Board Thread:Game Discussion/@comment-33905330-20190222102100/@comment-32997411-20190226150506

Tylerama wrote:

I understand the game is in ongoing development - but EA seem to want the cost structure to be that of a console game, i.e. £70 and there's your content and game. That makes the cost of keeping up with each release approximately the same as a console game (IMO!) Nice (and short) article on that matter: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/59990/ea-explains-live-service-games-exist/index.html

''"I think what we're seeing is that people are playing fewer games but they're playing the games they're playing for longer with deeper engagement. And the reality is people love to engage with something they really enjoy, right? If you love soccer, you're going to do everything around soccer: watch it, play it, engage in it, talk about it, and our games allow you to go deep into something you really love," the EA CFO said.

"But it probably means you're going to buy less games in the year. And if you look at the statistics in the last 10 years, the number of games sold has been fairly flat or slight growth but the dollars have gone up dramatically because the games have much more engagement in them."''

''"And that engagement usually has some kind of economic model around it. And once again if you were buying 3 games and now you're buying 2 games but you're spending the same amount of money you're getting a much bigger value for your dollar than you did historically because of the depth and size of these games." ''

This basically explains their philosophy towards developing new stuff: it isnt nessecary if the engagement in the current product is high enough. As RR3 has already proven to be very succesful, theyre only interested in milking that succes until the cashcow dies (when everyone loses interest), so that means (for RR3) more content, more cars, more tracks etc. BUT its gonna cost us more as well.