and overall multiplayer ranking meet certain standards--which in turn means having to rank up several levels in-game, and spending precious resources on loot crates for more resources and cards. Simply focusing on the characters and classes you like to play isn't enough.

Then there's this: https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/damien-***/ea-revises-star-wars-battlefront-2-loot-crate-system/

Weapons are locked behind specific milestones. While a select few will be found in Crates, the rest can only be attained by play.

The moment ZOS throws new class skills and weapons into Crown crates is the moment I stop giving them money. DICE/EA won't be getting a cent from me this time around.

redspecter23

Similar but not exactly the same. So far, ZoS has avoided almost anything that could be considered pay to win both in the store and in the crates. They still use predatory tactics to sell crates and still refuse to release drop rates which to me means they are trying to hide something. Even so, they are not at EA's level... yet.

LadyLethalla

Cadbury wrote: »

Personally, I feel Square Enix is one of the more "honorable" MMO companies out there. They still have a strong sub-based gaming community. They even apologized for FF14's poor initial launch! How many gaming companies do that?

Ubisoft did, after the launch of AC Unity. And gave us the DLC for free as well. (And yes, I know that's not an "MMO" but you said "how many gaming companies".)
Although, they started down the microtransaction path with that game too... you can buy a damn Unicorn mount and a zombie horse in Origins. Like those are both historically accurate...

geonsocal

thanks for posting this @Megabear ...i don't reach out much in to the world - i had no idea about the backlash on battlefront II...

yeah, a not so concealed attempt to promote micro-transactions...my favorite comment from the reddit stuff:

10 years ago I could put in a cheat code to unlock them if I didn't care about a sense of "achievement." Now I need to put in my credit card number.

how very true that statement is...

zaria

ZOS and EA sales strategies are not very different.

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

zaria wrote: »

Princessrhaenyra wrote: »

kargen27 wrote: »

Can't vote, not enough choices but leaning more towards the very different. To be similar they would have to do something like lock a character class behind a paywall. Maybe not quite that bad but worse than say locking a horse behind a paywall. ZOS does allow progressing your horse through the crown store though so some similarities there. Over all though, nah.

They did that with the warden and Morrowind.

Warden is not P2W, yes its good in PvP but not to the degree of maelstrom weapons, or some stuff from dlc dungeons / raids.

Fact is that DLC content has to have relevant content, some of it will be obvious bis.
This is nothing new, without the last WOW expansion you can not even touch current endgame.
I also feel its an trend to mix content like mixing an questing zone and an trial is an way to get more to buy it.

No Zenimax is unlikely to go EA, if they had Elder scroll 8 would had been released or at least announced now.
Feel they take an longer view, how much can we earn this decade rater than how much can we increase earning over previous year.

Yes you have similarities like idiotic overpriced loot crates even if the ESO ones just has fluff.
And its not likely to change as it kills games pretty fast.

I don't think the warden is p2w I never said it was. If you want to have that class though you must buy the dlc. So yes similar in the idea although the approach is different. EA took a very lazy and obvious money grab ploy, as with what you said ZOS has put the majority of bis weapons and armor in dlc content. While we get some awesome content to go along with it and we have to work at getting the weapons and armor. Although we would never be able to get it at all unless we pay for the dlc in the first place. I don't think ZOS would go full out like EA did, but similarities are there and are in most games available today.

Think we agree, not sure that the 4100 hour of required play in SW:BF2 is really, is it CP690 and bis gear or is it also all achievements unlocked including grand overlord and master angler.

Lady_Scorp72

Define "very different". Both companies offer loot crates, want to maximize profits, and capitalize on gambling/addiction psychology to entice players to regularly spend money over and above the initial game purchase. However, in my opinion there are nuanced but significant differences in how each company implements and manages it.

EA strikes me as a typical corporation run by ivory tower executives who are never satisfied with a healthy profit (always want more, more, more), and are totally out of touch with real life and their customer base. It's a brand that's become so big and profitable, that they've convinced themselves they're untouchable, and so far (sadly), they have not suffered from years of being deemed one of the worst companies in America (which is unbelievable to me). However...far bigger companies than EA have fallen on the sword of angry consumers, and so they'd be wise to study that history. Personally, I hope they lose big time with this game, so that all those arrogant executives have to face being turfed out by the board of directors, if they can't figure out how to make it right.

ZOS and Bethesda strike me as companies that aren't yet big enough to be as arrogant as EA, and I also get the feeling the people in charge at ZOS are genuinely committed to keeping their player base happy as long as it stays profitable. I don't like the loot crate system at all, but at least in ESO it's totally optional. I don't agree with everything ZOS does, but nothing they've done has smacked of the kind of greed or disrespect for their customers as what we're seeing with EA. Overall, I am satisfied that executive team at ZOS have drawn a line in the sand and won't be going the P2W route in the foreseeable future.

That said, mobile gaming opened this Pandora's Box to reveal that millions of people are only too happy to pay obscene amounts of cash for gambling cosmetics and P2W advantages. Also, as I'm not in this business, I'm willing to accept the industry's consensus that the cost of making games has gone up so much, that the developers have no choice but to charge for every single extra. This is why I'm convinced that loot crates and micro-transactions are here to stay, and I'm bracing for the next Elder Scrolls single player game to include them. I think we're seeing the groundwork being set for this with the Creation Club, but hopefully they'll stay true to their roots and always allow free modding. Truly, the total control players have is one of the greatest things about this game series.

Anyway, I'll end my rambling rant by saying that I will never buy an EA game until they change their business model, but ZOS and Bethesda have earned my goodwill by remaining fair and reasonable. However, if at any point they take away my right to play how I want or force me to buy anything over and above the price of the base game, I will no longer be a ZOS/Bethesda customer.

CyrusArya

ZOS and EA sales are very different.

I love how a bunch of angry nerds are up at arms about a video game company, going as far as labeling it the most evil company.

[Snip]

But yeah...those loot boxes/crown crates tho. The epitome of corporate greed and evil.

[Edited to remove inappropriate content]

Draxius82

You people have to understand something.

When a company is owned by share holders, the CEO of said company answers to them, not us. What do share holders want to see? Quarterly growth, that's it. The share holders don't care about long term, they want returns on their investments NOW. Keep that in mind when dealing with publicly traded companies.

BlazingDynamo

The gaming industry is changing. Change with it or be left behind. I'd say zos and ea are ahead of the rest.

Like it or not more and more companys are going towards microtransactions. That's where the money is.