LogFAQs > #891335560

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, Database 2 ( 09.16.2017-02.21.2018 ), DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	EA's stock lost $3 billion in value over BF2...
adjl 11/30/17 12:51:52 PM #30:	TheCyborgNinja posted... _AdjI_ posted... TheCyborgNinja posted... joemodda posted... Clearly they needed to add more microtransactions to compensate for their expected loss through the backlash. They're a company after all, they just want to make money!! You jest, but that seems to be their mindset. Well, and the fact DICE is now saying they did pay-to-win to avoid breaking SW canon (lol @ Vader and Solo playable in Episode I... nice try) theyve lost any hope of people believing anything they say ever again. This is just embarrassing now. Bonus points because Battlefront 2015 did have an abundance of cosmetic unlocks, so it's not like there's no precedent for it in the series (and it was done without grievously violating the canon, no less, as much as that means anything in a fanservice crossover game). You know the dick that came up with this method to spin things thought checkmate!... Im waiting for them to exhaust all conceivable options and start referencing Hitler or something... Thats about where this arguments quality is. For even more bonus points, people have been doing some datamining and found that there are additional skins and costumes lurking in the game, presumably with the intent of releasing them at a later date. It's not only a flimsy, nonsensical excuse, it's a bold-faced lie. InfestedAdam posted... Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the temporary removal of lootboxes/comestic/something and loss of revenue from that is why the stock took a hit and not necessary because fans are upset. At the end of the day, would stockholders even care about what the fans think so long as said game is making money? Little of column A, little of column B. The initial stock drop would have been because removing microtransactions hurt the game's earning potential, rather than in direct response to the outrage, but I could see that further loss of value might be due to the fact that the outrage is still ongoing, and EA's damage control efforts aren't doing a particularly good job of restoring the game's image. That could definitely cause more investors to jump ship, since there isn't much reason to have faith that EA will turn this around any time soon. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:891335560] in EA's s... [t:76045118]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCyborgNinja posted...</cite> <quote><cite>_AdjI_ posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheCyborgNinja posted...</cite> <quote><cite>joemodda posted...</cite> <quote>Clearly they needed to add more microtransactions to compensate for their expected loss through the backlash. They're a company after all, they just want to make money!!</quote> You jest, but that seems to be their mindset. Well, and the fact DICE is now saying they did pay-to-win to avoid breaking SW canon (lol @ Vader and Solo playable in Episode I... nice try) theyve lost any hope of people believing anything they say ever again. This is just embarrassing now.</quote> Bonus points because Battlefront 2015 did have an abundance of cosmetic unlocks, so it's not like there's no precedent for it in the series (and it was done without grievously violating the canon, no less, as much as that means anything in a fanservice crossover game).</quote> You know the dick that came up with this method to spin things thought checkmate!... Im waiting for them to exhaust all conceivable options and start referencing Hitler or something... Thats about where this arguments quality is.</quote> For even more bonus points, people have been doing some datamining and found that there are additional skins and costumes lurking in the game, presumably with the intent of releasing them at a later date. It's not only a flimsy, nonsensical excuse, it's a bold-faced lie. <cite>InfestedAdam posted...</cite> <quote>Please correct me if I'm wrong but I thought the temporary removal of lootboxes/comestic/something and loss of revenue from that is why the stock took a hit and not necessary because fans are upset. At the end of the day, would stockholders even care about what the fans think so long as said game is making money?</quote> Little of column A, little of column B. The initial stock drop would have been because removing microtransactions hurt the game's earning potential, rather than in direct response to the outrage, but I could see that further loss of value might be due to the fact that the outrage is still ongoing, and EA's damage control efforts aren't doing a particularly good job of restoring the game's image. That could definitely cause more investors to jump ship, since there isn't much reason to have faith that EA will turn this around any time soon. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1