Home Gaming Analyst says gamers overreacted to Battlefront II’s lootboxes, and should pay more

Analyst says gamers overreacted to Battlefront II’s lootboxes, and should pay more

2 min read


The microtransactions that are tied to Star Wars Battlefront II’s progressions systems caused a storm of controversy recently. Fans of Star Wars games were incensed that heroes and progression were locked behind pay-to-win lootboxes. So much so, that the resultant outrage saw Star Wars overlord Disney step in to mitigate the brand damage, with EA subsequently disabling microtransactions, albeit temporarily.

According to one analyst, the outrage was overblown and that gamers were overreacting. Said analyst also says that Star Wars Battlefront II still offers great value for money, and that in future, game publishers should increase the prices of their games.

“We view the negative reaction to Star Wars Battlefront 2 (and industry trading sympathy) as an opportunity to add to Electronic Arts, Take-Two, and Activision Blizzard positions. The handling of the SWBF2 launch by EA has been poor; despite this, we view the suspension of MTX [micro-transactions] in the near term as a transitory risk,” KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Evan Wingren said in a note to clients.

“Gamers aren’t overcharged, they’re undercharged (and we’re gamers). …This saga has been a perfect storm for overreaction as it involves EA, Star Wars, reddit, and certain purist gaming journalists/outlets who dislike MTX,” Wingren wrote.

Wingren asserts that the game is great value, and because he’s a financial analyst has broken it down into a cost per hour factor, which is a terribly misguided metric when looking at the value of games. Unfortunately, it’s one that many gamers share, equating the length of games to their value, which is patently absurd in my opinion.

According to Wingren , if a player buys the game for $60, then spends $20 a month on lootboxes and plays for 2.5 hours a day for an entire year, it works out to just 40c an hour for the entertainment, compared to 60 cents per hour for TV, 80 cents an hour for movie rentals and $3 an hour for watching movies at a cinema. By that metric, it’s just damned good value.

“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 wrote. “Quantitative analysis shows that video game publishers are actually charging gamers at a relatively inexpensive rate, and should probably raise prices.”

While it’s always nice for consumers to get the most out of the very expensive games they buy, it’s just ludicrous to quantify a game’s value by its length.

Last Updated: November 21, 2017


  1. Alien Emperor Trevor

    November 21, 2017 at 10:05

    “it’s just ludicrous to quantify a game’s value by its length.” Don’t tell me, tell her! 🙁


  2. PoisonedBelial

    November 21, 2017 at 10:06

  3. Admiral Chief

    November 21, 2017 at 10:06

    Ah, I see, he is quite ANAL about it


    • Original Heretic

      November 21, 2017 at 10:09

      And I hope he gets cysts. In his anal area.
      An analyst with anal cysts.


  4. Magoo

    November 21, 2017 at 10:06

    Says the kind of person who gets paid hundreds of dollars for conjuring up a few buzz words every 5 days.


  5. Original Heretic

    November 21, 2017 at 10:10

    This is one of those guys who doesn’t seem to understand that quality is greater than quantity.
    But from what I’ve seen so far in initial reviews, BF2 is not all that….


  6. Magoo

    November 21, 2017 at 10:11

    Woke up one morning thinking “How can I make the most amount of enemies in the shortest amount of time?” “Should I defend Hitler, Harvey Weinstein, or EA..”


  7. Alien Emperor Trevor

    November 21, 2017 at 10:12

    2.5 hours per day for a year. Wow. That’s round about how much free time I have a day after taking into account work, travel, sleep, etc. So I could just play this one game for an entire year. What a great value proposition! Of course I’ll be bored after a month, but think about how much money I’m saving!


  8. RinceThis

    November 21, 2017 at 10:15

    They can fuck right off.


    • Magoo

      November 21, 2017 at 10:17



  9. Original Heretic

    November 21, 2017 at 10:20

    Considering that:
    1) EA has pulled loot boxes (albeit temporarily)
    2) EA stocks have dropped quite drastically
    3) Initial reviews are quite middling
    4) Disney exces called EA execs to kak them out and to “stop hurting the brand”

    ….it’s safe to say that the opinion of this one asshole means nothing to anyone.


  10. Ottokie

    November 21, 2017 at 10:20

    Well then ANALyst’s. Why don’t you chops buy the game and we “the real gamers” will sit back and analyze your mental health for playing 40 hours to unlock a single character if you don’t spend money.


    • Guild

      November 21, 2017 at 10:22

      The unlocking a character after 40 hours is blown way out of proportion. I’ve unlocked 3 hero characters after 6 hours of playing.


      • Ottokie

        November 21, 2017 at 10:23

        Vader was 40 hours to unlock before the nerf.


        • Guild

          November 21, 2017 at 10:28

          Well glad they nerfed it then. Cause it’ll take maybe 3 hours or so to unlock. With the amount of in game credits earned from doing MP matches and completing challenges it doesn’t take long to unlock items. I’ve bought about 15 trooper crates which are the most expensive at 4,400 credits


          • Tarisma

            November 21, 2017 at 12:33

            problem is progression slows down a lot when you have all the challenges done

          • Guild

            November 21, 2017 at 12:56

            Have you seen how many challenges there are? I’ve stuck and played 1 class so far in MP and no where near completing all the challenges for that class. I agree it will slow down but I’m pretty sure you will have everything unlocked when you complete all the challenges

          • Tarisma

            November 21, 2017 at 13:01

            I’m just passing on what I’ve heard from people that are 50 plus hours in, I only got 5 hours in thanks to EA access and decided the game wasn’t for me in its current form.

            I think you’ll have all the hero’s but I’m pretty certain based on my basic maths I did last week that your star cards wont be close to all purple.

          • Guild

            November 21, 2017 at 13:04

            Let’s see if I get there. Currently I’m enjoying it for what it is. Don’t feel disadvantaged in anyway or form in MP.

          • Tarisma

            November 21, 2017 at 13:22

            Agreed in the Galactic conquest it felt fine, fairly balanced, I mean the lack of teamwork and the constant nade spam make it feel a bit shallow but no one felt OP except those pricks who have some of the 500 kill guns that they got from crates.

            In best mode(Starfighter assault) some people had a clear advantage, they could out turn you easily and I swear this one guy had fucking mini death star strapped to the front of his ship instead of regular guns because he would just tear you apart.

            Why I’m not buying it is the principal, if you want companies to not pull this lootbox shit again vote with your wallet its the only way they listen.

          • Guild

            November 21, 2017 at 13:33

            Didn’t know you could get guns from crates. Thought they were all challenge locked but good to know. I haven’t felt disadvantaged yet, but maybe that will come further down the line where people have more time to play than me. I’m just enjoying the game for what it is.
            Side note: I got the game for free. I agree with the principals of not buying it. A lot of people are doing the same and giving it a big skip.

  11. FAQyoumate

    November 21, 2017 at 10:23

    Is he retarded?


  12. Viper_ZA

    November 21, 2017 at 10:34

    Trust this PoS will hit the R99 bargain bin soon. Even then, DO NOT BUY this crap. Vote with your wallet, there are many other titles around that are far more impressive than this half-baked, copy/paste + LOOT shenanigans.


  13. jcdenton2012

    November 21, 2017 at 10:35

    So, liberal CNBC corporate shill… why does CNBC support child gambling? I would ask on your article, but you turned off your comments section.


  14. John Sullivan

    November 21, 2017 at 10:58

    So basically we should be grateful? Ok…


  15. For the Emperor!

    November 21, 2017 at 10:59

    Sounds more like they hired the same PR company as the Guptas. “Oh, this is unethical? Let me spin it so the other guys look more guilty”


  16. Tired365

    November 21, 2017 at 11:15

    So by that logic games should be absolute dirt cheap since a service like netflix is cheap yet there is months worth of content.


  17. For the Emperor!

    November 21, 2017 at 11:22

    Wait, so he is basing it off 912 hours playtime? That is seriously unrealistic, and the only way they can even think of achieving this is by inflating the time it takes to get rewards! Single player will not be robust enough to get multiple play-throughs, and while the game seems OK in multiplayer it is nothing revolutionary and will also not get so much game time when competing with Overwatch, CoD, Battlefield etc. This ANALyst really needs to change careers!


  18. BakedBagel

    November 21, 2017 at 14:06

    “Gamers aren’t overcharged, they’re undercharged (and we’re gamers)



  19. Deceased

    November 21, 2017 at 23:59

    It’s not overblown at all considering that most gamers, that don’t have access to their parents’ banking-details to buy said lootboxes, don’t want a pay-to-win system in place -> if you look at it from that perspective, you’ll come to understand why the outcry is there in the first place…

    I’ve never spent money on microtransactions and never will -> this puts me at a severe disadvantage, because even though I have the time to grind in-game, I’m not willing to spend over 20 extra a week just to stay on equal footing to a person willing to spend money for an advantage… you know, it kind of defeats the purpose of playing the game in there first place in respects to it being an “unwinding” activity.

    This is a rather deep rabbit hole to climb down into, but the bottom line is, pay-to-win microtransactions are nothing new – we’ve seen them in the past, most notoriously in free-to-play games – now they’re crawling into AAA titles and the vocal minority in this case ( even though one should generally stay clear of them ) are calling out a scuzzball move and I, for once, agree with them.

    Scummy practices where a child, or an adult with poor judgement, is being baited out to pay money for they easy-way-out and they’ll probably take it ( why are there so many cheaters in multiplayer games? )…

    BTW: the reason I’m so against pay-to-win is because it’s the same crap as a wall-hack / aim-bot skiddy with no skill reking honest players, except it’s “legal” within the games terms of service/conduct compared to a third-party script 😐


  20. Mark Treloar

    November 22, 2017 at 06:52

    That’s assuming the average gamer plays the game for over 900 hours. Most gamer’s never even get to 300 hours.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Check Also

Microsoft will let developers keep 100% of Windows app profit… unless its a game

Microsoft has announced that it is willing to allow developers to take 100% of the revenue…