• Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re forgetting The Sims, a veritable cash cow for EA, where every tiny add-on costs $15+.

    But otherwise, I agree.

    • ampersandrew@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re pivoting to free to play, so that series may have waned as well. I’m sure it’s still profitable, but you don’t switch to free to play, especially for what is ostensibly a single player game that doesn’t rely on player counts, if everything is going well.

      • Pseu@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Free to play with microtransactions is just the way to go for games that can be monetized in that manner. The lower barrier to entry means far more downloads and the piecemeal monetization means that players will frequently end up paying more than $60 alongside the larger player base.

        • ampersandrew@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Compared to the business they used to with the Sims, free to play makes it much, much harder to break even. You’re hoping to monetize more off of a smaller percentage of your players. 95% of people will never pay in a free to play game, and the Sims games would sell over 10 million units each, handily, plus expansions. But I know that plenty of people would pirate the expansions, so EA probably sees that as a threat that they need to lock behind an internet connection in a server-based game, and they’ll likely destroy the series’ profitability in the process.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oof. If that’s true, I feel bad for all the folks who have invested so much time into the series.