170. BF6: EA Comes into EU Compliance, Sets Industry Records
EA proves that DFA compliance is not only possible, but could revolutionize sales and monetisation globally.
Supercell CEO Ilkka Paananen recently published a dire warning that the EU’s Digital Fairness Act would kill modern games [as a Service], and especially Supercell’s games. Many influencers across the gaming ecosystem have faithfully parroted and promoted Paananen’s letter. Since the DFA is laser focused on protecting consumers from unethical practices in the gaming industry, this letter seemed to be a tacit admission that protecting “Good Actors” from unfair competition from “Bad Actors” would remove the latter from the market, including Supercell.
While that might be true, Electronic Arts (a notorious “Bad Actor”) just blew a planetary weapon sized hole in Paananen’s argument. By releasing Battlefield 6 in DFA compliant format, EA set multiple franchise and industry records last week. After almost 15 years of my imploring EA and others to give pro-consumer models a chance, EA did exactly that and just wrecked the metrics for all anti-consumer products and developers, including EA’s own metrics.
EA’s deathbed discovery of A/B testing and pro-consumer methodology will change the industry forever, regardless of why they did it. They may claim later that “they just hadn’t finished their consumer-reviled microtransactions in time for the launch” and will implement them soon. If so, we will get to see how this affects their metrics. I’m very excited for this data, and I will of course make good use of it.
Anti Consumer Microtransactions
Microtransactions, like any charged-for added content, take advantage of discriminatory pricing, which I am a huge advocate for. Discriminatory Pricing allows a manufacturer to charge people with bigger budgets a higher price for the same product they sell, with a lower price to less affluent customers. I explain in some technical detail what personal and group player budgets are in my Group Monetisation (2013) paper, and how they can be optimized.
This becomes anti-consumer when the product is bricked or made “Pay to Win” in order to force players to spend more than they originally consented to for basic elements of play. A good example would be the “shields” in Supercell’s Clash of Clans game. I explain how these Pay to Sleep mechanics work in detail in my Secrets of F2P: Threat Generation paper from 2015.
A more recent example would be Ubisoft’s charging for the map that players need to steer them towards quest goals in their recent anti-consumer Assassin’s Creed Shadows product. This is like buying a new car but after you drive it off the lot the steering wheel locks and requires an added fee to steer your car. I don’t know if this has ever happened, but if it did it would be safe to assume there would be a regulatory response.
Arguments from Paananen and others that they need to engage in unethical practices in order to stay in business would generate little sympathy from consumers and regulators if they were true. If anything, he makes the case for the DFA singlehandedly. He comes across as entitled to harm consumers, so he seems to think that his complaint will undo 13 years of regulatory response.
But here in one bold move EA has proven the illogic of Paananen’s ideology. Consumers are desperate to be treated fairly and when EA did that they were rewarded with what looks like the greatest outpouring of consumer interest in gaming history.
What Will EA Do Next?
If we are talking about the EA we all know and don’t love, they will drop a bunch of anti consumer microtransactions and battle passes into Battlefield 6 as soon as they can. This will then change the performance metrics from “Best in History” to “The usual slop that EA makes”. I hope they do, because as a scientist I love these sorts of A/B tests. Of course it would have been even better if they released the pro consumer and anti consumer versions simultaneously (for a true A/B test), as that would have made the data even better. But I trust that all my readers understand that EA would not do this because it would prove how bad EA’s models are.
EA is well aware that consumers would reject the anti-consumer models if they were given the choice, which is why EA and their buddies in AAA don’t give them that choice. Now the DFA will “not give AAA that choice” of being unethical. Let’s be clear, this is a choice. AAA would be making more money if their products were pro-consumer. They just don’t do that, despite this harming their company, because they are led by “leadership” that literally does not like gamers. It is part of their ideology to harm gamers, even if this hurts the company they’ve been entrusted to lead.
These companies are not entitled to exist. They are not entitled to act unethically. They perhaps are entitled to have poor leadership, because that’s a choice. I think its an irrational choice as it results in these companies being purged from the marketplace. But it’s not rational to self purge then complain about it. Ilken Paananen and his ilk should take their ill gotten gains and go find some other way to hurt people/children until the law catches up to them again. That’s just natural, society always has these elements. But don’t expect sympathy when you complain about the consequences of your actions, unless you donate your entire fortune to a legitimate children’s charity or such.
I love these sorts of deathbed conversions, so Ilken Paananen, consider it. Consider your legacy. EA already did it, and it was a bold move that might save their company.