@NecuVise Of course there is 'expectation' and projected 'profits' which may well fall below their 'target' BUT that still doesn't necessitate the 'need' for micro-transaction to supplement rising costs or loss of 'profit'. The games are still profitable and not a 'loss'. Its like buying something for £1 and expecting to sell it for £100 and then being disappointed that they only managed to get £80. Therefore they 'have' to start cutting things from that item and sell those separately, or even lottery tickets to stand a chance of getting those items they cut out and charging £5 a time.

Now I know a game cost's more than a £1 to make but if a £40-50 game can be profitable after 2m or so sales, just shows how much of a profit margin there can be. Its not as if these games don't drop to £20 (or less) quite quickly if they aren't selling. Obviously its better and quicker for companies to reach profitability with 'higher' prices and maybe why they can be profitable with 'relatively' few sales but the point is, the games are still profitable and its the fault of the publishers/devs for over expectation or 'under delivering' that result in games not being as 'profitable' as they promised to share holders etc.

If a game is 'good', chances are it will be profitable and maybe even exceed expectation. If not, it can still be profitable but may not be as profitable as they hoped - Mass Effect: Andromeda is an example of a profitable game but certainly didn't meet expectation - not just for EA but for gamers too. Rushing it out to meet a 'financial' year instead of spending an extra few months to refine and polish was a mistake but then that's down to EA, their shareholders and not us the gamer so why should we have to offset their over ambitious profit margin predictions for sub-standard products with loot boxes and micro-transactions?