There's a myth that free-to-play is cheaper than a $60 game. It's just elastic. For some users, it winds up being a lot more expensive. I would have paid $150 a year to get a better version of FIFA.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Everything in life has a price on it - there ain't a damn thing free in America, and football has got a price on it.
The reason our games generate so much revenue is because we're stupid enough to charge $60 for a box or $50 for a download or something. You need used games because most people can't afford those prices.
Free-to-play isn't a business model. Free-to-play is a marketing strategy. It's a way to get people over the hump of trying out your game. It gets rid of the friction that happens when you charge an upfront fee.
People have to pay a lot of money to play soccer here.
I would say, in a year, I spend maybe half of that playing FIFA. I love it that much.
I love playing FIFA on my PlayStation!
It is not about money. It is about how you treat the player.
I think the power of the platforms is outstripping the size of the audience. We can't charge $150 for a game. And when the best-selling game of all time has sold only 20 million copies at $60, do the math!
If you have the money and you find the one player who can make you win and make the difference, no matter how expensive he is, you should do it. But there are not many players in the world who will make a real difference.
People love to say we get paid a lot of money to play a game, but it stopped being a game when you start getting paid.