You might be dissatisfied with how Electronic Arts does business, but at least one executive hears you. What he does with what he hears… well, that’s another matter entirely.

Speaking at last week’s UBS Global Technology Conference, EA CFO Blake Jorgensen said that monetization talk generally comes around after the game is made and after the company figures out how to keep the customer engaged.

“When you think about that, it’s not really the economics; the economics come afterward. There might be multiple models of ways to engage people… The fundamental way that we as an organization think about [microtransactions and subscriptions] is all around engagement. How do we engage the consumer as long as possible?”

Jorgensen acknowledges that there’s quite a bit of “consumer fatigue” from players feeling like they’re being “nickel and dimed” by free-to-play and says that his company is looking for ways “to try to alleviate some of that fatigue.”

While I’ll admit that designing a game first and monetization second is a nice way to go – and contrary to how a lot of games, especially in the mobile space work – I wonder if it really matters in the end if the eventual financial model is unpopular. Look at what happened with Payday 2. It was obviously not designed around microtransactions, but when they were added… hoo boy.

Saying that you’re aware that consumers are “fatigued” by microtransactions and that you’re going to try and reduce that fatigue is a nice first step, but it’ll only matter if you actually follow through with something players both a) like and b) are willing to pay for. That’s a tough pair of goals to nail, and lots of companies usually default to just going after the second one.

What do you think about Jorgensen’s comments? And please, try to keep it to no more than a dozen profanities per comment.

Jason Winter is a veteran gaming journalist, he brings a wide range of experience to MMOBomb, including two years with Beckett Media where he served as the editor of the leading gaming magazine Massive Online Gamer. He has also written professionally for several gaming websites.


  1. nickel and dime ? More like paper and plastic they charge things by the dollar. Its funny they say that when they go past the nickel and dime tactic and try to say “Well.. At least we don’t nickel and dime ya.” Ya that’s because you rather have $15 to $100 instead.

  2. Ea is the worst. They sell battlefield for $60 and then come up with premium for another $60 or each dlc for $15. They even sell cases and other upgrades for $. Soon we have to pay for our bullets and vehicles. I miss the old days were you could just buy a full game.

  3. he talks as if nobody found a formula to engage and make money… there are already game that make money without exploiting people, EA just never cared about it

    he wants to change that? I really doubt that, but maybe, who knows, EA stop being one of the worst publishers

  4. LOL EA don’t want to nickel and dime their players? They already do scam them all, I would rather give me money to Wal-Mart and I would set my self of fire before I go in that store.

  5. Kind of sad people still pay them to be treated like that. I stand for the people. As dumb as they may seem, I like to think there are shreds of humanity. I for one will ignore games with good reputations, if ac ompany is known for bad politics out of MORAL. Most gamers/consumers do not. This is a good excuse. You are paying monthly for their Star Wars franchise to get around the F2P blocks. And the entire game is F2P quality… nothing it offers surpases TERA for example. It is just because they set up contracts with non gaming financers that you pay today for crap.

    Their last game, battle front, already has DLC on the disc YOU BUY. (See angry joe reviews if your own eyes missed it in your own purchase). They got the worst company award… but, like STEAM, you will throw your wallet at it because… well… lets just say I have seen prostititues with more values than gamers. And the funny thing is, hoes be gettin cash while gamers losing it (even more pathetic).

    • battlefront = battlefield? forgeting the title name. Like it matters: World of battle thunder warrior dinosaur craft of gun blaze epic adventure” any mix of those should cover it XD

  6. How do we engage the consumer as long as possible?”
    Star Wars Battle Front season Pass 50$ Disengaged…………………….

  7. I’d rather they just overhaul SWTOR to where it has action combat and I would pay a monthly sub, not 14.99 a month, but 4.99 a month with cosmetic/xp microtransactions would be fine with me.

    The combat is what drives me away from the game EVERY TIME. I have gone back a few times, most recently a few weeks ago for the new Expansion, and it just can’t hold my attention. The story and the way they tell the story is great, but the game isn’t engaging in its mechanics and combat.

  8. honestly I have to agree with bratkart, either switch swtor to b2p or turn off all the dang content gates on f2p swtor. Cause let’s be honest EA really needs to get its shit together when it comes to the f2p mmo market. Because if they ever plan a new mmorpg in the future no one is gonna even trust them with a simple buy 2 play model at this rate.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here