In an almost admirable act of overt trolling, one US analyst has argued that EA’s decision to temporarily halt microtransactions in Star Wars Battlefront 2 was a mistake.
“The handling of the launch by EA has been poor,” KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Evan Wingren, as reported by CNBC. “Despite this, we view the suspension of microtransactions in the near term as a transitory risk.”
Wingren’s argument is that games offer tremendous value for money on a cost-per-hour basis. He said that if a Battlefront 2 owner spent $60 upfront on the game and an additional $20 per month on microtransactions, with an average play time of 2.5 hours per day for a year, that would work out at 40 cents per hour. In contrast, TV works out at around 60-65 cents per hour and movies between 80 cents and $3 per hour.
You do have to ask how many people will play a specific game for 2.5 hours every single day for a whole year, however.
"If you take a step back and look at the data, an hour of video game content is still one of the cheapest forms of entertainment,” he added. “Quantitative analysis shows that video game publishers are actually charging gamers at a relatively inexpensive rate, and should probably raise prices.
"Gamers aren't overcharged, they're undercharged. This saga has been a perfect storm for overreaction as it involves EA, Star Wars, reddit, and certain purist gaming journalists/outlets who dislike microtransactions.
"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.”