criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

Ben Walke: If we make more SKINS we will saturate the market.

245

Replies

  • GranularAni9
    143 posts Member
    edited January 31
    Ok, even I'll admit that this sounds ridiculous
  • Ok @F8RGE , I see your point, but here's the thing. You might saturate the market if you released 20 skins a month, but currently you're releasing more like 2 skins a month! I'm positive that there would be no saturation if you released 5, or even 10 skins per month.

    What does saturation even mean in this context?

    What possible negative effects of 'too many skins' are there?

    I think, if anything, he's meaning that releasing lots of skins at a time, particularly in the high levels that some people ask for, you run the risk of running out of potential skins for these characters and thus you have nothing left to sell.
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    and anyway, as has been mentioned already, drip-feeding one or two skins at a time only really accomplishes one thing... It guarantees that almost no one will pay real money for skins, even if they're willing to. By the time a new skin comes out, most players will have the credits needed to buy it, or will be close.

    But Ben's initial point was that there's is no guarantee enough people will buy skins with money regardless of how many you release at a time.
    On this point I am in total agreement with Ben. It's incredibly short-sighted for people in this community to think that skins can save this game by being a viably significant source of revenue. In order for them to be so, they'd all have to be getting purchased with real money by every single player or even just half of all players, but that simply isn't going to happen. Not just because people who play frequently will have enough credits saved up to be able to purchase them that way, but people might just not even be interested in certain skins, period, whether that's because it just doesn't interest them or they don't do much hero play for it to be worth it.
    So even if they released 5, 10, or 20 skins a month, they'll be lucky if even 5% of players fork over real money for all of them let alone a few of them.


    Also, can people please a spare a thought for the devs here? Say whatever disparaging thing you want about them, but the fact of the matter is that games development of this quality is not easy or quick, so the idea that they should have no problem churning out 5 - 20 skins a month is preposterous.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Aside from it being an asinine comment related to this game, historically, the star wars brand thrives on saturation. Toys r us stayed in business for an extra 5 years as a result.
  • LMAO! "Saturate the market" with skins? I actually lol'd reading that. There are so many that we could get! I simply cannot wrap my mind around their reasoning for not supplying us new hero skins (infantry skins too). Especially since the devs claim to all be big fans of Star Wars.
  • They will build the player base again with this new conquest mode then start introducing the skins and more regular content. From a business perspective this makes total sense and with more players means this game gets more devs to starting earning the $$$.
  • DarthJ
    6051 posts Member
    unit900000 wrote: »
    the level of ignorance is insane do these people have any idea how many skins fortnite releases and how much money they make off of it? seriously this is some next level stupidity btw the Dooku skin is lame just needed to throw that out there.

    Exactly. Thats a free game yet its revenue stream is off the charts due to cosmetics. Granted, that will have a much larger playerbase than this, but still, point is we are nowhere near oversaturation with this game
    PSN: ibrajoker59
  • Any children know more marketing than the marvelous minds of EA/DICE.

    Summarized in one word: INCOMPETENCE
    ddw3rc11mp2j.jpg
  • Empire_TW wrote: »
    What is the point of crystals if they never make enough skins to require real money purchases?

    Also why does button up Doughku, Extra Crispy Grievence, and Hawaiian Vacation Lando take priority over iconic stuff like ANH Leia or ANH Han? Those skins should be low priority or canned if "saturation" is an issue.

    Hawaiian Lando wouldn't be that bad if he didn't already have another Solo skin that is barely the same with just different colors. The same goes for Han. I like his beaten up skin from Solo, but why have 2 young Han skins? It still wouldn't be so bad if they weren't the heroes with the largest selection of skins in the game.
    May your heart be your guiding key.
  • lol what a good read but yah i doubt it we need more skins...
    vp5mrloc8rmu.gif
  • i agree with the guy with the max avi its far from saturated we dont even have all aliens for all classes lmao
  • I have huge respect for Ben but this is one of the most strange points I have heard
  • Dice is just completely oblivious at this point
  • unit900000 wrote: »
    the level of ignorance is insane do these people have any idea how many skins fortnite releases and how much money they make off of it? seriously this is some next level stupidity btw the Dooku skin is lame just needed to throw that out there.

    I see this said a lot and, honestly, you can't really compare Fortnite to BFII when it comes to skins.
    For starters, Fortnite is in an eternal Beta phase which means they can bring out new content as often as they like and not have it go through the long approvals process that BFII has to go through.
    Secondly, the quality of Fortnite from a graphical and physics standpoint is far lower than BFII making the production of new content much quicker and easier.
    And finally, most importantly, the skins you buy in Fortnite can be used all the time because they're for your playable character, whereas hero skins are rarely used in BFII unless you get heroes regularly in GA or regularly play HvV, thus making most players more selective with what skins they get.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • MillSmit
    203 posts Member
    edited January 31
    I agree that more skins does not equal more money. So let's that "less is more".

    Han already has 5 buyable skins.
    Lando has 4.

    People aren't demanding more skins at a rate that Fortnite makes them. Take a look at this forum.
    They are asking for a classic star wars skin instead of wounded Chewie, or instead of one of the two(!) Ehrenreich Solo skins. It really isn't like the fans are being vague about the skins they want.



  • Jakeman wrote: »
    F8RGE wrote: »
    "If we released appearance after appearance".

    That is the key point here. If all we did is release appearances then yes, it would saturate things. I'm not saying we shouldn't release more appearances and I personally feel we have room for new ones. I in no way stated that it was saturated already.

    A lot of talk about more Appearances = more revenue. In a way that is correct but there will be diminishing returns. It's similar in the way we're seeing comments of "let's have a break from heroes and have maps instead".

    How long do you think this game will be viable F8RGE? At the rate EA/DICE release skins (1-2 a month at best) it would take several years before you ran out of Canon skins let alone skins like Shattered Grevious. If you add up all the potential heroes, villians, troopers, and enforcers skins left, the number would be well over 100. Do the math. You should be pumping out 5+ skins a month right now. You NEED TO RELEASE SKIN AFTER SKIN because if you don't THE GAME WILL BE DEAD BY THE TIME YOU DO!
    #hellomcfly

    Skins for me are a nice to have, they’re not going to make or break the game imo. I’m not against new skins and customisation is important, but it’s such a small piece of a much wider picture.
  • F8RGE wrote: »
    "If we released appearance after appearance".

    [...]

    A lot of talk about more Appearances = more revenue. In a way that is correct but there will be diminishing returns. It's similar in the way we're seeing comments of "let's have a break from heroes and have maps instead".

    Yeah, it has to come next to each other. It's cool when you release a hero to get another skin with it to buy. But I wouldn't but a skin I have no use for. I always "hate" people running around in Hoth skins on Endor.
    I'd love to buy ANH Celebration/Throne room Luke but only when there is a HvV map of the throne room for example. Or to generalize: There needs to be a relation between a skin and map for me. Doesn't matter for trops so much but it is really a point for me for hero skins. My two cents though.
    Versatti wrote: »
    Jakeman wrote: »
    F8RGE wrote: »
    "If we released appearance after appearance".

    That is the key point here. If all we did is release appearances then yes, it would saturate things. I'm not saying we shouldn't release more appearances and I personally feel we have room for new ones. I in no way stated that it was saturated already.

    A lot of talk about more Appearances = more revenue. In a way that is correct but there will be diminishing returns. It's similar in the way we're seeing comments of "let's have a break from heroes and have maps instead".

    How long do you think this game will be viable F8RGE? At the rate EA/DICE release skins (1-2 a month at best) it would take several years before you ran out of Canon skins let alone skins like Shattered Grevious. If you add up all the potential heroes, villians, troopers, and enforcers skins left, the number would be well over 100. Do the math. You should be pumping out 5+ skins a month right now. You NEED TO RELEASE SKIN AFTER SKIN because if you don't THE GAME WILL BE DEAD BY THE TIME YOU DO!
    #hellomcfly

    Skins for me are a nice to have, they’re not going to make or break the game imo. I’m not against new skins and customisation is important, but it’s such a small piece of a much wider picture.

    This!
  • Ok @F8RGE , I see your point, but here's the thing. You might saturate the market if you released 20 skins a month, but currently you're releasing more like 2 skins a month! I'm positive that there would be no saturation if you released 5, or even 10 skins per month.

    What does saturation even mean in this context?

    What possible negative effects of 'too many skins' are there?

    I think, if anything, he's meaning that releasing lots of skins at a time, particularly in the high levels that some people ask for, you run the risk of running out of potential skins for these characters and thus you have nothing left to sell.
    JackTHorn wrote: »
    and anyway, as has been mentioned already, drip-feeding one or two skins at a time only really accomplishes one thing... It guarantees that almost no one will pay real money for skins, even if they're willing to. By the time a new skin comes out, most players will have the credits needed to buy it, or will be close.

    But Ben's initial point was that there's is no guarantee enough people will buy skins with money regardless of how many you release at a time.
    On this point I am in total agreement with Ben. It's incredibly short-sighted for people in this community to think that skins can save this game by being a viably significant source of revenue. In order for them to be so, they'd all have to be getting purchased with real money by every single player or even just half of all players, but that simply isn't going to happen. Not just because people who play frequently will have enough credits saved up to be able to purchase them that way, but people might just not even be interested in certain skins, period, whether that's because it just doesn't interest them or they don't do much hero play for it to be worth it.
    So even if they released 5, 10, or 20 skins a month, they'll be lucky if even 5% of players fork over real money for all of them let alone a few of them.


    Also, can people please a spare a thought for the devs here? Say whatever disparaging thing you want about them, but the fact of the matter is that games development of this quality is not easy or quick, so the idea that they should have no problem churning out 5 - 20 skins a month is preposterous.

    Is this entire post a joke?

    It's called logic, why don't you try it sometime.

    Some of us prefer good old fashioned gut instinct which is never wrong but with what you call "logic" you write essays and say nothing

    Your gut instinct is wrong, plain and simple. Skins are NOT the guaranteed money maker people believe them to be for some very simple reasons.
    1. Not every skin is going to be worth purchasing for every player with credits let alone real money.
    2. Those who do purchase with real money are the smallest percentage of players.
    For point 1, specifically, the reasons are typically:
    1. Preferring to earn credits and not spend real money.
    2. Simply not having the money to spend on skins.
    3. Not being interested in a skin for personal reasons, i.e. don't like the look of it or not a fan of the skin's origin.
    4. Not being someone who regularly plays as a hero therefore making a potential purchase worthless.
    5. A combination of these 4 reasons.
    But if that's still too many words for your brain to comprehend then I'll simply say this:
    qjlsk5za4z76.png

    Woah to argue at the strawman there
  • F8RGE wrote: »
    "If we released appearance after appearance".

    That is the key point here. If all we did is release appearances then yes, it would saturate things. I'm not saying we shouldn't release more appearances and I personally feel we have room for new ones. I in no way stated that it was saturated already.

    A lot of talk about more Appearances = more revenue. In a way that is correct but there will be diminishing returns. It's similar in the way we're seeing comments of "let's have a break from heroes and have maps instead".

    I don't see how increasing the priority for new maps over new heroes is comparable to the appearance situation. New maps change the kind of experience you can get a lot more than new heroes. EVERYBODY can join in new maps while each hero can only be selected once per team (and there is a hard limit of max heroes for GA). A new map can also bring new mechanics that are deeper than a new hero. You can't compare adding the AT-TE as a spawnable vehicle (Geonosis) with being able to debuff one enemy (Dooku).
    May your heart be your guiding key.
  • Hahaha... this is the most ridiculous comment from Ben I’ve seen. We haven’t gotten much of any skins at all...Saturate the market? I don’t think he understands the business concept.

    At this point, it’s more likely from their actions they just don’t want to be in the skin business/sell skins (probably because they don’t want to spend time making them/don’t have any manpower to make them)
  • Kenobi_Dude
    1485 posts Member
    edited January 31
    F8RGE wrote: »
    "If we released appearance after appearance".

    That is the key point here. If all we did is release appearances then yes, it would saturate things. I'm not saying we shouldn't release more appearances and I personally feel we have room for new ones. I in no way stated that it was saturated already.

    A lot of talk about more Appearances = more revenue. In a way that is correct but there will be diminishing returns. It's similar in the way we're seeing comments of "let's have a break from heroes and have maps instead".

    Please explain the hero to map comparison. I’m not seeing it.
    I think he means because they have limited resources (time/paying developer salaries) and have to choose between heroes or new maps. So they have limited resources to make skins or maps/other stuff... but not both? Lol... wow

    His comment about diminishing returns doesn’t make any sense though because skins are the only way to make more/new money from existing customers who have the game. Sure there could be diminishing returns if they make too many skins all at once and no one buys them all after developers spent a bunch of time making them. They must be hoping to bring in new players who buy the game once certain gameplay features are added, but at this point, that is probably pretty limited.

    The problem they have is they are in the hole/in the red with skins already because many people have tons of credits so even if they make more they aren’t going to gain much money. If they had more skins continually from the start, it would’ve been better for them as more people might spend real money on them.
  • F8RGE wrote: »
    "If we released appearance after appearance".

    That is the key point here. If all we did is release appearances then yes, it would saturate things. I'm not saying we shouldn't release more appearances and I personally feel we have room for new ones. I in no way stated that it was saturated already.

    A lot of talk about more Appearances = more revenue. In a way that is correct but there will be diminishing returns. It's similar in the way we're seeing comments of "let's have a break from heroes and have maps instead".

    Please explain the hero to map comparison. I’m not seeing it.
    I think he means because they have limited resources (time/paying developer salaries) and have to choose between heroes or new maps. So they have limited resources to make skins or maps/other stuff... but not both? Lol... wow

    His comment about diminishing returns doesn’t make any sense though because skins are the only way to make more/new money from existing customers who have the game. Sure there could be diminishing returns if they make too many skins all at once and no one buys them all after developers spent a bunch of time making them. They must be hoping to bring in new players who buy the game once certain gameplay features are added, but at this point, that is probably pretty limited.

    The problem they have is they are in the hole/in the red with skins already because many people have tons of credits so even if they make more they aren’t going to gain much money. If they had more skins continually from the start, it would’ve been better for them as more people might spend real money on them.

    From the diminishing returns about skins, what I thought is dedicating resources to it has a cost, but that doesn't translate in money earned. Why? Because a lot of people may not care about most of the skins or they might just buy them with credits. At some point, the more varied skins you have (which isn't even remotely the case now), the less people will spend on new ones while you'll maintain the same "creation cost".

    It still doesn't translate well to the maps to heroes comparison.
    May your heart be your guiding key.
  • unit900000 wrote: »
    the level of ignorance is insane do these people have any idea how many skins fortnite releases and how much money they make off of it? seriously this is some next level stupidity btw the Dooku skin is lame just needed to throw that out there.

    Fortnite makes roughly $1 million a day. Yeah, skins make bank. People are actually in here defending DICE for their lack of skins? I swear there are people that like to argue purely for the sake of it.

    Fortnite's a phenomenon unto itself and can only really be compared with other freemium games, not a AAA console game like BFII.
    As I've said before, the key difference is that skins in Fortnite can be worn all the time by your playable character so you get more use out of them, whereas hero skins have rarer usage in BFII unless you consistently play as them in GA or play lots of HvV. There's also, I think, a more discerning personal preference with BFII skins when you have people not interested in skins from things they don't like, like the anti-TCW crowd not geting the General Kenobi skin or the anti-Solo crowd not geting the Alden Ehrenreich skin, but most Fortnite skins have more universal appeal because they're just random, wacky appearances.
    None of this is to say that DICE shouldn't add more skins, but just that, in a game like this where you can earn skins through gameplay as well as premium currency and for the reasons I've just mentioned, it's not a guarantee that it will make them a Fortnite-style profit.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • unit900000 wrote: »
    the level of ignorance is insane do these people have any idea how many skins fortnite releases and how much money they make off of it? seriously this is some next level stupidity btw the Dooku skin is lame just needed to throw that out there.

    Fortnite makes roughly $1 million a day. Yeah, skins make bank. People are actually in here defending DICE for their lack of skins? I swear there are people that like to argue purely for the sake of it.

    Fortnite's a phenomenon unto itself and can only really be compared with other freemium games, not a AAA console game like BFII.
    As I've said before, the key difference is that skins in Fortnite can be worn all the time by your playable character so you get more use out of them, whereas hero skins have rarer usage in BFII unless you consistently play as them in GA or play lots of HvV. There's also, I think, a more discerning personal preference with BFII skins when you have people not interested in skins from things they don't like, like the anti-TCW crowd not geting the General Kenobi skin or the anti-Solo crowd not geting the Alden Ehrenreich skin, but most Fortnite skins have more universal appeal because they're just random, wacky appearances.
    None of this is to say that DICE shouldn't add more skins, but just that, in a game like this where you can earn skins through gameplay as well as premium currency and for the reasons I've just mentioned, it's not a guarantee that it will make them a Fortnite-style profit.

    Well currently they are making pretty much NO PROFIT on skins because there have been so few made, so I doubt they should be worried about market saturation at this point.
  • I'd prioritize new maps over everything.

    But I'd love new skins.

    I'd be all-in on a skins and bug fixes season. It could last 2-3 months as far as I'm concerned.

    Give us a poll where we can vote for our most wanted skins and go from there.

    Maybe we won't get 10 per month. Maybe we can only get 2.

    It's a starting point.
  • Billkwando wrote: »
    But Ben's initial point was that there's is no guarantee enough people will buy skins with money regardless of how many you release at a time.
    On this point I am in total agreement with Ben. It's incredibly short-sighted for people in this community to think that skins can save this game by being a viably significant source of revenue.

    Also, can people please a spare a thought for the devs here? Say whatever disparaging thing you want about them, but the fact of the matter is that games development of this quality is not easy or quick, so the idea that they should have no problem churning out 5 - 20 skins a month is preposterous.

    Seriously? Are you so bitter about your Ahsoka quest that you have to come in here and poop on something that virtually everybody actually wants? What does "saving the game" have to do with anything? It's about the multi-million dollar company and sole Star Wars licensee providing the "live service" they promised.

    Never said they shouldn't have more skins if that's they want to do but that it's unrealistic for people to expect it's the way to save this game financially.
    Billkwando wrote: »
    Pretty sure nobody said they want 5 - 20 skins a month, realistically....that's you taking the argument to an extreme for your own purposes. Modders churn out excellent skins all the time, in their free time. DICE churns out a couple a year.

    Take a look back at this thread and you'll see a few people asking for those number of skins.
    Billkwando wrote: »
    Also, the whole notion that skin creation takes away from game development is an internet fallacy that is super popular with folks who don't know anything about game development. The "stop making skins and fix bugs" argument has been addressed by many developers, such as Ubi on Rainbow Six Siege, and it's been made clear that the art department makes skins, which is totally separate from the folks who would be fixing bugs or doing the heavy lifting of game development that you so thoughtfully give them a pass on, since you feel their job is too hard.....even though there have been bugs around since launch, still unfixed (Luke's cards unequipping, Yavvvin 4 wall glitch, Maul's saber throw that has been "fixed" 27 times, etc),

    Never said that either but that a game like this simply has a higher quality production quality than lower quality games which makes their production more detailed and hence slower. The character designers on this game, however many there are, will spend longer making a skin for this game than those working on a game like Fortnite due to the nature of the software and technology they're using.
    Billkwando wrote: »
    We appreciate what the devs do. It's because we love this game that we're still here. Still, DICE or EA or whoever still continue to fail us in numerous ways. Look at Starfighter Assault. By your rationale, they should have 10 new SA maps by now from all the time they've saved by not making skins, right? ;)

    Now you're just completely making things up because that is nothing like what I've been saying or even inferring.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • unit900000 wrote: »
    the level of ignorance is insane do these people have any idea how many skins fortnite releases and how much money they make off of it? seriously this is some next level stupidity btw the Dooku skin is lame just needed to throw that out there.

    Fortnite makes roughly $1 million a day. Yeah, skins make bank. People are actually in here defending DICE for their lack of skins? I swear there are people that like to argue purely for the sake of it.

    Fortnite's a phenomenon unto itself and can only really be compared with other freemium games, not a AAA console game like BFII.
    As I've said before, the key difference is that skins in Fortnite can be worn all the time by your playable character so you get more use out of them, whereas hero skins have rarer usage in BFII unless you consistently play as them in GA or play lots of HvV. There's also, I think, a more discerning personal preference with BFII skins when you have people not interested in skins from things they don't like, like the anti-TCW crowd not geting the General Kenobi skin or the anti-Solo crowd not geting the Alden Ehrenreich skin, but most Fortnite skins have more universal appeal because they're just random, wacky appearances.
    None of this is to say that DICE shouldn't add more skins, but just that, in a game like this where you can earn skins through gameplay as well as premium currency and for the reasons I've just mentioned, it's not a guarantee that it will make them a Fortnite-style profit.

    Well currently they are making pretty much NO PROFIT on skins because there have been so few made, so I doubt they should be worried about market saturation at this point.

    That is true, but more skins doesn't mean people will suddenly crack open their wallets and buy them all thus fully funding this game for years to come, which is the false assertion I see a lot of people making.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • The reason I think they make ridiculous excuses like “oversaturation” for not making skins is because they simply don’t have the manpower to make them. The game is beyond monetization. If you’re charging $7 -$10 a game then regardless of how little resources you put into it you ain’t making money. That all being said, I do think if they made and released a ton of skins that it would make them some money.
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • unit900000 wrote: »
    the level of ignorance is insane do these people have any idea how many skins fortnite releases and how much money they make off of it? seriously this is some next level stupidity btw the Dooku skin is lame just needed to throw that out there.

    Fortnite makes roughly $1 million a day. Yeah, skins make bank. People are actually in here defending DICE for their lack of skins? I swear there are people that like to argue purely for the sake of it.

    Fortnite's a phenomenon unto itself and can only really be compared with other freemium games, not a AAA console game like BFII.
    As I've said before, the key difference is that skins in Fortnite can be worn all the time by your playable character so you get more use out of them, whereas hero skins have rarer usage in BFII unless you consistently play as them in GA or play lots of HvV. There's also, I think, a more discerning personal preference with BFII skins when you have people not interested in skins from things they don't like, like the anti-TCW crowd not geting the General Kenobi skin or the anti-Solo crowd not geting the Alden Ehrenreich skin, but most Fortnite skins have more universal appeal because they're just random, wacky appearances.
    None of this is to say that DICE shouldn't add more skins, but just that, in a game like this where you can earn skins through gameplay as well as premium currency and for the reasons I've just mentioned, it's not a guarantee that it will make them a Fortnite-style profit.

    Well currently they are making pretty much NO PROFIT on skins because there have been so few made, so I doubt they should be worried about market saturation at this point.

    That is true, but more skins doesn't mean people will suddenly crack open their wallets and buy them all thus fully funding this game for years to come, which is the false assertion I see a lot of people making.

    I agree. Plus the time and effort to make them. It could be time spent on content much more useful that players would invest in.
  • F8RGE wrote: »
    "If we released appearance after appearance".

    That is the key point here. If all we did is release appearances then yes, it would saturate things. I'm not saying we shouldn't release more appearances and I personally feel we have room for new ones. I in no way stated that it was saturated already.

    A lot of talk about more Appearances = more revenue. In a way that is correct but there will be diminishing returns. It's similar in the way we're seeing comments of "let's have a break from heroes and have maps instead".

    I don’t think you realize how much money you’re leaving on the table

    I’d pay for an old luke skin but Luke only has 2 skins?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!