Has potential unlike the last one. I'm interested. Good to see that this has everything the first one (by EA) should have had. Also the campaign looks promising. Not something I usually say about shooters.
Edit
They announced there will be no season pass. So this is a big and bold move for EA. However this likely means they will triple down on micro-transactions and loot crates *sigh*
Gamgee wrote: Has potential unlike the last one. I'm interested. Good to see that this has everything the first one (by EA) should have had. Also the campaign looks promising. Not something I usually say about shooters.
Edit
They announced there will be no season pass. So this is a big and bold move for EA. However this likely means they will triple down on micro-transactions and loot crates *sigh*
Yes, it's such a "big and bold move" that they have done it for Titanfall 2, Mass Effect 3's MP, and Mass Effect Andromeda.
Also, whine more about completely optional micro-transactions.
Actually your right. I totally forgot. I should say this is an interesting move for the battlefield series/dice since their games almost have always had season passes until now. Even the recent battlefield 1 had one.
Still it's good news.
Microtransacitons are not. From what I've seen of MEA's microtransacitons they are the most gouging of EA's yet. Still at least I can avoid them if I don't want them.
The story mode sounds very interesting. There is a huge gap in between RotJ and TFA and so far all we have are a couple of novels.
Hopefully this is the game that Dice wanted to make originally had they not been forced to tie in with the Disney reboot. While I don't think they'll be able to beat the original battlefront 2 for quantity, the last game was undoubtedly the prettiest SW game I have ever played and this will likely be more so.
Strange that two of the planets listed will be Endor and Hoth seeing as they were in BF1 already. I guess because they are the two main stages of war in the OT. Really hoping we get a Coruscant map!
Gamgee wrote: Actually your right. I totally forgot. I should say this is an interesting move for the battlefield series/dice since their games almost have always had season passes until now. Even the recent battlefield 1 had one.
Battlefield games have been a mixed bag of free and season pass content since BF3.
They have a season pass which gives you special playlists tied to new maps/game modes(effectively gating that content off) but still allows for weapons/vehicles, etc to appear in the standard content.
Battlefront had a season pass, but also had free content drops every time a season pass item dropped.
Still it's good news.
Microtransacitons are not. From what I've seen of MEA's microtransacitons they are the most gouging of EA's yet. Still at least I can avoid them if I don't want them.
"From what you've seen"? Have you actually played or, as usual for you, are you going off third hand knowledge?
The MEA Microtransactions are strictly for MP. Anyone who buys them expecting to get good stuff, without having invested a bit of time into playing the MP side of things first, is an idiot. BioWare has never made a secret of the way their loot box formulations worked since they made packs available with real money after the first free DLC for ME3's Multiplayer.
The way that Mass Effect's loot boxes work:
You get a certain number of items, with the numbers going up per pack.
Supply Packs contain nothing but consumables--cannot be purchased with "Andromeda Credits"(they added a special currency that you can buy for packs rather than before where it was $2.99 for a single high-end pack or thereabouts in ME3). 2000 Credits
Basic Packs contain 5 items, with a chance at getting an Uncommon grade item. Cannot be bought with Andromeda Credits. Costs 5000 Credits.
Advanced Packs contain 5 items, with a guaranteed Uncommon and a chance at a Rare item. Can be bought with Andromeda Credits. Costs 20,000 Credits or 100 Andromeda Credits.
Expert Packs contain 5 items, with a guaranteed Rare and a chance at an Ultra Rare item. Can be bought with ACs. Costs 50,000 Credits OR 200 Andromeda Credits.
Premium Packs contain 5 items, with a guaranteed 2 Rare items and the highest chance at an Ultra Rare item. Can be bought with ACs. Costs 100,000 Credits OR 300 Andromeda Credits.
As you finish out each tier of items to its maximum(each weapon, gear, or character has 10 levels)--they cease to pop up in the packs. Finish out your Commons; the Basic Pack becomes useless to you. Finish out your Uncommons, the Advanced Packs become useless, finish out your Rares and then you basically are just going to be picking between getting 2 chances for an UR or 1 chance between Expert or Premium Packs.
Unlike ME3 though, BioWare is doing a good job currently of spreading out where the new content is going. They've added 1 new UR character and 1 new UR weapon, 1 Rare character and 1 Rare weapon, then an Uncommon weapon.
I can in the space of an hour make 200k credits doing 5-6 random matches on Silver(which, realistically, you should be running with level 10 or higher characters but I keep getting dumped into matches where I have to carry lower levels), as each mission pays out around 20k.
Point is, there is no way shape or form where Andromeda Credits are currently necessary. If you buy any for packs, that's on you.
Gamgee wrote: Actually your right. I totally forgot. I should say this is an interesting move for the battlefield series/dice since their games almost have always had season passes until now. Even the recent battlefield 1 had one.
Battlefield games have been a mixed bag of free and season pass content since BF3.
They have a season pass which gives you special playlists tied to new maps/game modes(effectively gating that content off) but still allows for weapons/vehicles, etc to appear in the standard content.
Battlefront had a season pass, but also had free content drops every time a season pass item dropped.
Still it's good news.
Microtransacitons are not. From what I've seen of MEA's microtransacitons they are the most gouging of EA's yet. Still at least I can avoid them if I don't want them.
"From what you've seen"? Have you actually played or, as usual for you, are you going off third hand knowledge?
The MEA Microtransactions are strictly for MP. Anyone who buys them expecting to get good stuff, without having invested a bit of time into playing the MP side of things first, is an idiot. BioWare has never made a secret of the way their loot box formulations worked since they made packs available with real money after the first free DLC for ME3's Multiplayer.
The way that Mass Effect's loot boxes work:
You get a certain number of items, with the numbers going up per pack.
Supply Packs contain nothing but consumables--cannot be purchased with "Andromeda Credits"(they added a special currency that you can buy for packs rather than before where it was $2.99 for a single high-end pack or thereabouts in ME3). 2000 Credits
Basic Packs contain 5 items, with a chance at getting an Uncommon grade item. Cannot be bought with Andromeda Credits. Costs 5000 Credits.
Advanced Packs contain 5 items, with a guaranteed Uncommon and a chance at a Rare item. Can be bought with Andromeda Credits. Costs 20,000 Credits or 100 Andromeda Credits.
Expert Packs contain 5 items, with a guaranteed Rare and a chance at an Ultra Rare item. Can be bought with ACs. Costs 50,000 Credits OR 200 Andromeda Credits.
Premium Packs contain 5 items, with a guaranteed 2 Rare items and the highest chance at an Ultra Rare item. Can be bought with ACs. Costs 100,000 Credits OR 300 Andromeda Credits.
As you finish out each tier of items to its maximum(each weapon, gear, or character has 10 levels)--they cease to pop up in the packs. Finish out your Commons; the Basic Pack becomes useless to you. Finish out your Uncommons, the Advanced Packs become useless, finish out your Rares and then you basically are just going to be picking between getting 2 chances for an UR or 1 chance between Expert or Premium Packs.
Unlike ME3 though, BioWare is doing a good job currently of spreading out where the new content is going. They've added 1 new UR character and 1 new UR weapon, 1 Rare character and 1 Rare weapon, then an Uncommon weapon.
I can in the space of an hour make 200k credits doing 5-6 random matches on Silver(which, realistically, you should be running with level 10 or higher characters but I keep getting dumped into matches where I have to carry lower levels), as each mission pays out around 20k.
Point is, there is no way shape or form where Andromeda Credits are currently necessary. If you buy any for packs, that's on you.
Calm down man. I watched Angry Joe's review and he hated the micro transacions and felt they were worse than in ME3. When I say worse I usually tend to mean grindy and more in your face. On the flip side another reviewer who I watched play a lot said he felt they weren't worse. Personally for me I think they got worse since it seems there is even more stuff to unlock which means more grinding to try and get the guns you want up to the level you want. It doesn't look like there is any way to level up just one gun fast. I'm more than familiar with BF3 and 1 since I own both and the season passes/premium. A small content update is a lot different from no more season passes of old. Which is a good thing.
It's good if they add content, but bad if I'll never touch it since it takes too much grinding to get or paying.
I think the reviewer I watched who didn't mind the microtransactions as much was Total Biscuit.
Gotta hand it to EA, they really listened to the feedback from the first game from what I can see. Prequels and space battles! Also I spotted some ships from the animated clone wars show which is cool.
Yeah, those space battles look incredible. It's a totally separate studio doing them (Criterion are doing space, DICE are doing ground, Motive are doing campaign) and much like the single player campaign stuff from D23, you can see the results of that; a great focus and attention to detail so hopefully no part is going to feel tacked on.
So, the beta is available to download now. Been playing it, it's pretty fun so far. It's only 1 Naboo map and 1 space fighter map but it's a pretty cool preview of what's coming. I don't know if it will last till release or if it's just up for a few days. I'm gonna be getting the full version when it comes out though. Liking what I see so far. It's basically Star Wars Battlefield 1 with a few twists
Necros wrote: So, the beta is available to download now. Been playing it, it's pretty fun so far. It's only 1 Naboo map and 1 space fighter map but it's a pretty cool preview of what's coming. I don't know if it will last till release or if it's just up for a few days. I'm gonna be getting the full version when it comes out though. Liking what I see so far. It's basically Star Wars Battlefield 1 with a few twists
Go into the "Strike" game mode and you get to play the lake planet from "The Force Awakens". It lets us get our first real look at the variant First Order Stormtroopers and the Resistance ground troops.
In general, it's a definite step up over the last game (which I did really like). The space battles are just absolutely incredible and it's nice to see 'proper' flight controls back. The ground stuff is also pretty great mechanically, the guns are a lot meatier now and the class abilities all work really nicely. I only wish they'd included leaning, lying prone and mantling this time, these things are pretty standard for shooters these days so it feels a tad clumsy playing without them.
My biggest concern is in map design, I'm not a fan of how committed they are to the Attacker/Defender dynamic in most game types; there's a major gap in the list of modes in the standard Conquest/ Command Post Capture mode that is really the headline in Battlefield One and the old Battlefronts. Failing that, I'd at least hope there's something to do on these maps other than play the same 3-stage battles over and over again. It'd be cool to reverse the Theed one with a Clone counter-attack starting from the throne room and busting out into the larger battle, or to give the Imperials an alternate space battle over Fondor where they launch an offensive from the orbital installation against a Rebel capital ship ect.
I just hope we don't end up in a situation where if you're playing a Clone on Naboo, you'll only ever be fighting a defensive battle, or if you're flying an X-wing at Fondor you're going to be taking out that Star Destroyer every time. Asymmetrical and multi-stage game modes and maps are all well and good, but I want to see either plenty of variety on the same maps or just a traditional symmetrical mode that isn't just the Team Deathmatch type.
I'm thinking it might just be the eras on offer, but this isn't grabbing me in the same way the previous game's beta did. While I like that they're including Clone Wars content and they've got the VA's from the show, I really dislike Theed as a location, and I've almost zero interest in the new film stuff yet.
The changes to how you access heavier weapons, jump packs, and vehicles is probably good mechanically for balance, but I can't say I don't miss using a rocket pack all the time, and the fact stuff like that is limited does seem to have impacted the map design since there's a lot less verticality - contrast Theed with Sullust or even Hoth from the first one - the rocket trooper now just seems like an engagement/escape mechanic rather than a real game-changer, especially since you're locked out of participating in the objective gameplay while using a Specialist.
I'm also obviously not happy with the inclusion of microtransactions, but the corporate game industry have successfully convinced people that they "need" additional revenue after the base game sales in order to support it(ie, they're unwilling to spend any portion of their profits from base game sales on supporting it), so it was bound to be something, and microtransactions *might* be better than paid map DLC and season passes. The issue I have is that the lootbox system looks to be grindy as feth - no automatic one box per-level like in Battlefield - and the current rumour is the top tier of item mods will *only* be available in premium packs. That could be a huge issue since the jump between 2nd best and top-tier is pretty massive, I've seen ones as big as going from 50% bonus to 80% bonus, and the fact that the only free way to earn Credits to buy the premium crates is to do well in the game, plus that the rate of gain for Credits is pretty low, there's a real danger of a "rich get richer" scenario where the only way latecomers, low-skill folk, or time-poor folk will be able to operate on a level playing field is to fork over real cash. And a lot of it, since of course the loot boxes are random gambletrash where you will often get duplicates that reward you with a pitiful amount of "crafting" currency.
I think I'll be waiting for reviews to see whether it's worth buying on the strength of the single player alone.
Yeah, for all its visual flair Theed is a pretty dull map. Flat, blocky, and thanks to the mission there's no back and forth, everything moves inexorably in one direction.
Yodhrin wrote: I'm thinking it might just be the eras on offer, but this isn't grabbing me in the same way the previous game's beta did. While I like that they're including Clone Wars content and they've got the VA's from the show, I really dislike Theed as a location, and I've almost zero interest in the new film stuff yet.
The changes to how you access heavier weapons, jump packs, and vehicles is probably good mechanically for balance, but I can't say I don't miss using a rocket pack all the time, and the fact stuff like that is limited does seem to have impacted the map design since there's a lot less verticality - contrast Theed with Sullust or even Hoth from the first one - the rocket trooper now just seems like an engagement/escape mechanic rather than a real game-changer, especially since you're locked out of participating in the objective gameplay while using a Specialist.
I'm also obviously not happy with the inclusion of microtransactions, but the corporate game industry have successfully convinced people that they "need" additional revenue after the base game sales in order to support it(ie, they're unwilling to spend any portion of their profits from base game sales on supporting it), so it was bound to be something, and microtransactions *might* be better than paid map DLC and season passes. The issue I have is that the lootbox system looks to be grindy as feth - no automatic one box per-level like in Battlefield - and the current rumour is the top tier of item mods will *only* be available in premium packs. That could be a huge issue since the jump between 2nd best and top-tier is pretty massive, I've seen ones as big as going from 50% bonus to 80% bonus, and the fact that the only free way to earn Credits to buy the premium crates is to do well in the game, plus that the rate of gain for Credits is pretty low, there's a real danger of a "rich get richer" scenario where the only way latecomers, low-skill folk, or time-poor folk will be able to operate on a level playing field is to fork over real cash. And a lot of it, since of course the loot boxes are random gambletrash where you will often get duplicates that reward you with a pitiful amount of "crafting" currency.
I think I'll be waiting for reviews to see whether it's worth buying on the strength of the single player alone.
That's the way "rumors" always work with regards to EA's stuff. We heard it with Titanfall 2(I'm flush with credits there and nothing to spend them on), we heard it with Andromeda's MP, and now we're hearing it again with Battlefront 2.
And yet, I haven't spent one fething dime on Mass Effect Andromeda's multiplayer that some whined would be mandatory to do so.
And no, "the only free way to earn Credits" is not to do well in the game.
Go into the "Career" section. There are Challenges there that require you to click on them to retrieve the Credit Rewards.
The reason why they are there instead of auto-rewarding is because it makes sure that you know that extra 300 Credits was from you having completed that specific Challenge(things like play 10 minutes as a Specialist rewards 200 Credits...for just playing a full match as one class) rather than something you did in the match.
And let's not forget that the Arcade mode exists and rewards Credits along with having unique Challenges that reward Credits tied to it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Paradigm wrote: In general, it's a definite step up over the last game (which I did really like). The space battles are just absolutely incredible and it's nice to see 'proper' flight controls back. The ground stuff is also pretty great mechanically, the guns are a lot meatier now and the class abilities all work really nicely. I only wish they'd included leaning, lying prone and mantling this time, these things are pretty standard for shooters these days so it feels a tad clumsy playing without them.
My biggest concern is in map design, I'm not a fan of how committed they are to the Attacker/Defender dynamic in most game types; there's a major gap in the list of modes in the standard Conquest/ Command Post Capture mode that is really the headline in Battlefield One and the old Battlefronts. Failing that, I'd at least hope there's something to do on these maps other than play the same 3-stage battles over and over again. It'd be cool to reverse the Theed one with a Clone counter-attack starting from the throne room and busting out into the larger battle, or to give the Imperials an alternate space battle over Fondor where they launch an offensive from the orbital installation against a Rebel capital ship ect.
I just hope we don't end up in a situation where if you're playing a Clone on Naboo, you'll only ever be fighting a defensive battle, or if you're flying an X-wing at Fondor you're going to be taking out that Star Destroyer every time. Asymmetrical and multi-stage game modes and maps are all well and good, but I want to see either plenty of variety on the same maps or just a traditional symmetrical mode that isn't just the Team Deathmatch type.
Fondor really can't go any other way, IMO. It's an Imperial shipyard.
That said, the "Galactic Assault" game modes are likely going to be static. I wouldn't be surprised if after launch though we get revisited versions of the maps that alter the dynamic--they did it with Battlefield 4, where the "night" versions of the original maps changed up the dynamics heavily.
I think you could add an imperial offensive element to Fondor by adapting the rules of Battlefield One's Operations mode. Instead of abruptly ending the game when the Rebels run out of tickets, give the Imperials a crack at the Mon Calamari Cruiser after going through some Blockade Runners. If they fail, the Rebs get another go at the Star Destroyer, and the game ends when one or the other Capital Ships has been taken out. It'd make the games longer, but I'll take that over the couple of 5-minute games of Starfighter Assault I've had where the Rebel tickets just got drained at an insane rate.
I also think the scoring in SA needs looking at; you can spend a whole match doing major damage to the objectives as the Rebels and the top half of the leaderboard will still be dominated by those who elected to go dogfighting and rack up 15+ kills instead. It's not so bad for the Imperials as their objective is getting kills, but for the Rebels, the fact that unless you're the one to fire the crippling shot at a system (which really comes down to luck) you get a paltry amount of points compared to what you'd get for a kill or even an assist.
Speaking of scores, it's a minor thing but I wish they'd let you actually see the scoreboard at the end of a round without having to bring it up from the pause menu during the endgame cutscene. I mean, what shooter doesn't just show you the scoreboard at the end?
Tried the beta last night and was thoroughly disappointed. The gunplay just isn't there. I love Battlefield 1 to death but these Battlefront games just don't do it for me. The original games from the early 2000s were much more enjoyable IMO.
One thing I dislike are the Heroes, they're simply too powerful, if anyone even vaguely competent gets their hands on one they're almost guaranteed to top out the scoreboard. The most egregious example is Maul once the fight gets inside on Theed - if you time it right you can just go through hallways and doors like a fething blender wiping out entire squads in seconds.
Maybe that's "canon", but it's not particularly fun for the plebs getting minced.
The supposed balance - you earning reduced points while using a Reinforcement or Hero - really isn't an obstacle if you're even vaguely competent, you still earn enough for a new "life" as your chosen power fantasy simply because of how effective they are.
Yodhrin wrote: One thing I dislike are the Heroes, they're simply too powerful, if anyone even vaguely competent gets their hands on one they're almost guaranteed to top out the scoreboard. The most egregious example is Maul once the fight gets inside on Theed - if you time it right you can just go through hallways and doors like a fething blender wiping out entire squads in seconds.
Maybe that's "canon", but it's not particularly fun for the plebs getting minced.
The supposed balance - you earning reduced points while using a Reinforcement or Hero - really isn't an obstacle if you're even vaguely competent, you still earn enough for a new "life" as your chosen power fantasy simply because of how effective they are.
I didnt really have any issue taking out the Lightsaber heroes, sure there is plenty of chance for people that are really good to abuse it, but I was able to focus Maul down as a Heavy.
So far I've liked how all the guns work they all feel like they can do something, which i never really got from the first of this series. One complaint I do have about the guns is that you can't (at least in the Beta) modify the basic guns like the DC-15s on the Clones. Sure its neat that you can unlock other guns, but I really dont like the look of the FWMB-10 and generally prefer to use the unit's actual weapons.
The Theed Map does get rather old, but I chalk that up to the fact that its only that map during the beta for that game mode, might be fine to see it after seeing other maps, but it will likely still suck. The Maz's Castle map for Strike is alright, Strike itself is a rather difficult game type at times if your team has no interest in actually playing the objective.
Space Battles are where I've had the most fun so far, I love the objective play it has. I love being able to fly a Y-Wing and kick ass. X-Wing? A-Wing? Pfft, I'll manage in my fighter bomber.
Oh one thing I am curious about, other people's experiences with the First Order Flametrooper. Out of all the Specialist Classes, he seems to be by far the worst of them. He's got no range on the Flamethrower and then I've experienced, playing one and being attacked by one, that even though the animation for the attack goes out to a specific distance, its actual range is only half of the flame. All I had to do was slowly back pedal, and I killed the dude. Like wise I attacked two guys but only killed the closest despite them both being in the flame.
Regarding Maul - Maul can be dealt with in the open, but a smart Maul player doesn't get caught in the open, and inside the building at the cap points I've only seen him go down once in the whole beta. If you can get in amongst a group they end up shielding you from the fire of their comrades while you kill them, then you use the high-damage leap ability to jump to the next group or jump back out of the room again. I think the problem is they wanted to make Maul play differently so he doesn't have saber reflect like other Jedi, but they made him so killy to compensate for that defensive weakness that a player who knows how to exploit the map design can turn him into a complete monster.
The other Heroes are less egregious but still are too powerful in the hands of a good player - I'd rather they were more resilient/harder to kill and risk having a bad player using my team's Hero allotment for the whole match than the present scenario when a good player can still use them for the whole match simply by virtue of murdering everything in sight so hard that they still earn enough points to immediately respawn as the Hero even with the point-earning deficit.
The Flame Trooper is objectively garbage. At the beginning I never saw anyone using it get any kills even inside Maz's castle, and after a couple of days nobody even bothers trying any more. Even when the Rocket Trooper is at max deployed and there's no other option nobody picks the Flame Trooper.
I bounced right off the space part tbh. The time-to-kill is too low for my taste, I liked the sort of gameplay you get in Jump to Lightspeed where everyone could take enough hits that you actually had a chance to outfly your enemy, whereas here once you commit to a fight you often won't even see who shoots you down.
The first DLC pack in December comes with Finn and Phasma as heroes, a new A-wing Hero Ship from TLJ, 2 new maps (ground and space) and further single-player story missions charting the rise of the First Order to boot! I tell you what, if we're going to get a free update like this every 3-4 months then that's really quite a sweet setup; new content for every game type including singe-player, a player-base that isn't split by DLC haves/have-nots like the last one was (I didn't get any DLC until I got the GOTY edition for about £5 in a sale) and weekly challenges and faction meta-games... plenty of stuff there to enjoy.
Spoiled the photo, but it's the calendar that EA put up with regards to the "Last Jedi Season".
Spoiler:
EA wrote:It all starts with choosing a side. On December 5, you’ll have an opportunity to align with the First Order or choose to fight for the Resistance. Your choice is important, as it will allow you to take part in special challenges that will grant your faction specific rewards.
Things kick into high gear on December 13. Your favorite stormtrooper-turned-hero Finn joins the fight for the Resistance and Captain Phasma steps on to the Battlefront for the First Order. They can be purchased with in-game Credits that week. Whichever faction is victorious in completing the most challenges that week will net a reward as well: a special Crate of high-power upgrades for Finn or Captain Phasma.
New locations and vehicles will also arrive. On December 13, the cinematic content from Star Wars™: The Last Jedi continues with a new planetary map: Crait. The Starfighter Assault map of D'Qar will join as well, plus a new hero ship – Tallie Lintra's RZ-2 A-wing. Poe Dameron’s T-70 X-wing is also upgraded with a new ability inspired by Star Wars™: The Last Jedi .
Iden Versio returns. In Star Wars™ Battlefront™ II Resurrection, you’ll join Commander Iden Versio during the days of the First Order’s rise to power. These new chapters of Star Wars™ Battlefront™ II’s single-player story mode will be available December 13.
Your choice of faction will continue to matter. Throughout December, you'll see your chosen faction's progress reflected in-game, as you fight alongside allies from around the world to swing the tide of battle.
curran12 wrote: Congrats to EA for making the most downvoted comment in Reddit history.
And I couldn't think of a scummier and better recipient for it.
You're underselling it. It's currently 20 times more downvotes than the second most downvoted, which was literally somebody asking for everyone to downvote them.
Link The entire subreddit is in open revolt against EA, because it was discovered that on top of your $60 purchase you also have to spend 40 hours or another $200 just to unlock Darth Vader, and another 40 hours or $200 to unlock Luke Skywalker.
I just heard about it and I. Am. Laughing. I'm sure everyone will buy the game anyway and it'll be a break out hit with huge profits for EA because people bitch easy and then bitch out even easier but at least for this moment it is amusing to see this trend in gaming get slammed so hard with a fair amount of press coverage calling attention to it.
I don't think gamers have made this much rage since the first player saw the ending to ME3.
Yeah, they basically didn't change a thing. The requirements were lowered by 75%, but the rewards you get were lowered by 75% as well. Should take just as long.
They also lowered the rewards from the campaign at the same time. The intention is the campaign gives you enough to unlock Iden.
I haven't been able to find out whether credit rewards for MP, Arcade, or Challenges were cut as well--at least not with any degree of certainty.
Speaking for myself, I really don't understand why it's such a big deal that you need to have all of the Heroes unlocked right away. It'd be one thing if they were behind a paywall...but things being locked behind in-game currency doesn't really deserve this kind of nonsensical garbage.
They also lowered the rewards from the campaign at the same time. The intention is the campaign gives you enough to unlock Iden.
I haven't been able to find out whether credit rewards for MP, Arcade, or Challenges were cut as well--at least not with any degree of certainty.
Speaking for myself, I really don't understand why it's such a big deal that you need to have all of the Heroes unlocked right away. It'd be one thing if they were behind a paywall...but things being locked behind in-game currency doesn't really deserve this kind of nonsensical garbage.
If it was just a "play x long and it will unlock" it wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that someone, in the first instant, can go and drop $200, and get access to it, and then proceed to walk all over everyone who can't do something like that, that's where the whole pay to win thing comes into play.
Yeah, that's wrong. I'm already giving EA my money, but they're telling me my money is not as good as other peoples money.
They also lowered the rewards from the campaign at the same time. The intention is the campaign gives you enough to unlock Iden.
I haven't been able to find out whether credit rewards for MP, Arcade, or Challenges were cut as well--at least not with any degree of certainty.
Speaking for myself, I really don't understand why it's such a big deal that you need to have all of the Heroes unlocked right away. It'd be one thing if they were behind a paywall...but things being locked behind in-game currency doesn't really deserve this kind of nonsensical garbage.
If it was just a "play x long and it will unlock" it wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that someone, in the first instant, can go and drop $200, and get access to it, and then proceed to walk all over everyone who can't do something like that, that's where the whole pay to win thing comes into play.
Yeah, that's wrong. I'm already giving EA my money, but they're telling me my money is not as good as other peoples money.
Here's the part where I'm confused. From what I remember of the beta, lootboxes didn't reward you credits (which again I won't know until I have game in hand next week) so I don't know if the heroes are craftable or just purchasable.
But if it's a case of lootboxes awarding credits or something like that, well...$200 is what someone has math-grinded out as "the number" for you to get those specific heroes. Same with the 40 hours. It likely doesn't factor in the credit bonuses from daily challenges or the one-time boosts from class specific challenges and the like.
Very rarely do they actually factor in the whole, y'know, "blind box" aspect of loot boxes.
They also lowered the rewards from the campaign at the same time. The intention is the campaign gives you enough to unlock Iden.
I haven't been able to find out whether credit rewards for MP, Arcade, or Challenges were cut as well--at least not with any degree of certainty.
Speaking for myself, I really don't understand why it's such a big deal that you need to have all of the Heroes unlocked right away. It'd be one thing if they were behind a paywall...but things being locked behind in-game currency doesn't really deserve this kind of nonsensical garbage.
If it was just a "play x long and it will unlock" it wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that someone, in the first instant, can go and drop $200, and get access to it, and then proceed to walk all over everyone who can't do something like that, that's where the whole pay to win thing comes into play.
Yeah, that's wrong. I'm already giving EA my money, but they're telling me my money is not as good as other peoples money.
Here's the part where I'm confused. From what I remember of the beta, lootboxes didn't reward you credits (which again I won't know until I have game in hand next week) so I don't know if the heroes are craftable or just purchasable.
But if it's a case of lootboxes awarding credits or something like that, well...$200 is what someone has math-grinded out as "the number" for you to get those specific heroes. Same with the 40 hours. It likely doesn't factor in the credit bonuses from daily challenges or the one-time boosts from class specific challenges and the like.
Very rarely do they actually factor in the whole, y'know, "blind box" aspect of loot boxes.
Right, let's acknowledge the "not gambling" gambling of it all, shall we? That is somehow unregulated and is shockingly predatory.
I think the whole pay to win thing is pretty lame. I avoid freemium games because of it. I don't mind if it's handled like Overwatch where all you get in the loot boxes is new skins and stuff, though. I don't really play often enough to be able to unlock top tier things, and don't plan to pay any cash for crates or micropurchases ever for any game. Games are expensive enough as it is.
The beta was fun but this isn't really at the top of my list now. I'll wait till the price drops way down in a year or so. Most likely it will end up like most other games where I just play through the campaign, and a week or 2 worth of multiplayer, then drop it for the next new game. Guess it doesn't effect me much in the end, but either way it's a crappy tactic I don't really wanna support.
They also lowered the rewards from the campaign at the same time. The intention is the campaign gives you enough to unlock Iden.
I haven't been able to find out whether credit rewards for MP, Arcade, or Challenges were cut as well--at least not with any degree of certainty.
Speaking for myself, I really don't understand why it's such a big deal that you need to have all of the Heroes unlocked right away. It'd be one thing if they were behind a paywall...but things being locked behind in-game currency doesn't really deserve this kind of nonsensical garbage.
If it was just a "play x long and it will unlock" it wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that someone, in the first instant, can go and drop $200, and get access to it, and then proceed to walk all over everyone who can't do something like that, that's where the whole pay to win thing comes into play.
Yeah, that's wrong. I'm already giving EA my money, but they're telling me my money is not as good as other peoples money.
Except spending the $200 to be able to have access to Vader and Luke isn't gonna equate to the player being able to walk all over other players. Just cause you have the option to play as them doesn't mean you will be able to. You still need to get the points in the match to be able to use them.
Necros wrote: I think the whole pay to win thing is pretty lame. I avoid freemium games because of it. I don't mind if it's handled like Overwatch where all you get in the loot boxes is new skins and stuff, though. I don't really play often enough to be able to unlock top tier things, and don't plan to pay any cash for crates or micropurchases ever for any game. Games are expensive enough as it is.
The beta was fun but this isn't really at the top of my list now. I'll wait till the price drops way down in a year or so. Most likely it will end up like most other games where I just play through the campaign, and a week or 2 worth of multiplayer, then drop it for the next new game. Guess it doesn't effect me much in the end, but either way it's a crappy tactic I don't really wanna support.
One more mark on the Ctrl+Alt+Del Battle Front Shame Board!
Right, let's acknowledge the "not gambling" gambling of it all, shall we? That is somehow unregulated and is shockingly predatory.
So when do we go after MMOs for not dropping loot every time, 100% of the time from bosses?
Oh that's a nice false equivalency. Luckily, Dreadwinter already pointed out the dishonest flaw in this.
Except there's not a "dishonest flaw" in the comparison I made.
People DID pay to get carried in high end raids just for the chance to get high end loot.
People DID buy accounts with high end gear on them.
If you want to talk about a false equivalency or dishonest flaws, it's you pretending that RNG in one case(MMO boss drops) is not the same as RNG in another case(lootbox drops) or forgetting that there was in fact a market for legitimately sold or stolen/hacked accounts with high end gear.
Or hey, let's not forget Diablo's real money auctionhouse eh?
Except spending the $200 to be able to have access to Vader and Luke isn't gonna equate to the player being able to walk all over other players. Just cause you have the option to play as them doesn't mean you will be able to. You still need to get the points in the match to be able to use them.
Or that someone else isn't playing as them or you're on the right map/game type/faction to access them...
Oh you spent $200 on Vader? Cool. Too bad you're playing as Rebels...
Except spending the $200 to be able to have access to Vader and Luke isn't gonna equate to the player being able to walk all over other players. Just cause you have the option to play as them doesn't mean you will be able to. You still need to get the points in the match to be able to use them.
Or that someone else isn't playing as them or you're on the right map/game type/faction to access them...
Oh you spent $200 on Vader? Cool. Too bad you're playing as Rebels...
Exactly.
From the brief amount I played before work and game play during the beta, it def a fun game and I dont regret my purchase one bit. Im not bothered by the microtransactions, hell one person I know that was complaining about Microtransactions in BFII was just the other day talking about all the stuff he bought in GTAV.
Also it seems the Flame Trooper got a buff and that pleases me.
curran12 wrote: Congrats to EA for making the most downvoted comment in Reddit history.
And I couldn't think of a scummier and better recipient for it.
Battlefield 1 is the last EA gamer I ever bought. Looks like its the last game I'll ever buy. They've run everything else into the ground.
Probably not ever. EA didn't die a hero and has since lived long enough to be the villain, redeem itself only to heel turn into villainy once more several times over. They'll make some of the best games in the industry again someday. This also won't be the last time they try to gouge players for all their worth.
Right, let's acknowledge the "not gambling" gambling of it all, shall we? That is somehow unregulated and is shockingly predatory.
So when do we go after MMOs for not dropping loot every time, 100% of the time from bosses?
Oh that's a nice false equivalency. Luckily, Dreadwinter already pointed out the dishonest flaw in this.
Except there's not a "dishonest flaw" in the comparison I made.
People DID pay to get carried in high end raids just for the chance to get high end loot.
People DID buy accounts with high end gear on them.
If you want to talk about a false equivalency or dishonest flaws, it's you pretending that RNG in one case(MMO boss drops) is not the same as RNG in another case(lootbox drops) or forgetting that there was in fact a market for legitimately sold or stolen/hacked accounts with high end gear.
You mean the market that was completely against almost every ToS agreements and would get the accounts in question banned if you ever got caught? Farcical. That's like arguing the fact you can buy wargames products secondhand, and wargame products include RNG mechanics, means there's basically no difference between buying wargames and playing slot machines so gambling shouldn't be regulated.
Or hey, let's not forget Diablo's real money auctionhouse eh?
You mean the one that also had a pretty big backlash and got taken away in the end? Regardless, also not the same thing, since you knew what you were buying when you paid money.
As for the "you might end up on the other team" or "you have to earn enough points ingame to unlock the Hero anyway" lines - first off, the idea that someone willing to fork over 200 quid for an ingame advantage isn't the type of massive whale that will be buying if not all the heroes then at least several of them is a joke, those people are literally who this business model is built around. And secondly, you do have to earn reinforcement points in the game to get the Hero - something you can achieve with the same level of skill as a baby rolling their face across the keyboard, the game practically showers you with them unless you're so bad you spend half the match running into a wall and shooting the floor - but once you've done so you gain a HUGE advantage over non-heroes and for a good long while after release the vast majority of people competing to be the ones to unlock the hero in any given match will be people who bought the unlocks. If you can't grasp why normal, rational, sane folk who're not up for spending a thousand quid to unlock a reasonable selection of heroes(and of course make them even worse to play against by buying tons of gambleboxes to get the best upgrade cards for them) might take issue with that, I dunno what to tell you.
As for the "you might end up on the other team" or "you have to earn enough points ingame to unlock the Hero anyway" lines - first off, the idea that someone willing to fork over 200 quid for an ingame advantage isn't the type of massive whale that will be buying if not all the heroes then at least several of them is a joke, those people are literally who this business model is built around. And secondly, you do have to earn reinforcement points in the game to get the Hero - something you can achieve with the same level of skill as a baby rolling their face across the keyboard, the game practically showers you with them unless you're so bad you spend half the match running into a wall and shooting the floor - but once you've done so you gain a HUGE advantage over non-heroes and for a good long while after release the vast majority of people competing to be the ones to unlock the hero in any given match will be people who bought the unlocks. If you can't grasp why normal, rational, sane folk who're not up for spending a thousand quid to unlock a reasonable selection of heroes(and of course make them even worse to play against by buying tons of gambleboxes to get the best upgrade cards for them) might take issue with that, I dunno what to tell you.
Well even if you "roll your face over the key board" and gain the Hero that's still no guarantee that you'll instantly win with said hero. They are good but not unbeatable and the heroes do require some skill to use. Further more, Vader and Luke aren't inherently better than any of the alread unlocked characters, so all you're doing is paying to unlock a character you want earlier. Much like many MOBAs give you the option to do. Then there is also the fact that you cant just get the best upgrades out of the gamble boxes, they've even come out and said so much after the huge backlash over said gamble boxes.
You do not have to spend any further money on the game once you have purchased it if you chose not to, and you really wont be at a great disadvantage despite what you might think.
They also lowered the rewards from the campaign at the same time. The intention is the campaign gives you enough to unlock Iden.
I haven't been able to find out whether credit rewards for MP, Arcade, or Challenges were cut as well--at least not with any degree of certainty.
Speaking for myself, I really don't understand why it's such a big deal that you need to have all of the Heroes unlocked right away. It'd be one thing if they were behind a paywall...but things being locked behind in-game currency doesn't really deserve this kind of nonsensical garbage.
If it was just a "play x long and it will unlock" it wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that someone, in the first instant, can go and drop $200, and get access to it, and then proceed to walk all over everyone who can't do something like that, that's where the whole pay to win thing comes into play.
Yeah, that's wrong. I'm already giving EA my money, but they're telling me my money is not as good as other peoples money.
Except spending the $200 to be able to have access to Vader and Luke isn't gonna equate to the player being able to walk all over other players. Just cause you have the option to play as them doesn't mean you will be able to. You still need to get the points in the match to be able to use them.
You must be playing a different franchise. Battlefront is a game where a single good player can walk right over everyone else, but heroes are purposefully game breaking in how powerful they are. Even mediocre players can walk over people with them. Unfortunately the mediocre rarely get the chance and it's just a matter of an already stomp inducing player being given a hand that lets them stomp even harder.
It probably wouldn't be an issue if unlocking the characters without paying didn't take so much time (something that is made worse by the very face that you get more credits for doing better in matches, which is hard to do when those already super good players are rolling heroes and crushing you). Frankly the entire design of Battlefront since EA took over. It wasn't exactly great for multiplayer under Pandemic to be fair but Pandemic kept it just balanced enough to be fun, a concept that EA seems to have thrown out the window and replaced with a game design that is blatantly tailored to push people to just buy lootboxes.
Now don't get me wrong. Players bitch and moan about these things left and right, sometimes with absolutely no sense whatsoever. I remember when Destiny 2 came out for consoles and everyone was whining about Bright Engrams. Now I'm playing it and I don't understand it at all. There's nothing in Bright Engrams that makes playing the game easier. There is an item that can be bought for Bright currency (which comes from Bright Engrams), but I've got over 100 of the damn things without paying a dime so at the end of the day I walk away utterly baffled what all the fuss was about. But this is very different. This is closer to what Star Trek: Online has become, with the most powerful ships and equippables hidden inside gamble boxes and sure you can technically get them for free, but the time and effort it takes to do so is so long that you're more likely to give up playing the game before you get there out of sheer frustration and boredom.
They also lowered the rewards from the campaign at the same time. The intention is the campaign gives you enough to unlock Iden.
I haven't been able to find out whether credit rewards for MP, Arcade, or Challenges were cut as well--at least not with any degree of certainty.
Speaking for myself, I really don't understand why it's such a big deal that you need to have all of the Heroes unlocked right away. It'd be one thing if they were behind a paywall...but things being locked behind in-game currency doesn't really deserve this kind of nonsensical garbage.
If it was just a "play x long and it will unlock" it wouldn't be an issue. The fact is that someone, in the first instant, can go and drop $200, and get access to it, and then proceed to walk all over everyone who can't do something like that, that's where the whole pay to win thing comes into play.
Yeah, that's wrong. I'm already giving EA my money, but they're telling me my money is not as good as other peoples money.
Except spending the $200 to be able to have access to Vader and Luke isn't gonna equate to the player being able to walk all over other players. Just cause you have the option to play as them doesn't mean you will be able to. You still need to get the points in the match to be able to use them.
You must be playing a different franchise. Battlefront is a game where a single good player can walk right over everyone else, but heroes are purposefully game breaking in how powerful they are. Even mediocre players can walk over people with them. Unfortunately the mediocre rarely get the chance and it's just a matter of an already stomp inducing player being given a hand that lets them stomp even harder.
Except heroes seem to go down easier in this game, maybe its just me though. But my point, stated in the post I made after that one, is that the characters you have to unlock from playing the game aren't inherently better than those that come pre-unlocked in the game.
It probably wouldn't be an issue if unlocking the characters without paying didn't take so much time (something that is made worse by the very face that you get more credits for doing better in matches, which is hard to do when those already super good players are rolling heroes and crushing you). Frankly the entire design of Battlefront since EA took over. It wasn't exactly great for multiplayer under Pandemic to be fair but Pandemic kept it just balanced enough to be fun, a concept that EA seems to have thrown out the window and replaced with a game design that is blatantly tailored to push people to just buy lootboxes.
You also get credits from opening the loot boxes, and you get loot boxes from doing specific in game activities, there are plenty of opportunities for even bad players to get loot boxes with out having to spend money on the game. You also dont seem to need to have everything maxed out in the form of your cards to be able to manage.
Now don't get me wrong. Players bitch and moan about these things left and right, sometimes with absolutely no sense whatsoever. I remember when Destiny 2 came out for consoles and everyone was whining about Bright Engrams. Now I'm playing it and I don't understand it at all. There's nothing in Bright Engrams that makes playing the game easier. There is an item that can be bought for Bright currency (which comes from Bright Engrams), but I've got over 100 of the damn things without paying a dime so at the end of the day I walk away utterly baffled what all the fuss was about. But this is very different. This is closer to what Star Trek: Online has become, with the most powerful ships and equippables hidden inside gamble boxes and sure you can technically get them for free, but the time and effort it takes to do so is so long that you're more likely to give up playing the game before you get there out of sheer frustration and boredom.
Some people might give up, some might not, like I said, the upgrades arent the be all end all. Do they make your abilities better? Absolutely. Do you need them to be good? No.
No that out of the way, having beaten the short campaign. I have this to say about it;
Spoiler:
While I did have fun, it was absolutely not what I was led to belive it was supposed to be. Maybe I misinterpreted things, its possible I mean everyone has the capacity to see or hear what they want to hear. But when a game is said to be telling things from the perspective of the Imperial side of things, I expect it to actually be about the Imperial Side of things. What I don't want is to play as an Imperial for about 3 missions (before playing as Luke for 1 mission), before Operation Cinder's most nonsensical development, of destroying a completely loyal world to send the message of "BE LOYAL OR ELSE!" Which then leads our main character, Iden Versio and squadmate Del Meeko to betray the Empire and their other squad mate Gideon Hask. The two that become traitors then seem to spontaneously develop a hatred of Hask because he doesnt abandon everything they have ever known. Also particularly silly considering that Hask and Versio have been close since childhood and that Meeko and Hask had to become as close as brothers for an undercover Op (covered in the not very good Inferno Squad book). Sure I had fun with the game, and I liked seeing old Characters come back (Lando was pretty good) and new characters, such as Rebel Inferno Squad's Duros teammate, Hask and occasionally Iden and Del were good. But damn it, I wanted my Imperial PoV. I did after reading Inferno Squad predict that Iden and Del would go Rebel, I just figured it would be at the end of the game, not pretty much at the start. Well at least Hask survives and joins the First Order, rather than dying for being the loyal one, like I thought he would.
I feared that would be the case about the Campaign. Given that confirmation, the likelihood of me spending more than about £20 or so on the game is non-existent at this point. Having played a few hours of the full game on the EA Access trial, I am convinced that despite this version being a technical improvement in almost all areas, I actually had far more fun with Battlefront 2015. I really couldn't give a damn about the lootbox thing, that's not something that ever bothers me, but there are a few major things holding BF2 back, I think. Spoilered as it's a bit of a rant!
Spoiler:
- The fact that every game mode aside from Heroes (which I never had any interest in, even on the last game) and Blast (team deathmatch) are set Attacker/Defender asymmetric missions I just find really boring. Compare it to Battlefield's flagship mode, Conquest, where it's just a standard 'capture and hold' affair; in Battlefield, there's an organic cut and thrust as one team gains dominance on one area of the map while the other boxes up around their last couple of objectives somewhere else, or a daring squad can push behind enemy lines, capture their 'home' objective and turn the whole layout on it's head...
Whereas in Battlefront 2, the objectives basically consist of some combination of 'funnel everyone towards 2 or 3 killboxes', 'blow up this series of things' and 'follow this big thing and make sure it doesn't explode'... It's all so engineered and thus doesn't feel like what you're doing has any impact on how the battle goes. I wouldn't mind if each map had a mode like that as a more narrative option,alongside more traditional CTF or Conquest style modes, but the fact that the main (and at this point only) 40 player maps all adhere to this dynamic just makes them dull. Once you've played Theed or Endor or Space Over Ryloth once, you've played it a dozen times, the next battle you play there is going to be exactly the same with the only variety being at what point the attacking team is stalled. There's no back-and-forth, no scope for tactical thinking, it's just a case of rushing the nearest objective with as many bodies as you can throw at it and hoping for the best.
- The fact that you can have all the Heroes across all the maps is a major obstacle to what the game is ostensibly trying to be, an immersive Star Wars battle experience. It's not so bad with the era-spanning guns ect as you can hardly notice that, but nothing takes me out of an intense fight in the Theed palace like Kylo Ren showing up to pick a fight with Han Solo, or trying to take down a Republic cruiser over Kamino and being shot down by Poe Dameron or the Millenium Falcon... Again, fine, have a free-for-all mode somewhere, but was it too much to ask for era-appropriate restrictions for standard gameplay?
- Aside from the space battles, which I concede are utterly wonderful to play with the advanced (ie. proper) flight controls on, the improvements in the controls and gunplay leave me cold... Whereas the last game was a little basic in its shooting, it did have it's own identity. It wasn't the run-and-gun of CoD and Titanfall, or the sniper's paradise of Battlefield, it was a nice, accessible arcadey shooter with decent feeling weapons and a nice array of them. Here though, it's taken influence from Battlefield One but comes off as a poor imitation; it's closer, but still lacks such fundamentals of a BF-esque shooter like aiming down sights on non-scoped weapons, leaning/peeking and prone functions, actual ammo counters... it's an awkward half way between the last Battlefield and last Battlefront, and to me comes off lacking both the punchy, kinetic feel of the former and the joyful simplicity of the latter...
At this point, I hope at least something of a player base sticks around for BF2015, as I'll likely go back to that in the near future. I'll pick up BF2 when it's at a price I'm willing to pay for Starfighter Assault then spend most of my time on that mode and ignore the rest. Stick Starfighter Assault onto BF2015 and I've basically got my perfect Star Wars shooter. It's a shame I've been put off so completely as I was very excited for this, but for all it's technical improvements I'm just not having fun with it, which is ultimately more important than anything else.
12 years on, and I guess the original Battlefront II remains the most complete Star Wars shooter package going... I'd happily fork over the £60 now for a straight remaster of that gem of a game.
So more and more keeps coming out. It's been discovered today that if you earn to many credits in a certain window, the game will auto stop giving you credits. There's been reports of 3 hour stoppages, to 24 hour stoppages in ability to earn credits.
To comment with some experience on the whole credit thing, with the new prices the 'controversy' is totally overblown. Having played for about 5 hours (let's say 20 or so online matches, a few daily crates and a few challenges) I'm sitting on 19000 credits, or enough to buy Luke or Vader and have credits left over to afford the Rey/Chewie version of the Falcon after a couple more games.
Given that I'm pretty poor at the game itself, and can still afford the top tier of heroes, it seems to be the case that if you're actually playing the game, you can afford stuff. It's really a non-issue.
Paradigm wrote: To comment with some experience on the whole credit thing, with the new prices the 'controversy' is totally overblown. Having played for about 5 hours (let's say 20 or so online matches, a few daily crates and a few challenges) I'm sitting on 19000 credits, or enough to buy Luke or Vader and have credits left over to afford the Rey/Chewie version of the Falcon after a couple more games.
Given that I'm pretty poor at the game itself, and can still afford the top tier of heroes, it seems to be the case that if you're actually playing the game, you can afford stuff. It's really a non-issue.
And here we have the next step of this. The "well it isn't THAT bad so stop complaining" line, as if this experience alone somehow makes the predatory practices all okay.
But is it predatory if, after a couple of afternoons being totally mediocre at the game, I can amass enough points to easily afford the top tier of characters that everyone is complaining about? Predatory implies that the game is structured so that attaining these rewards through just regularly playing the game is prohibitively difficult, which is demonstrably not the case. If it was still 70,000 you'd have a point, but at 15000 points, you can afford Vader after a solid afternoon's play if you set your mind to it.
The crafting parts I agree are a problem, those do seem too limited for how infrequently you get them, but the credits are not a problem unless you want to unlock everything without playing the game at all.
Paradigm wrote: I feared that would be the case about the Campaign. Given that confirmation, the likelihood of me spending more than about £20 or so on the game is non-existent at this point. Having played a few hours of the full game on the EA Access trial, I am convinced that despite this version being a technical improvement in almost all areas, I actually had far more fun with Battlefront 2015. I really couldn't give a damn about the lootbox thing, that's not something that ever bothers me, but there are a few major things holding BF2 back, I think. Spoilered as it's a bit of a rant!
Yeah the promise of that story was initially the reason I was excited for the game in the first place. And like I mentioned after reading the book I expected it to happen, but at the end and in a much less i don't know, forced I guess, way. My roommates have both beaten or seen the game beaten and all the story and they are both in agreement, that it seems forced, the reason it happened was stupid and they both better empathize with Hask, knowing what they know of the team's background, than the other two.
Spoiler:
- The fact that every game mode aside from Heroes (which I never had any interest in, even on the last game) and Blast (team deathmatch) are set Attacker/Defender asymmetric missions I just find really boring. Compare it to Battlefield's flagship mode, Conquest, where it's just a standard 'capture and hold' affair; in Battlefield, there's an organic cut and thrust as one team gains dominance on one area of the map while the other boxes up around their last couple of objectives somewhere else, or a daring squad can push behind enemy lines, capture their 'home' objective and turn the whole layout on it's head...
Whereas in Battlefront 2, the objectives basically consist of some combination of 'funnel everyone towards 2 or 3 killboxes', 'blow up this series of things' and 'follow this big thing and make sure it doesn't explode'... It's all so engineered and thus doesn't feel like what you're doing has any impact on how the battle goes. I wouldn't mind if each map had a mode like that as a more narrative option,alongside more traditional CTF or Conquest style modes, but the fact that the main (and at this point only) 40 player maps all adhere to this dynamic just makes them dull. Once you've played Theed or Endor or Space Over Ryloth once, you've played it a dozen times, the next battle you play there is going to be exactly the same with the only variety being at what point the attacking team is stalled. There's no back-and-forth, no scope for tactical thinking, it's just a case of rushing the nearest objective with as many bodies as you can throw at it and hoping for the best.
- The fact that you can have all the Heroes across all the maps is a major obstacle to what the game is ostensibly trying to be, an immersive Star Wars battle experience. It's not so bad with the era-spanning guns ect as you can hardly notice that, but nothing takes me out of an intense fight in the Theed palace like Kylo Ren showing up to pick a fight with Han Solo, or trying to take down a Republic cruiser over Kamino and being shot down by Poe Dameron or the Millenium Falcon... Again, fine, have a free-for-all mode somewhere, but was it too much to ask for era-appropriate restrictions for standard gameplay?
- Aside from the space battles, which I concede are utterly wonderful to play with the advanced (ie. proper) flight controls on, the improvements in the controls and gunplay leave me cold... Whereas the last game was a little basic in its shooting, it did have it's own identity. It wasn't the run-and-gun of CoD and Titanfall, or the sniper's paradise of Battlefield, it was a nice, accessible arcadey shooter with decent feeling weapons and a nice array of them. Here though, it's taken influence from Battlefield One but comes off as a poor imitation; it's closer, but still lacks such fundamentals of a BF-esque shooter like aiming down sights on non-scoped weapons, leaning/peeking and prone functions, actual ammo counters... it's an awkward half way between the last Battlefield and last Battlefront, and to me comes off lacking both the punchy, kinetic feel of the former and the joyful simplicity of the latter...
At this point, I hope at least something of a player base sticks around for BF2015, as I'll likely go back to that in the near future. I'll pick up BF2 when it's at a price I'm willing to pay for Starfighter Assault then spend most of my time on that mode and ignore the rest. Stick Starfighter Assault onto BF2015 and I've basically got my perfect Star Wars shooter. It's a shame I've been put off so completely as I was very excited for this, but for all it's technical improvements I'm just not having fun with it, which is ultimately more important than anything else.
12 years on, and I guess the original Battlefront II remains the most complete Star Wars shooter package going... I'd happily fork over the £60 now for a straight remaster of that gem of a game.
I like the new controls and the new gun mechanics, they were fine in BF2015, but I dont know to me atleast they feel better, particularly being able to cool the gun down at will.. But when it comes down to it the guns are essentially the same, the still have their different listed ROF, damage and what have you. So they are probably more alike than we realize, though the blaster bolts do seem to travel faster. Plus I like the return to the classes of OG BF and BFII. Star Fighter Assault is probably one of the best modes, though while admittedly I wasnt doing to great with it, I like the Strike mode, smaller objective based game play without the over saturation of Heroes. I think the large game mode definitely suffers from Hero over saturation. Even limiting it to Eras wouldn't help in that regards, at least with the Galactic Civil War period, because thats where most of the heroes are from. How ever I've never really cared much for the heroes, even in the days of the OG franchise I much prefered to play as the Basic Troopers or their specialists. The same is true now, I would rather play as the Jet Troopers or Enforcers (Death Troopers, Wookies, Flametroopers, ect) than the heroes. Still was able to drive off the heroes, but once you kill one, someone else will take their place.
To be fair, I'm being picky with the gunplay simply because I am holding it to the standards of DICE's last game, Battlefield One, which I reckon is probably the best shooter on the market at the moment (Titanfall 2 being a close second, though very different). You can see elements of it in Battlefront 2, like the names and sound effects when you score a kill, or the fact there are proper, non-Star Card sniper rifles now, but a lot of it just seems half-baked to me (though as I say, I am being particularly critical).
If you're giving me a sniper rifle and class, I want the ability to go prone so I'm not standing round like a lemon any time I use the scope or scanner. If you're going to introduce the option to reload at any time (a good step), then why not introduce actual limited ammo and give the Officer/Heavy classes a resupply role? It's the little things like that that just add up. Admittedly, though it definitely goes into the 'fine, but could be better' category, whereas I feel the limited mission types and cross-era hero saturation actively detract from the game.
Re. the campaign...
Spoiler:
I was really looking forward to a proper Imperial story, I've been wanting something like that ever since Disney announced new Star Wars stuff was happening, hence my disappointment with that resolution to the campaign. I appreciate that Star Wars is black and white and the bad guys are the bad guys without exception, but that doesn't mean we can't see a story from the Empire's perspective and still enjoy it. If they weren't going to do it in a film, this game would be the perfect place with a less mainstream audience, but alas they seem to have copped out a bit which is a real shame. I can't say I'm surprised, but definitely disappointed.
So some pretty interesting news from Belgium. The games of chance/gambling commission has started an inquiry into if Battlefront 2 loot crates could be considered gambling. Of course it might end up nowhere, but if it is gambling EA might have to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and have their game removed from sale in Belgium. Might be the first pebble in an interesting avalanche. Source is only in Dutch sadly, but google translate should easily provide back up for what I said in case anyone is sceptical:
Disciple of Fate wrote: So some pretty interesting news from Belgium. The games of chance/gambling commission has started an inquiry into if Battlefront 2 loot crates could be considered gambling. Of course it might end up nowhere, but if it is gambling EA might have to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and have their game removed from sale in Belgium. Might be the first pebble in an interesting avalanche. Source is only in Dutch sadly, but google translate should easily provide back up for what I said in case anyone is sceptical:
It probably will end up going nowhere. There have been stupid attempts to go after EA's products with nonsense like this before; including an attempt to sue BioWare for the ending of Mass Effect 3...
Paradigm wrote: To be fair, I'm being picky with the gunplay simply because I am holding it to the standards of DICE's last game, Battlefield One, which I reckon is probably the best shooter on the market at the moment (Titanfall 2 being a close second, though very different). You can see elements of it in Battlefront 2, like the names and sound effects when you score a kill, or the fact there are proper, non-Star Card sniper rifles now, but a lot of it just seems half-baked to me (though as I say, I am being particularly critical).
If you're giving me a sniper rifle and class, I want the ability to go prone so I'm not standing round like a lemon any time I use the scope or scanner. If you're going to introduce the option to reload at any time (a good step), then why not introduce actual limited ammo and give the Officer/Heavy classes a resupply role? It's the little things like that that just add up. Admittedly, though it definitely goes into the 'fine, but could be better' category, whereas I feel the limited mission types and cross-era hero saturation actively detract from the game.
I definitely see your point
Re. the campaign...
Spoiler:
I was really looking forward to a proper Imperial story, I've been wanting something like that ever since Disney announced new Star Wars stuff was happening, hence my disappointment with that resolution to the campaign. I appreciate that Star Wars is black and white and the bad huts are the bad guys without exception, but that doesn't mean we can't see a story from the Empire's perspective and still enjoy it. If they weren't going to do it in a film, this game would be the perfect place with a less mainstream audience, but alas they seem to have copped out a bit which is a real shame. I can't say I'm surprised, but definitely disappointed.
Spoiler:
I'm right there with you on that, being a long time fan of the Empire. Its really bother some that they had a good chance to show that perspective, that again they advertised the game repeatedly as, and then decided to cop out and make it about the Rebels. They could easily have written the story in such a way where Iden and Del could have remained Imperials up to Jakku and then had them go pro-Rebel or even just anti-Imperial. Admiral Versio even goes as far as to point out that Jakku was just the Remants way to wipe the slate clean and start the First Order fresh anyway. He even goes on to tell Iden that he wants her to live a happy life after this, even though for the past while they've been trying to kill one another, suddenly no thats not there (but feth her best friend Hask, no she still hates him) and then she leaves. Why could that talk not have been to her as an Imperial, with him telling her to get out and let go rather than fall into the First Order? Then if they still absolutely needed Hask to be a villain in the future, they could have just took a page from Republic Commando and have him have been shot down, or left behind for some reason or another. In which case he still developes his resentment and hatred of Iden and Del for having 'abandoned and betrayed him.'
Keeping them loyal would remove my major plot issue with the game, Operation Cinder targeting Vardos. I mean the world is fething described as an "Imperial Paradise" and seems to only be targeted as a reason to force Iden into joining the Rebels. Simply blowing planets up obviously isn't enough to convince her that the Empire might be evil. She was on the DS1 when it blew up Alderaan.
At least Hask gets some revenge 20 years later when Kylo hands him Del. Setting up the sequel where you either play as a more mature Iden getting revenge for her husband, or their daughter getting revenge. Also sets up something for the new movie, because apparently Hask has something to do with Project Resurrection.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So some pretty interesting news from Belgium. The games of chance/gambling commission has started an inquiry into if Battlefront 2 loot crates could be considered gambling. Of course it might end up nowhere, but if it is gambling EA might have to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and have their game removed from sale in Belgium. Might be the first pebble in an interesting avalanche. Source is only in Dutch sadly, but google translate should easily provide back up for what I said in case anyone is sceptical:
It probably will end up going nowhere. There have been stupid attempts to go after EA's products with nonsense like this before; including an attempt to sue BioWare for the ending of Mass Effect 3...
You can't seriously be comparing a government agency investigation with a hateful fanbase? Also how is this stupid, this is the job of the organization. If loot boxes break gambling laws according to them that is a serious issue.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So some pretty interesting news from Belgium. The games of chance/gambling commission has started an inquiry into if Battlefront 2 loot crates could be considered gambling. Of course it might end up nowhere, but if it is gambling EA might have to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and have their game removed from sale in Belgium. Might be the first pebble in an interesting avalanche. Source is only in Dutch sadly, but google translate should easily provide back up for what I said in case anyone is sceptical:
It probably will end up going nowhere. There have been stupid attempts to go after EA's products with nonsense like this before; including an attempt to sue BioWare for the ending of Mass Effect 3...
You can't seriously be comparing a government agency investigation with a hateful fanbase? Also how is this stupid, this is the job of the organization. If loot boxes break gambling laws according to them that is a serious issue.
You're mistaking my point.
There have been attempts on the part of said hateful fanbase to get government agencies to take action and more often than not it ends up being garbage investigations that just take up money.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So some pretty interesting news from Belgium. The games of chance/gambling commission has started an inquiry into if Battlefront 2 loot crates could be considered gambling. Of course it might end up nowhere, but if it is gambling EA might have to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and have their game removed from sale in Belgium. Might be the first pebble in an interesting avalanche. Source is only in Dutch sadly, but google translate should easily provide back up for what I said in case anyone is sceptical:
It probably will end up going nowhere. There have been stupid attempts to go after EA's products with nonsense like this before; including an attempt to sue BioWare for the ending of Mass Effect 3...
You can't seriously be comparing a government agency investigation with a hateful fanbase? Also how is this stupid, this is the job of the organization. If loot boxes break gambling laws according to them that is a serious issue.
You're mistaking my point.
There have been attempts on the part of said hateful fanbase to get government agencies to take action and more often than not it ends up being garbage investigations that just take up money.
Problem being that this is an independent investigation by the Belgian agency into the social pressure on children to spend money on the loot box lottery system. If it can be categorized as gambling then the consequences are pretty serious. This isn't any attempt by a fanbase but an independent decision by authorities, its their job to do this, so its neither garbage nor does it take up money, they're simple doing the task they were funded for.
The article also makes mention of looking into the lootbox system of Overwatch.
And if this amounts to anything, in the worst case it could be nothing more than a fine of a couple hundred thousand Euro's, something that EA will fight and even if they lose, they can easily fork it over as they're rolling in money.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So some pretty interesting news from Belgium. The games of chance/gambling commission has started an inquiry into if Battlefront 2 loot crates could be considered gambling. Of course it might end up nowhere, but if it is gambling EA might have to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and have their game removed from sale in Belgium. Might be the first pebble in an interesting avalanche. Source is only in Dutch sadly, but google translate should easily provide back up for what I said in case anyone is sceptical:
It probably will end up going nowhere. There have been stupid attempts to go after EA's products with nonsense like this before; including an attempt to sue BioWare for the ending of Mass Effect 3...
You can't seriously be comparing a government agency investigation with a hateful fanbase? Also how is this stupid, this is the job of the organization. If loot boxes break gambling laws according to them that is a serious issue.
You're mistaking my point.
There have been attempts on the part of said hateful fanbase to get government agencies to take action and more often than not it ends up being garbage investigations that just take up money.
Problem being that this is an independent investigation by the Belgian agency into the social pressure on children to spend money on the loot box lottery system. If it can be categorized as gambling then the consequences are pretty serious. This isn't any attempt by a fanbase but an independent decision by authorities, its their job to do this, so its neither garbage nor does it take up money, they're simple doing the task they were funded for.
So why weren't they looking into Overwatch or COD?
Face facts:
This is a publicity driven investigation. Dollars to donuts they were sent complaints from a "fanbase" that still hasn't even likely played the damned game.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So some pretty interesting news from Belgium. The games of chance/gambling commission has started an inquiry into if Battlefront 2 loot crates could be considered gambling. Of course it might end up nowhere, but if it is gambling EA might have to pay hundreds of thousands in fines and have their game removed from sale in Belgium. Might be the first pebble in an interesting avalanche. Source is only in Dutch sadly, but google translate should easily provide back up for what I said in case anyone is sceptical:
It probably will end up going nowhere. There have been stupid attempts to go after EA's products with nonsense like this before; including an attempt to sue BioWare for the ending of Mass Effect 3...
You can't seriously be comparing a government agency investigation with a hateful fanbase? Also how is this stupid, this is the job of the organization. If loot boxes break gambling laws according to them that is a serious issue.
You're mistaking my point.
There have been attempts on the part of said hateful fanbase to get government agencies to take action and more often than not it ends up being garbage investigations that just take up money.
Problem being that this is an independent investigation by the Belgian agency into the social pressure on children to spend money on the loot box lottery system. If it can be categorized as gambling then the consequences are pretty serious. This isn't any attempt by a fanbase but an independent decision by authorities, its their job to do this, so its neither garbage nor does it take up money, they're simple doing the task they were funded for.
So why weren't they looking into Overwatch or COD?
Face facts:
This is a publicity driven investigation. Dollars to donuts they were sent complaints from a "fanbase" that still hasn't even likely played the damned game.
As BrookM said, they are also looking into Overwatch.
Face facts: Who cares if its driven by just publicity, if the findings turn out to say its gambling it can have much wider implications. Nowhere do they say this is because of complaints. Regardless of why they do this it is a good thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: The article also makes mention of looking into the lootbox system of Overwatch.
And if this amounts to anything, in the worst case it could be nothing more than a fine of a couple hundred thousand Euro's, something that EA will fight and even if they lose, they can easily fork it over as they're rolling in money.
True, a fine is not very serious, but pulling the game from sale might be. What if other countries might follow and such. Its an interesting case after the CS:GO gambling mess. Also will they be able to keep fining EA in Belgium until they remove the loot boxes if they deem it gambling, I'm not sure but something like that would likely be the case.
As BrookM said, they are also looking into Overwatch.
Face facts: Who cares if its driven by just publicity, if the findings turn out to say its gambling it can have much wider implications. Nowhere do they say this is because of complaints. Regardless of why they do this it is a good thing.
Actually, if it's driven by "just publicity" then it means nothing.
BrookM wrote: The article also makes mention of looking into the lootbox system of Overwatch.
And if this amounts to anything, in the worst case it could be nothing more than a fine of a couple hundred thousand Euro's, something that EA will fight and even if they lose, they can easily fork it over as they're rolling in money.
True, a fine is not very serious, but pulling the game from sale might be. What if other countries might follow and such. Its an interesting case after the CS:GO gambling mess. Also will they be able to keep fining EA in Belgium until they remove the loot boxes if they deem it gambling, I'm not sure but something like that would likely be the case.
Then they'll just remove it from sale in Belgium or remove the ability to buy lootpacks via real money there.
Which in either case is not really a Big Deal. If you truly truly think people are going to be dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars into a game at launch for an advantage, you're as delusional as the twerps who think they deserve to be able to file a lawsuit against a game company for an ending they disliked.
As BrookM said, they are also looking into Overwatch.
Face facts: Who cares if its driven by just publicity, if the findings turn out to say its gambling it can have much wider implications. Nowhere do they say this is because of complaints. Regardless of why they do this it is a good thing.
Actually, if it's driven by "just publicity" then it means nothing.
BrookM wrote: The article also makes mention of looking into the lootbox system of Overwatch.
And if this amounts to anything, in the worst case it could be nothing more than a fine of a couple hundred thousand Euro's, something that EA will fight and even if they lose, they can easily fork it over as they're rolling in money.
True, a fine is not very serious, but pulling the game from sale might be. What if other countries might follow and such. Its an interesting case after the CS:GO gambling mess. Also will they be able to keep fining EA in Belgium until they remove the loot boxes if they deem it gambling, I'm not sure but something like that would likely be the case.
Then they'll just remove it from sale in Belgium or remove the ability to buy lootpacks via real money there.
Which in either case is not really a Big Deal. If you truly truly think people are going to be dropping hundreds or thousands of dollars into a game at launch for an advantage, you're as delusional as the twerps who think they deserve to be able to file a lawsuit against a game company for an ending they disliked.
Cut it with the delusional crap, you're being facetious as hell. Some people actually do spend hundreds of dollars into games for nothing more than cosmetics let alone actual benefits in games. That's why the system was designed in the first place, not for people who buy it once or twice, but people that buy dozens of packs.
Games like Overwatch and World of Warcraft, along with the Call of Duty franchise, played a big part in raising Activision Blizzard’s digital revenue for the year. The company said that it pulled in a record $3.6 billion of revenue from in-game content, up 125 percent year-over-year (excluding King, the figure was still up 30 percent). That includes sales of items such as Overwatch loot boxes, Call of Duty supply drops and World of Warcraft pets.
3.6 billion in a single year. Even if were to assume that combined they have a 100 million players without overlap every single one would have to spend 36 dollars a piece on stuff. And not every single one buys things in game. This is a massive industry with individuals that do drops hundreds or thousands of dollars on these games.
LunarSol wrote: People drop hundreds of dollars into games like this every day. I'm probably being naive not including thousands into that number.
Eh. And if it were a different generation they'd toss that money at a series of guitars they never really learn how to play, which get dumped off in pawnshops to pay bills.
'people waste money on things other people don't value' should come as a shock to no one post Great Depression.
Dice admits they got it wrong (ie EA told them to do it and they're taking the blame) and have removed the ability to use real money until a later date.
Rumour is Disney threatened to pull their exclusivity deal if they didn't fix the mess.
Disney almost had to have stepped in, I just cannot fathom EA giving up this potential cash cow.
And the comments above about some people spending tons of money on these "micro" transactions is spot on. Generally something like 80%+ of the money made like that comes from less than 2%-3% of their customers. I've heard them referred to as "Whales" like the term sometimes used by Casino's to describe their big spenders.
vonjankmon wrote: Disney almost had to have stepped in, I just cannot fathom EA giving up this potential cash cow.
I can. I've said this before and will say it again:
EA is why we had free DLC for Titanfall 2 and Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda.
And the comments above about some people spending tons of money on these "micro" transactions is spot on. Generally something like 80%+ of the money made like that comes from less than 2%-3% of their customers. I've heard them referred to as "Whales" like the term sometimes used by Casino's to describe their big spenders.
Yeah, and most of the time it's done with stolen credit card information on accounts set up in Eastern Europe so it ends up having to get refunded.
I'll get this game when the Lootboxes are limited to Cosmetics only, or removed entirely.
tl;dr: I'll never get this game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The ESRB needs to get on this ASAP. Lootbox gambling rely on predatory mechanics that exploit addictive personalities. We shouldn't be exposing children to gambling any more than violence or sexual content, so I say Battlefront 2 should include gambling in its ESRB labels and carry a higher adult only rating.
Well, not the part where they suspended micro transactions. I suspect that was Disney's intervention. I don't imagine Disney will be happy that a Star Wars game with gambling mechanics is being marketed to children, especially now that Governments are investigating.
But you bet it came up in an EA board meeting before Launch that there would be a massive backlash. Their tactic is to push the boundaries as much as possible, then dial it back and pretend to be "listening to the players" until people are mollified and the News cycle moves on to the next controversy. But P2W gambling is still in the game even if its a little less expensive, and they've set a new status quo.
Other publishers and developers will be watching EA like Vultures. If EA gets away with this, they'll have set a new industry standard.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'll get this game when the Lootboxes are limited to Cosmetics only, or removed entirely.
tl;dr: I'll never get this game.
Then it looks like you won't be getting many games, period, these days.
The ESRB needs to get on this ASAP. Lootbox gambling rely on predatory mechanics that exploit addictive personalities. We shouldn't be exposing children to gambling any more than violence or sexual content, so I say Battlefront 2 should include gambling in its ESRB labels and carry a higher adult only rating.
This is the new stealthy way of hating on EA I guess.
Well, not the part where they suspended micro transactions. I suspect that was Disney's intervention. I don't imagine Disney will be happy that a Star Wars game with gambling mechanics is being marketed to children, especially now that Governments are investigating.
Considering the F2P games that Disney has their hands in, I doubt that they are too unhappy with Star Wars games with gambling mechanics marketed towards kids...especially when Battlefront 2 actually is rated Teen rather than E.
But you bet it came up in an EA board meeting before Launch that there would be a massive backlash. Their tactic is to push the boundaries as much as possible, then dial it back and pretend to be "listening to the players" until people are mollified and the News cycle moves on to the next controversy. But P2W gambling is still in the game even if its a little less expensive, and they've set a new status quo.
Other publishers and developers will be watching EA like Vultures. If EA gets away with this, they'll have set a new industry standard.
Oh please. When EA starts showcasing what items you get in your lootboxes during the middle of a game(Looking at you COD: WWII), they'll have set a "new industry standard" and "encouraged gambling mechanics".
Kanluwen wrote: Then it looks like you won't be getting many games, period, these days
On the contrary. This year I bought...
The Long Dark Life Is Strange Before the Storm TWD: A New Frontier Sonic Mania Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice Total War: Warhammer 2 Tyranny The Vanishing of Ethan Carter The Witcher 3 Icewind Dale Baldurs Gate 1 & 2
This is the new stealthy way of hating on EA I guess.
Its got nothing to do with hating on EA. Its a predatory business practice which EA is spearheading in the AAA industry. Activision is also doing it too with COD WW2. I don't like Activision either, but then again I haven't played a COD game in a decade.
Considering the F2P games that Disney has their hands in, I doubt that they are too unhappy with Star Wars games with gambling mechanics marketed towards kids...[i]especially when Battlefront 2 actually is rated Teen rather than E
Those games haven't provoked a high profile customer backlash that drew public and Government attention to the gambling mechanics in those F2P games, they flew under the radar. EA however DID provoke a backlash and Disney won't want to be associated with that.
Also, Teens are still children and still vulnerable to gambling.
Oh please. When EA starts showcasing what items you get in your lootboxes during the middle of a game(Looking at you COD: WWII), they'll have set a "new industry standard" and "encouraged gambling mechanics".
Weapons and gameplay items in Pay to Play games used to be unlocked purely through normal gameplay progression. Now EA is coercing players to gamble their money to get those items, and making it a long slow grind to unlock them normally. Other developers WILL follow suit if EA gets away with this, and Lootbox progression will become the new norm. What is that, if not a new industry standard?
I don't understand, why are you defending EA? Do you WANT Lootbox gambling in a $60 game?
Oh please. When EA starts showcasing what items you get in your lootboxes during the middle of a game(Looking at you COD: WWII), they'll have set a "new industry standard" and "encouraged gambling mechanics".
Weapons and gameplay items in Pay to Play games used to be unlocked purely through normal gameplay progression. Now EA is coercing players to gamble their money to get those items, and making it a long slow grind to unlock them normally. Other developers WILL follow suit if EA gets away with this, and Lootbox progression will become the new norm. What is that, if not a new industry standard?
I don't understand, why are you defending EA? Do you WANT Lootbox gambling in a $60 game?
The point he's making there is that EA having loot boxes is hardly the biggest issue with loot boxes presently when Activision has a mode that showcases lootboxes, matches you with people that paid for loot boxes to see their loot and has a "watch them open their loot boxes" feature.
No in this case its entirely a valid point, because you're making it out for EA to be the big bad what if others follow suit villains, when Activision specifically set out to get others to follow suit. You're looking at only one part of the overall issue and assigning complete blame to one company for one game. Their both making a bad example, but one set out to be the bad example.
EA and Activation have been duking it out for the title of worst company ever for well over a decade now. There's little value in arguing over which is the worst, but its impressive to see the strides they've taken to stave off King Games bid for their crown.
It's not just EA and Activision though.. like every iphone game is a freemium pay to win microtransation thing. The whole industry is raking in the dough from impulse buyers. Too bad the guy that invented the idea didn't patten it.
I hate it, but I don't really see it as gambling.. but I can see how some might. I guess there's lots of similarities but I guess since I never really buy into them I don't have a problem. I just buy the game itself and maybe a season pass and leave it at that. I did buy a few loot crates for Overwatch though, and didn't get a single skin that I wanted, so I decided it was a waste.
Personally I don't have a problem with people wanting to pay for cosmetic stuff, but things that make you more powerful should only be available through gameplay. I really like how Overwatch handled it.. the characters are already all made and balanced and have all of their abilities right out of the box, and the crates are only skins and victory poses and stuff that just looks cool.
Kanluwen wrote: Then it looks like you won't be getting many games, period, these days
On the contrary. This year I bought...
The Long Dark
Life Is Strange Before the Storm
TWD: A New Frontier
Sonic Mania
Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice
Total War: Warhammer 2
Tyranny
The Vanishing of Ethan Carter
The Witcher 3
Icewind Dale
Baldurs Gate 1 & 2
So you bought, all in all, maybe half of those are actually new games and a bunch of revamps? Cool on you.
Also, Witcher 3 led to a game based upon gambling in the form of Gwent.
BAN IT!
This is the new stealthy way of hating on EA I guess.
Its got nothing to do with hating on EA. Its a predatory business practice which EA is spearheading in the AAA industry. Activision is also doing it too with COD WW2. I don't like Activision either, but then again I haven't played a COD game in a decade.
It's been spearheaded for years in the AAA industry starting with Valve. Team Fortress 2's loot boxes were basically the start of this whole thing. Activision was one of those that really set it into play with their games(COD had it and Overwatch has it as well. And let's not forget Diablo 3 with the "Gifts" that you give to other players on your friends list, past or present...) and EA did have them present in Battlefield 3 and 4(including a slew of lootboxes that you got throughout the calendar year just for having the Season Pass..except anyone who bought the Season Pass, even if after the game effectively was dead got them).
Titanfall had it in the form of "Advocate Gifts" that were just burn cards or weapon/pilot/titan skins and player emblems, and Titanfall 2 had it being just cosmetics.
The three most recent BioWare games had lootboxes as well for the Multiplayer side of things, buyable with cash or playing, with only Dragon Age: Inquisition being the one that people really hated on because of the idiotic way that characters got unlocked there for MP.
Considering the F2P games that Disney has their hands in, I doubt that they are too unhappy with Star Wars games with gambling mechanics marketed towards kids...especially when Battlefront 2 actually is rated Teen rather than E
Those games haven't provoked a high profile customer backlash that drew public and Government attention to the gambling mechanics in those F2P games, they flew under the radar. EA however DID provoke a backlash and Disney won't want to be associated with that.
And why did those fly under the radar? Because they weren't AAA titles that mouthbreathers wanted to whine about.
Also, Teens are still children and still vulnerable to gambling.
So when do we ban Pokemon and M:TG?
Oh please. When EA starts showcasing what items you get in your lootboxes during the middle of a game(Looking at you COD: WWII), they'll have set a "new industry standard" and "encouraged gambling mechanics".
Weapons and gameplay items in Pay to Play games used to be unlocked purely through normal gameplay progression. Now EA is coercing players to gamble their money to get those items, and making it a long slow grind to unlock them normally. Other developers WILL follow suit if EA gets away with this, and Lootbox progression will become the new norm. What is that, if not a new industry standard?
BZZZZZZZT. Nowhere has it been shown that there is a "long slow grind to unlock them normally". These figures presented by people don't acknowledge that once or twice a month DICE/EA run double XP and double credit weekends. They don't acknowledge that challenges exist in the game that award you loot boxes with crafting materials and other items to help your progression.
I don't understand, why are you defending EA? Do you WANT Lootbox gambling in a $60 game?
It's funny how you claimed that you're not here to "hate on EA" but then you try to play it as an "us versus them" mentality. I don't care about lootbox gambling in a $60 game. If Lil' Timmy's parents want to let him buy hundreds of dollars worth of lootpacks? Great. Lil' Timmy will learn a valuable lesson called "Don't be an idiot". If Mouthbreather Dan wants to drop hundreds in lootpacks to get the edge on other players, he'll learn the same lesson.
By and large something that was ignored with regards to lootpack/microtransaction purchases from EA titles was that they tended to be more frequent when coupled with free DLC drops. Titanfall 2 has had a rather large selection of cosmetic stuff before there ever became cosmetics that had an impact on the game(Warpaints for the guns you use that grant bonus XP to you and your team--which I might add people whined about the fact that the XP bonus was granted to your team as well, with threats to boycott the Warpaints because of that) and all of the actual in-game DLC(including a new Titan in the form of "Monarch" and a slew of new maps and executions and weapons) were free. The Prime Titans are just existing assets that were released, with none actually affecting gameplay.
Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect Andromeda had the same thing, where many people would drop maybe $5-$10 on the highest end lootpacks the day that new characters dropped [i]for free at the chance of getting the character. If you didn't get the character, oh well--you might have gotten one of the new guns or new mods or any number of things.
Long story short? If it can be proven that there is NO WAY to unlock these items by actually playing during the reasonable lifespan of a game, that's an entirely different argument to the one being presented by the mouthbreathers of the web. But since the game just officially came out today...
Nobody can really prove jack to a reasonable standard in regards to this. You can theorycraft it to hell and back again, but theory is one thing and reality is another.
Necros wrote: freemium pay to win microtransation thing
The thing is with Freemium or Free 2 Play games, they need to make money somehow, so the microtransactions are easier to swallow. The problem is that games you already spent $60 on then requiring more money. Its not really the same comparison.
Necros wrote: It's not just EA and Activision though.. like every iphone game is a freemium pay to win microtransation thing. The whole industry is raking in the dough from impulse buyers. Too bad the guy that invented the idea didn't patten it.
I hate it, but I don't really see it as gambling.. but I can see how some might. I guess there's lots of similarities but I guess since I never really buy into them I don't have a problem. I just buy the game itself and maybe a season pass and leave it at that. I did buy a few loot crates for Overwatch though, and didn't get a single skin that I wanted, so I decided it was a waste.
And in general, this is the way that it ends up happening. Someone buys a few loot boxes and then calls it quits because there's no guaranteed way to unlock things you want.
Personally I don't have a problem with people wanting to pay for cosmetic stuff, but things that make you more powerful should only be available through gameplay. I really like how Overwatch handled it.. the characters are already all made and balanced and have all of their abilities right out of the box, and the crates are only skins and victory poses and stuff that just looks cool.
It's important to note that Blizzard wanted Overwatch to be a competitive game from the start though. They knew how their game would be received if characters were locked or required purchases to get.
At the same time they give you nothing but free characters for Overwatch, remember that some skins are locked from the get-go because you didn't Preorder or didn't attend BlizzCon or didn't get a specific edition of the game. Remember that they lock some skins until a specific event comes out then put them back into rotation with new skins that cost 3x the cost of a similar skin in order to try to promote lootbox sales. Watch the next event that Overwatch has to see what I mean.
I do have to wonder if the whining with regards to Battlefront would still be there if EA did what they just started doing for Mass Effect's MP where there are 4 "starter packs" that unlock a Rare character to rank 2, two Rare weapons to rank 2, and then give you some of their SpaceBucks so you can buy a few more packs without depleting your stash of in-game currency but don't have to spend RealMoney(kinda). Or if they did like they used to/still do for Battlefield where you can buy a "Shortcut" for a specific kit and unlock all of the weapons instantly but you don't get them upgraded immediately.
Necros wrote: It's not just EA and Activision though.. like every iphone game is a freemium pay to win microtransation thing. The whole industry is raking in the dough from impulse buyers. Too bad the guy that invented the idea didn't patten it.
I hate it, but I don't really see it as gambling.. but I can see how some might. I guess there's lots of similarities but I guess since I never really buy into them I don't have a problem. I just buy the game itself and maybe a season pass and leave it at that. I did buy a few loot crates for Overwatch though, and didn't get a single skin that I wanted, so I decided it was a waste.
And in general, this is the way that it ends up happening. Someone buys a few loot boxes and then calls it quits because there's no guaranteed way to unlock things you want.
Personally I don't have a problem with people wanting to pay for cosmetic stuff, but things that make you more powerful should only be available through gameplay. I really like how Overwatch handled it.. the characters are already all made and balanced and have all of their abilities right out of the box, and the crates are only skins and victory poses and stuff that just looks cool.
It's important to note that Blizzard wanted Overwatch to be a competitive game from the start though. They knew how their game would be received if characters were locked or required purchases to get.
At the same time they give you nothing but free characters for Overwatch, remember that some skins are locked from the get-go because you didn't Preorder or didn't attend BlizzCon or didn't get a specific edition of the game. Remember that they lock some skins until a specific event comes out then put them back into rotation with new skins that cost 3x the cost of a similar skin in order to try to promote lootbox sales. Watch the next event that Overwatch has to see what I mean.
I do have to wonder if the whining with regards to Battlefront would still be there if EA did what they just started doing for Mass Effect's MP where there are 4 "starter packs" that unlock a Rare character to rank 2, two Rare weapons to rank 2, and then give you some of their SpaceBucks so you can buy a few more packs without depleting your stash of in-game currency but don't have to spend RealMoney(kinda). Or if they did like they used to/still do for Battlefield where you can buy a "Shortcut" for a specific kit and unlock all of the weapons instantly but you don't get them upgraded immediately.
Those skins also get heaving discounted in the next years rotation of events. Down to the price of regular skins. Blizzard did not intend to make Overwatch in to a competitive game at the start. If they had, they would have had a better way to view matches. They would also be focusing their balance on the competitive play, as opposed to casual play. They also had no league set up or anything like that for it. That is an absurd statement. What they had was a game for casual players that they hoped would become a very competitive game.
Those skins also get heaving discounted in the next years rotation of events. Down to the price of regular skins.
That only started this year with the Summer Games because of complaints from last year about the prices on things and the fact that when the Summer Games first started, old skins were still the price of the others.
And I wouldn't call it "heavily discounted" when it's just being made to the same price as another skin of similar rarity. Remember that those skins being purchasable was supposed to offset the fact that duplicates happened in loot boxes and were basically the only way for someone to gain credits outside of getting lucky and getting a money drop in their loot box. Want a loot box? Two options: Play or Pay. No challenges completed awarding loot boxes, it was just level up or pay cash for them before the Arcade loot box system was added.
Blizzard did not intend to make Overwatch in to a competitive game at the start. If they had, they would have had a better way to view matches. They would also be focusing their balance on the competitive play, as opposed to casual play. They also had no league set up or anything like that for it. That is an absurd statement. What they had was a game for casual players that they hoped would become a very competitive game.
This whataboutism is bad for everyone here.
Do you think the setup for their "league" took them as long as it should have? Do you really think they wanted a reliable way for people to view matches outside of BlizzCon or their specially sanctioned events?
Also, they have focused their balance on competitive play. Think about the fact that they locked you to "1 of each hero" even in Casual play as a wonderful example of this. Hell, even the game modes they put into the Arcade are things that Competitive players have asked for as "training grounds". The exception is the AI events like Junkenstein's Revenge or the Omnic Crisis, but even then those only last two weeks or so and then it goes right back into Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch and Deathmatch Elimination or Random Heroes.
Those skins also get heaving discounted in the next years rotation of events. Down to the price of regular skins.
That only started this year with the Summer Games because of complaints from last year about the prices on things and the fact that when the Summer Games first started, old skins were still the price of the others.
And I wouldn't call it "heavily discounted" when it's just being made to the same price as another skin of similar rarity. Remember that those skins being purchasable was supposed to offset the fact that duplicates happened in loot boxes and were basically the only way for someone to gain credits outside of getting lucky and getting a money drop in their loot box.
Want a loot box? Two options: Play or Pay. No challenges completed awarding loot boxes, it was just level up or pay cash for them before the Arcade loot box system was added.
Blizzard did not intend to make Overwatch in to a competitive game at the start. If they had, they would have had a better way to view matches. They would also be focusing their balance on the competitive play, as opposed to casual play. They also had no league set up or anything like that for it. That is an absurd statement. What they had was a game for casual players that they hoped would become a very competitive game.
This whataboutism is bad for everyone here.
Do you think the setup for their "league" took them as long as it should have? Do you really think they wanted a reliable way for people to view matches outside of BlizzCon or their specially sanctioned events?
Also, they have focused their balance on competitive play. Think about the fact that they locked you to "1 of each hero" even in Casual play as a wonderful example of this.
Hell, even the game modes they put into the Arcade are things that Competitive players have asked for as "training grounds". The exception is the AI events like Junkenstein's Revenge or the Omnic Crisis, but even then those only last two weeks or so and then it goes right back into Deathmatch and Team Deathmatch and Deathmatch Elimination or Random Heroes.
So, they started it with the first recurring event they had? Yeah, makes sense. They are pretty heavily discounted when they go from 3k to 1k. I am not well versed in the maths, but that seems like a discount to me. The difference between Overwatch and Battlefront is that you only get cosmetic stuff from Overwatch. So playing to get cosmetic stuff is not terrible. Also, leveling is not hard as it is the same XP every level.
No, they have not focused their balance on competitive play. They changed to the "1 of each hero" even in CASUAL PLAY because of troll comps that were unbeatable, making casual no fun. Walk in, 6 Bastions on the door. What are you going to do? They can burn through anybody. THAT is why they changed that. Not because competitive has that rule. Um, training grounds? That was in the game at the start of the game. You could go play against bots or go to their special training area.
Nothing you brought up has anything to do with Competitive play. In fact, one of the things you brought up goes against your premise that they balance around competitive play.
vonjankmon wrote: Disney almost had to have stepped in, I just cannot fathom EA giving up this potential cash cow.
I can. I've said this before and will say it again:
EA is why we had free DLC for Titanfall 2 and Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda.
And the comments above about some people spending tons of money on these "micro" transactions is spot on. Generally something like 80%+ of the money made like that comes from less than 2%-3% of their customers. I've heard them referred to as "Whales" like the term sometimes used by Casino's to describe their big spenders.
Yeah, and most of the time it's done with stolen credit card information on accounts set up in Eastern Europe so it ends up having to get refunded.
Well your entire credit card theory is utterly false, but whatever floats your boat. I wasn't talking about credit card charges that are later refunded, I was talking about the money that these companies actually get.
Just one link to demonstrate my point, there are a ton out there but it's actually not trivially easy to find now due to all of the current uproar ending up being at the top of searches currently.
vonjankmon wrote: Disney almost had to have stepped in, I just cannot fathom EA giving up this potential cash cow.
I can. I've said this before and will say it again:
EA is why we had free DLC for Titanfall 2 and Mass Effect 3 and Andromeda.
And the comments above about some people spending tons of money on these "micro" transactions is spot on. Generally something like 80%+ of the money made like that comes from less than 2%-3% of their customers. I've heard them referred to as "Whales" like the term sometimes used by Casino's to describe their big spenders.
Yeah, and most of the time it's done with stolen credit card information on accounts set up in Eastern Europe so it ends up having to get refunded.
Well your entire credit card theory is utterly false, but whatever floats your boat. I wasn't talking about credit card charges that are later refunded, I was talking about the money that these companies actually get.
Just one link to demonstrate my point, there are a ton out there but it's actually not trivially easy to find now due to all of the current uproar ending up being at the top of searches currently.
Those microtransaction games are a motherfether. I played Summoners War: Sky Arena with some friends for about 2 1/2 years. During that time, a buddy of mine spent according to him, at least $4000 on the game. He isn't even a big spender. The sad part? During the time I played I spent maybe $35 on the game and at one point had better Monster Units than he did.
Yeah I'm really against the micro transaction trend, I want a complete and fun game, charge me what you need to please.
But the money is there and companies will go hunting for it.
I think it will be very, very interesting to see what all of this does to the sales of SW:BFII. Will it have any appreciable impact on sales? The lack of all of the micro transaction money EA was expecting, at least initially will hurt a it but sales will determine whether this is a lot of people talking smack online or whether people are legitimately upset enough to not buy it.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I suspect they'll be put back in a few weeks under the guise of a catch up mechanic maybe even with some Thanksgiving/Chrimbly 'discount'
The Microtransactions? Probably not. The "community" has shown their ire, despite not really representing it.
I do expect to see Shortcut kits though. "Pay $5.99 and unlock all of a Specialist's weapons and star cards. No attachments or upgraded cards though. Level restrictions still apply."
Turnip Jedi wrote: I suspect they'll be put back in a few weeks under the guise of a catch up mechanic maybe even with some Thanksgiving/Chrimbly 'discount'
The Microtransactions? Probably not. The "community" has shown their ire, despite not really representing it.
I do expect to see Shortcut kits though. "Pay $5.99 and unlock all of a Specialist's weapons and star cards. No attachments or upgraded cards though. Level restrictions still apply."
At least then you know what you're paying for, so thats less unpalatable than gambling your money and getting a random reward.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I suspect they'll be put back in a few weeks under the guise of a catch up mechanic maybe even with some Thanksgiving/Chrimbly 'discount'
The Microtransactions? Probably not. The "community" has shown their ire, despite not really representing it.
I do expect to see Shortcut kits though. "Pay $5.99 and unlock all of a Specialist's weapons and star cards. No attachments or upgraded cards though. Level restrictions still apply."
At least then you know what you're paying for, so thats less unpalatable than gambling your money and getting a random reward.
Yeah, I have zero problems paying money for something in a game. I sometimes buy stuff on GW2s gem store and have no issues.
It was the random chance that pissed me off. I dislike gambling with a passion. Same reason, again using GW2 as an example, I will not buy keys for their loot boxes, nor buy into the new random mount skin loot box.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I suspect they'll be put back in a few weeks under the guise of a catch up mechanic maybe even with some Thanksgiving/Chrimbly 'discount'
The Microtransactions? Probably not. The "community" has shown their ire, despite not really representing it.
I do expect to see Shortcut kits though. "Pay $5.99 and unlock all of a Specialist's weapons and star cards. No attachments or upgraded cards though. Level restrictions still apply."
At least then you know what you're paying for, so thats less unpalatable than gambling your money and getting a random reward.
But that's not what the complaints were about, at least not up until a few days ago when someone started circulating a link on reddit and youtube that compared the two.
It was that it was a "Pay to Win" mechanic. The complaint was that paying real dollars got you earlier access to content that other players had to grind for.
So explain to me, why is it okay when you pay $5.99 and unlock the stuff early versus buying the stuff blind and unlocking it early?
Turnip Jedi wrote: I suspect they'll be put back in a few weeks under the guise of a catch up mechanic maybe even with some Thanksgiving/Chrimbly 'discount'
The Microtransactions? Probably not. The "community" has shown their ire, despite not really representing it.
I do expect to see Shortcut kits though. "Pay $5.99 and unlock all of a Specialist's weapons and star cards. No attachments or upgraded cards though. Level restrictions still apply."
At least then you know what you're paying for, so thats less unpalatable than gambling your money and getting a random reward.
But that's not what the complaints were about, at least not up until a few days ago when someone started circulating a link on reddit and youtube that compared the two.
It was that it was a "Pay to Win" mechanic. The complaint was that paying real dollars got you earlier access to content that other players had to grind for.
So explain to me, why is it okay when you pay $5.99 and unlock the stuff early versus buying the stuff blind and unlocking it early?
I didn't say it was OK, I said it was less unpalatable. Don't put words into my mouth.
I still don't like it because its still P2W and P2W mechanics have no place in a game that you have to pay $60 to purchase, but at least Shortcut Kits are not anti-consumer.
Turnip Jedi wrote: I suspect they'll be put back in a few weeks under the guise of a catch up mechanic maybe even with some Thanksgiving/Chrimbly 'discount'
The Microtransactions? Probably not. The "community" has shown their ire, despite not really representing it.
I do expect to see Shortcut kits though. "Pay $5.99 and unlock all of a Specialist's weapons and star cards. No attachments or upgraded cards though. Level restrictions still apply."
At least then you know what you're paying for, so thats less unpalatable than gambling your money and getting a random reward.
But that's not what the complaints were about, at least not up until a few days ago when someone started circulating a link on reddit and youtube that compared the two.
It was that it was a "Pay to Win" mechanic. The complaint was that paying real dollars got you earlier access to content that other players had to grind for.
So explain to me, why is it okay when you pay $5.99 and unlock the stuff early versus buying the stuff blind and unlocking it early?
Because when you pay $5.99 you know what you are getting. Anybody can pay that $5.99 and get that. It may take $100+ in order to get Vader, who is a very powerful character from what I have seen. It may take $10. You don't know. So somebody with limited resources is not going to be able to drop money on a game without knowing they are getting what they want in return. On the other hand, people with less limited resources may drop money on it until they get that character. Which would put them leagues ahead with no way of catching up other than luck of the draw.
That's stupid... No one asked for a Star WarsWatch. All anyone has wanted this entire time is an updated and modern version of Pandemics Battlefront II, so yeah EA is awful, not just for trying to pull a switcheroo in terms of game type, but for trying to pass the buck for the crappy loot box concept they were using to Disney who probably wasn't involved in the game's development.
Because when you pay $5.99 you know what you are getting. Anybody can pay that $5.99 and get that. It may take $100+ in order to get Vader, who is a very powerful character from what I have seen. It may take $10. You don't know. So somebody with limited resources is not going to be able to drop money on a game without knowing they are getting what they want in return. On the other hand, people with less limited resources may drop money on it until they get that character. Which would put them leagues ahead with no way of catching up other than luck of the draw.
I don't work 90 hours a week, to pay 8 hours of my time on a game to play on my 1 day off work each week to find I have to pay to win! I play to relax, I am not the ultra-competitive sort. EA will screw and will continue to find new inventive ways to screw money out of people whether they can afford to or not, or would prefer not too at all. I think they are ditching the loot box's before Christmas to get maximum purchase rates and then come January roll them out full time. I imagine all we will see is the same delayed plan, with perhaps more accurate results of what you get when you buy and hopefully a physically possible grind for people that don't want to do micro-transactions. I think it would be fairer to know what you are buying rather than continued pot luck, some have concerns it is bordering a potentially addictive form of card gambling, which at the end of the day many people would get hooked on doing when you read the horrifically stupid amounts of time people have calculated to unlock stuff without paying.
So in SW BF1 there was a survival mode where you and an online friend would have to survive waves of enimies. They still have that in the arcade mode but you cant have an online friend come in. Do you guys think they will patch it to where an online friend can come in and help instead of a split screen?
Is it worth getting for those of us who don't play online - i.e. is there a relevant and lengthy single player campaign? Or is more like CoD - essentially a multiplayer game with a single player experience bolted on?
Putting the microtransactions to one side, I've got two pertinent questions.
Given it was awful in Battlefront 1, is the Starfighter combat any good in this? How does it compare to say, Rogue Squadron? Am I better off just picking up a second hand Gamecube in that regard?
Does the single player actually properly brief you for entering the online version? Big issue with Battlefront is that as already covered, I'm an adult in full time employment and other things to do. I don't have the time to achieve Maximum Pwnage. I just want a game I can drop into and out of without just getting my bum handed to me by sad acts with nothing better to do.
filbert wrote: Is it worth getting for those of us who don't play online - i.e. is there a relevant and lengthy single player campaign? Or is more like CoD - essentially a multiplayer game with a single player experience bolted on?
Its the latter. Whilst I've not played the game myself, all Youtubers I've seen have described the campaign as shallow and unoriginal, it offers nothing new that you won't be doing in Multi-player anyway. I'd recommend simply watching a compilation of the cutscenes on Youtube like I did.
Given it was awful in Battlefront 1, is the Starfighter combat any good in this? How does it compare to say, Rogue Squadron? Am I better off just picking up a second hand Gamecube in that regard?
According to Jim Sterling, the star fighting is much improved over BF1. You now have full control over flight yaw, pitch, roll etc like a typical dog fighting game.
But if you're looking for a good start fighting experience, you'd probably be better off with a dedicated star fighting game anyway like Rogue Squadron. Don't get BF2 purely for the starfighting, you'll just be disappointed.
Honestly, the starfighter combat is the best thing about this game. Leaps and bounds better than last time round, looks stunning and in first person mode is the most immersed you can be in a Star Wars space battle without sticking a VR headset on. I'd happily buy an expanded version of that mode on its own as a full game. It does suffer from the same prescriptive map/mission design as the Galactic Assault mode, but because of the way it's set up you can contribute just as much by just jumping in and dogfighting for a bit.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Putting the microtransactions to one side, I've got two pertinent questions.
Given it was awful in Battlefront 1, is the Starfighter combat any good in this? How does it compare to say, Rogue Squadron? Am I better off just picking up a second hand Gamecube in that regard?
Does the single player actually properly brief you for entering the online version? Big issue with Battlefront is that as already covered, I'm an adult in full time employment and other things to do. I don't have the time to achieve Maximum Pwnage. I just want a game I can drop into and out of without just getting my bum handed to me by sad acts with nothing better to do.
The starfighter combat feels pretty similar, they got rid of the "press button to barrel roll" abilities and maybe the fighters are a touch more maneuverable? Not played Rogue Squadron so I can't speak to that, but I can say I had more fun playing the Jump To Lightspeed expansion for Star Wars Galaxies a decade ago(jesus) than I did with the starfighters in the beta, in the main mode or their own.
The singleplayer is about 4-5 hours but will apparently have additional chapters added as freeLC(though those may well be the first casualty if EA has to take a hit on their gamblebox system), I've only watched it but it uses the same mechanics as the multiplayer for the most part though obviously is a lot more scripted. Regardless, I doubt very much this will be a "dip in & out" kind of game - it's a HUEG grind to get upgrades through regular gameplay and you can't even focus on your favourite class or even weapon because all the rewards come, ultimately, from random gambleboxes - you're going to be up against people who've spent a ton of real cash and people who've ground hard enough to luck out and get some of the better upgrades and they will have a significant advantage, sometimes insurmountable given two players of equal skill. Like doing 100% more damage over a given period of time than you kind of advantage.
The consensus that seems to be emerging is that Battlefront 2 is a reasonably fun game completely and perhaps fatally undermined by a progression system constructed entirely around trying to push players towards RMTs, to the point that even disabling the RMTs only solves half the problem - now everyone is advancing really really really slowly, not just the dirty stinkin' poors who only bought the game itself.
The major difference in flight mechanics between the last game and this one (aside from the freedom that comes from being in space most of the time, rather than over ground) is that roll, pitch and yaw are all their own things now (with the Advanced Flight options on); where before you'd push left to turn left and basically go where your crosshair was pointing, now you can roll without turning and fly with a full 360 degrees of motion. It might be a bit more complex, but also gives you far more control over your flight and for anyone who played a lot of the older Battlefronts, it will feel instantly familiar.
There's a few other things as well; no lock-on for lasers, you just aim with a reticle, no evasive manoeuvre button so it's all manual now, more variety in ships and abilities now, and multi-stage objective based battles rather than just a dogfight to the death.
I didn't like the star fighting in the beta. I somehow just end up flying upside down all the time and crashing. I have the same problem with Battlefield 1's planes too. Maybe I just prefer boots on the ground.
filbert wrote: Is it worth getting for those of us who don't play online - i.e. is there a relevant and lengthy single player campaign? Or is more like CoD - essentially a multiplayer game with a single player experience bolted on?
It's a little bit longer than a COD campaign but yeah...it's essentially a MP game. There's the "Arcade" mode which has something called "Battle Scenarios" where it gives you a hero and a map and you play a team deathmatch or a timed mode called "Onslaught" where you basically try to meet a kill count before the timer runs out.
The SP is getting a DLC on December 13th(free) but no clue how long that will actually be to play through.
If you're wanting a Mass Effect or a Skyrim? This game might not be for you.
If you're wanting a game where you have a story to play through and then some (regrettably requiring you to be online even when doing Split-Screen) goof-off modes later? You might enjoy this and the Arcade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Putting the microtransactions to one side, I've got two pertinent questions.
Given it was awful in Battlefront 1, is the Starfighter combat any good in this? How does it compare to say, Rogue Squadron? Am I better off just picking up a second hand Gamecube in that regard?
Does the single player actually properly brief you for entering the online version? Big issue with Battlefront is that as already covered, I'm an adult in full time employment and other things to do. I don't have the time to achieve Maximum Pwnage. I just want a game I can drop into and out of without just getting my bum handed to me by sad acts with nothing better to do.
Forgot to reply to this one.
Yes, Single Player properly briefs you for the online. Many of the missions in SP are rejigged to also be MP ones(Shipyards of Fondor, for example). There are some missions where you specifically play as heroes rather than as Iden and those one-off missions award you a loot box with MP stuff. Upon game completion, you get a loot box with 5k credits and a few higher end cards for Iden. Intention is that you get to unlock Iden for MP that way and it lets you "buy" your first character unlock.
Initial unlocked characters, at least for me(preordered not sure if that affects Rey and Kylo Ren):
Yoda
Lando(voiced by Billy Dee Williams no less!)
Han
Rey
Boba Fett
Darth Maul
Bossk
Kylo Ren
Locked for credits are:
Chewbacca
Leia
Luke
Vader
Emperor
Iden
Iden is the cheapest at 5000 credits, Chewbacca, Leia, and the Emperor are 10k each, while Vader and Luke are 15k each.
Finn and Phasma get added to the game on December 3rd when "The Last Jedi" season begins and if the Resistance wins their little thing everyone who supported the Resistance(you have to choose between Resistance or First Order; won't matter if you play as them though since that isn't something you can control) will get a crate with two special cards for Finn and if First Order wins then the same happens for Phasma.
I gave up on Battlefield, because the starfighter combat was so utterly bobbins. And the 'offline AI' fights were horrific. I'd empty a clip into someone's head and do nowt. Two hits killed me, and any time it looked like I was about to squeak a win, me and my dudes would respawn in wherever the enemy were clumped up - and my AI teammates refused to gather in the kill medallions.
I'm really thinking I'll just get a Gamecube and Rogue Squadron games for it.
I gave up on Battlefield, because the starfighter combat was so utterly bobbins. And the 'offline AI' fights were horrific. I'd empty a clip into someone's head and do nowt. Two hits killed me, and any time it looked like I was about to squeak a win, me and my dudes would respawn in wherever the enemy were clumped up - and my AI teammates refused to gather in the kill medallions.
Stupid question, but did you have the difficulty cranked up high?
I'm really thinking I'll just get a Gamecube and Rogue Squadron games for it.
If that's the route you're wanting to go, just get a N64 and the -original- Rogue Squadron or get X-Wing vs TIE Fighter or X-Wing: Alliance on PC. Those games are so old at this point that a phone might be able to run them even.
Yodhrin wrote: you can't even focus on your favourite class or even weapon because all the rewards come, ultimately, from random gambleboxes - .
Not being able to upgrade your weapon with out lootcrates is completely wrong. Weapons are unlocked by getting kills in a class, like 100, 250 and then 500 kills. Weapon upgrades are gained from them playing with the weapon and getting kills with it.
Yodhrin wrote: you can't even focus on your favourite class or even weapon because all the rewards come, ultimately, from random gambleboxes - .
Not being able to upgrade your weapon with out lootcrates is completely wrong. Weapons are unlocked by getting kills in a class, like 100, 250 and then 500 kills. Weapon upgrades are gained from them playing with the weapon and getting kills with it.
Which is still a long grind that pressures players to pay up and speed up the process.
Yodhrin wrote: you can't even focus on your favourite class or even weapon because all the rewards come, ultimately, from random gambleboxes - .
Not being able to upgrade your weapon with out lootcrates is completely wrong. Weapons are unlocked by getting kills in a class, like 100, 250 and then 500 kills. Weapon upgrades are gained from them playing with the weapon and getting kills with it.
Which is still a long grind that pressures players to pay up and speed up the process.
Except you can't get those upgrades or weapons from lootcrates. You can't even craft them like you could in the beta.
Yodhrin wrote: you can't even focus on your favourite class or even weapon because all the rewards come, ultimately, from random gambleboxes - .
Not being able to upgrade your weapon with out lootcrates is completely wrong. Weapons are unlocked by getting kills in a class, like 100, 250 and then 500 kills. Weapon upgrades are gained from them playing with the weapon and getting kills with it.
Which is still a long grind that pressures players to pay up and speed up the process.
Yodhrin wrote: you can't even focus on your favourite class or even weapon because all the rewards come, ultimately, from random gambleboxes - .
Not being able to upgrade your weapon with out lootcrates is completely wrong. Weapons are unlocked by getting kills in a class, like 100, 250 and then 500 kills. Weapon upgrades are gained from them playing with the weapon and getting kills with it.
Which is still a long grind that pressures players to pay up and speed up the process.
Except you can't get those upgrades or weapons from lootcrates. You can't even craft them like you could in the beta.
Exactly as you said Kan, there is no way to speed up getting the weapons and their upgrades. No pay to win, you have to work for them. Even cards now are simple enough. Get Hero crates with your credits earned from playing. They are the cheapest of the bunch, in game reward currency not real money, and seem to provide the most Crafting Materials. Then take your crafting materials and make the card you want. Then grind to level up so you can level the card. Its not hard.
"No way to speed up getting the weapons and their upgrades" - uhu, aye, sure bub. Because the guy with purple epic versions of the best abilities isn't going to be making kills at a substantially faster rate than someone with bog-standard stuff
"It's not hard" - rofl. I think the last calculation over on Reddit was that it would take something like 5000 hours of play on average to unlock everything. And yes, that factored in the rate at which you gain crafting mats from crates as well(which is pitiful).
Look if some folk don't mind being taken advantage of, great, enjoy the game, but don't tell the rest of us that the warm yellow spray falling on is is bloody rain eh.
Yodhrin wrote: "No way to speed up getting the weapons and their upgrades" - uhu, aye, sure bub. Because the guy with purple epic versions of the best abilities isn't going to be making kills at a substantially faster rate than someone with bog-standard stuff
Do you know how to get purple epic versions of the best abilities?
Spoiler:
It's by leveling the class.
"It's not hard" - rofl. I think the last calculation over on Reddit was that it would take something like 5000 hours of play on average to unlock everything. And yes, that factored in the rate at which you gain crafting mats from crates as well(which is pitiful).
Did it factor in that you gain crafting mats from challenges as well?
Of course not.
Look if some folk don't mind being taken advantage of, great, enjoy the game, but don't tell the rest of us that the warm yellow spray falling on is is bloody rain eh.
Maybe you should take off your yellow tinted glasses and realize that it's just rain eh.
Yodhrin wrote: "No way to speed up getting the weapons and their upgrades" - uhu, aye, sure bub. Because the guy with purple epic versions of the best abilities isn't going to be making kills at a substantially faster rate than someone with bog-standard stuff
"It's not hard" - rofl. I think the last calculation over on Reddit was that it would take something like 5000 hours of play on average to unlock everything. And yes, that factored in the rate at which you gain crafting mats from crates as well(which is pitiful).
Look if some folk don't mind being taken advantage of, great, enjoy the game, but don't tell the rest of us that the warm yellow spray falling on is is bloody rain eh.
I maybe have one purple card on a class I don't even play. I have no problem getting kills in games or even doing well in the game. Maybe instead of complaining that you're only doing bad because "everyone else has better upgrades" you can realize that maybe its you. If you need absolutely everything in the game to enjoy it, well thats your problem. The devs havent taken advantage of me at all, other than the entry price, I've spent no money on the game, have no interest in spending money on the crates and I am having genuine fun. I'm sorry you're too bitter to have fun with something, that doesnt mean everyone is.
Last week, Belgium's Gaming Commission announced that it had launched an investigation into whether the loot boxes available for purchase in games like Overwatch and Star Wars Battlefront 2 constitute a form of gambling. Today, VTM News reported that the ruling is in, and the answer is yes.
The Google translation is a little sloppy, as usual, but the message is clear enough. "The mixing of money and addiction is gambling," the Gaming Commission declared. Belgium's Minister of Justice Koen Geens also weighed in, saying, "Mixing gambling and gaming, especially at a young age, is dangerous for the mental health of the child."
Geens, according to the report, wants to ban in-game purchases outright, and not just in Belgium: He said the process will take time, "because we have to go to Europe. We will certainly try to ban it."
And now, things will start to get interesting. I've reached out to the Gaming Commission for more information, and will update if I receive a reply.
LordofHats wrote: It would be a serious game changer if an entire market outright banned in-game transactions. Somehow though I doubt it'll get that far.
The issue becomes what is defined as a "harmful" in-game transaction or what is actually considered an in-game transaction or not.
To be honest considering how hot the Star Wars IP is or could be in gaming right now i'm shocked all they are doing is pumping out Battlefront games. I never found even the original two very inspiring. They were dumb fun sure, but they don't rank even in my top 5 SW games. I'm not sure we'll ever get SW games of the same caliber as KOTOR or the jedi outcast/JK games with new fresh characters and world building. I'd even take a modern version of podracing over another generic shooter like Battlefront. There is so much potential with the Star Wars property and its being squandered right now, absolutely nothing promising being done with Star Wars in gaming at all. I really enjoyed bounty hunter which fleshed out Jango Fett a good bit, plus republic commando was great. They just don't make games like that anymore...I don't want to play bland matches with characters from different eras fighting each other, it doesn't feel right, doesn't feel like Star Wars.
Thargrim wrote: To be honest considering how hot the Star Wars IP is or could be in gaming right now i'm shocked all they are doing is pumping out Battlefront games. I never found even the original two very inspiring. They were dumb fun sure, but they don't rank even in my top 5 SW games. I'm not sure we'll ever get SW games of the same caliber as KOTOR or the jedi outcast/JK games with new fresh characters and world building. I'd even take a modern version of podracing over another generic shooter like Battlefront. There is so much potential with the Star Wars property and its being squandered right now, absolutely nothing promising being done with Star Wars in gaming at all. I really enjoyed bounty hunter which fleshed out Jango Fett a good bit, plus republic commando was great. They just don't make games like that anymore...I don't want to play bland matches with characters from different eras fighting each other, it doesn't feel right, doesn't feel like Star Wars.
Visceral Games was working on an Uncharted style Star Wars RPG with a unique premise (i.e. not Jedi) focusing on a pair of smugglers...and then EA shut Visceral down and announced it was reworking the Star Wars game into a "Live Service" game (meaning, chock full of micro transactions).
LordofHats wrote: It would be a serious game changer if an entire market outright banned in-game transactions. Somehow though I doubt it'll get that far.
The issue becomes what is defined as a "harmful" in-game transaction or what is actually considered an in-game transaction or not.
"in-game transaction" is a rather well defined term at this point. I mean it only exists to describe a specific kind of purchase.
Harmful is probably a pointless term to haggle over. The only question is does the behavior constitute gambling? This is about consumer protection imo. Gambling is not a "purchase" in any traditional sense, and is treated distinctly from purchase for its exploitative nature. I think even in cases where P2W isn't an issue, lootboxes for real money constitute gambling and they should be regulated not just to protect consumers but to protect the industry itself. The massive explosion of in-game transactions I think is going to damage online games in the long run.
I'm not sure we'll ever get SW games of the same caliber as KOTOR or the jedi outcast/JK games with new fresh characters and world building.
Visceral Games was working on an Uncharted style Star Wars RPG with a unique premise (i.e. not Jedi) focusing on a pair of smugglers...and then EA shut Visceral down and announced it was reworking the Star Wars game into a "Live Service" game (meaning, chock full of micro transactions).
Yup I heard about that, it's why I didn't even bother mentioning it. As far as i'm concerned there is no hope for that game anymore.
Thargrim wrote: To be honest considering how hot the Star Wars IP is or could be in gaming right now i'm shocked all they are doing is pumping out Battlefront games. I never found even the original two very inspiring. They were dumb fun sure, but they don't rank even in my top 5 SW games. I'm not sure we'll ever get SW games of the same caliber as KOTOR or the jedi outcast/JK games with new fresh characters and world building. I'd even take a modern version of podracing over another generic shooter like Battlefront. There is so much potential with the Star Wars property and its being squandered right now, absolutely nothing promising being done with Star Wars in gaming at all. I really enjoyed bounty hunter which fleshed out Jango Fett a good bit, plus republic commando was great. They just don't make games like that anymore...I don't want to play bland matches with characters from different eras fighting each other, it doesn't feel right, doesn't feel like Star Wars.
Visceral Games was working on an Uncharted style Star Wars RPG with a unique premise (i.e. not Jedi) focusing on a pair of smugglers...and then EA shut Visceral down and announced it was reworking the Star Wars game into a "Live Service" game (meaning, chock full of micro transactions).
Er no. The idea is being reworked into a Destiny-esque game.
"Live service" is a term for an always online game.
LordofHats wrote: It would be a serious game changer if an entire market outright banned in-game transactions. Somehow though I doubt it'll get that far.
It doesn't need to - just removing the RNG element of any microtransaction purchases would curb the industry's worst excesses. For example, in Hearthstone you might still buy packs for in-game gold, but spending real money might get you 150 dust for crafting cards instead of 5 random cards of random rarities.
LordofHats wrote: It would be a serious game changer if an entire market outright banned in-game transactions. Somehow though I doubt it'll get that far.
It doesn't need to - just removing the RNG element of any microtransaction purchases would curb the industry's worst excesses. For example, in Hearthstone you might still buy packs for in-game gold, but spending real money might get you 150 dust for crafting cards instead of 5 random cards of random rarities.
But the rarity of "high value items" is what makes Loot Boxes such a mad money maker. Take STO for example. The grand prize of each loot box is a Ship, usually a strong one, and it has a .01~.05% chance of dropping out of a box. That system has netted Cryptic far more money than ships directly sold to players. $100s of dollar to get the grand prize, vs. the $30 charge for more generic ships in the store. Remove the randomness and the whole "loot box" model falls apart, making way for just generic micro-transactions that will likely become less common because developers get less out of them.
LordofHats wrote: It would be a serious game changer if an entire market outright banned in-game transactions. Somehow though I doubt it'll get that far.
It doesn't need to - just removing the RNG element of any microtransaction purchases would curb the industry's worst excesses. For example, in Hearthstone you might still buy packs for in-game gold, but spending real money might get you 150 dust for crafting cards instead of 5 random cards of random rarities.
But the rarity of "high value items" is what makes Loot Boxes such a mad money maker. Take STO for example. The grand prize of each loot box is a Ship, usually a strong one, and it has a .01~.05% chance of dropping out of a box. That system has netted Cryptic far more money than ships directly sold to players. $100s of dollar to get the grand prize, vs. the $30 charge for more generic ships in the store. Remove the randomness and the whole "loot box" model falls apart, making way for just generic micro-transactions that will likely become less common because developers get less out of them.
Spot on, this is why the random purchases need to go away. I don't mind companies making money but gambling in disguise like this is just exploitative. Society has condoned this type of thing in other aspects, the lottery and casino's being two such cases but with so much of the target audience for video games being children this type of thing just hits my "Something is wrong" button hard because at least society has realized that gambling is generally exploitative and requires that you be an adult to throw your money away.
Loot boxes are also going to be investigated in my country, the news ran an article on it yesterday with Battlefront 2 being one of the primary suspects, along with DOTA (or whatever the big one is these days) and Overwatch.
BrookM wrote: Loot boxes are also going to be investigated in my country, the news ran an article on it yesterday with Battlefront 2 being one of the primary suspects, along with DOTA (or whatever the big one is these days) and Overwatch.
Belgium has already declared it a form of gambling.
BrookM wrote: Loot boxes are also going to be investigated in my country, the news ran an article on it yesterday with Battlefront 2 being one of the primary suspects, along with DOTA (or whatever the big one is these days) and Overwatch.
Belgium has already declared it a form of gambling.
Britain has said it's not. So going to be a lot of back and forth on this I'd say.
To be more precise, the UK Gambling authority have said that it does not meet the current legal definition of gambling. Basically they're kicking the ball to Parliament and it's going to require legislative changes to update the outdated definitions of gambling.
I love the star-fighter assault mode. Galactic assault is just too quick twitch for me. Time to kill is too low for me to even begin developing skills. I basically just die anytime I see an enemy. In a starfighter I am much better though and though I sucked at first I've started to top my teams on a regular basis. It is a blast too. Heros are good fun but not to out of hand. I kill heros with standard tie fighters all the time because they can't shake me with all that agility and a full barrage really hurts if you can land it but when you play them they feel powerful at the same time.
The level grind to get cards seems to be about right. I'd like to play this game for at least 6 months and seeing how I have all 3 basic classes to lvl 15 with my prefered setups - plus my 2 favorite heros well on their way to lvl 15. I don't really see a problem with it. OFC I missed the first few days of the money crate fiasco. Game seems perfectly legit to me.
EA's day of reckoning is here after 'Star Wars' game uproar, $3 billion in stock value wiped out
Leading gaming YouTube personalities believe EA will be forced to change its practices after the "Star Wars Battlefront II" micro-transaction controversy.
"After the communal and political backlash EA received over Battlefront II, the industry at large is going to have to walk back its loot box plans a little," Jim Sterling writes in an email.
Tae Kim | @firstadopter
Published 4 Hours Ago Updated 18 Mins Ago CNBC.com
Electronic Arts' shareholders are running for the hills this month and for good reason.
The company's profitable business model is now at risk after angry gamers revolted over its aggressive in-game moneymaking strategy in "Star Wars Battlefront II."
EA's stock is down 8.5 percent month to date through Tuesday compared with the S&P 500's 2 percent gain, wiping out $3.1 billion of shareholder value. Its competitors Take-Two and Activision Blizzard shares are up 5 percent and 0.7 percent respectively during the same time period.
After EA gave a December quarter sales forecast slightly below Wall Street estimates on Oct. 31, some analysts suspected it was due to the "Stars Wars" title. The shares fell 4 percent the following day.
Then an uproar began after details about the game's character progression were revealed, a system so tedious players are resorting to rubber bands on controllers to acquire credits to level up.
The gaming community flooded social media and Reddit with thousands of negative posts, saying EA is unfairly compelling consumers to spend more money through micro-transactions for content that should be part of the initial $60 game price.
The controversy seems to be hurting the sales of the game, which was officially released on Nov. 17.
First week U.K. physical game sales of "Star Wars Battlefront II" declined 61 percent compared with "Star Wars Battlefront" from two years ago, according to GfK ChartTrack data. And the game is still not on the top 100 list of Amazon's best-selling video games year to date as of Tuesday.
One Wall Street analyst is also not impressed from his checks during the recent crucial holiday weekend.
"We were underwhelmed by sell-through for Star Wars: Battlefront II (EA) over the Black Friday weekend, which follows a controversial launch for the game," Stifel analyst Drew Crum wrote in a note to clients Sunday.
The game's weak sales are a secondary issue for Electronic Arts. The viability of its profitable micro-transaction strategy is now in question going forward.
Politicians vowed to take action to protect underage kids from the game's monetization practices. One Wall Street analyst is even calling for the industry to self-regulate before the government gets involved.
"Battlefront II is the pointy tip of the iceberg. … The biggest recent controversy has centered around EA's Star Wars Battlefront II, where early evidence suggests player anger over a mishandled loot box economy may in fact be impacting initial sales," Cowen's Doug Creutz wrote in a note to clients Monday. "We think the time has come for the industry to collectively establish a set of standards for MTX implementation, both to repair damaged player perceptions and avoid the threat of regulation."
However, with the increasing spotlight from the media and gaming community on the issue, Electronic Arts will likely be forced to dial back its extreme monetization strategies across its franchises, hurting future profitability.
EA chief financial officer Blake Jorgensen told investors in February its "Ultimate Team" sports micro-transactions business generated $800 million in high-profit margin sales for the company during the previous year. He added EA intended to extend a "similar mechanic" to its other franchises such as "Battlefield" and "Battlefront."
Now that whole strategy is at risk.
Leading gaming YouTube personalities believe EA will be forced to change its practices after the "Star Wars Battlefront II" micro-transaction controversy.
"After the communal and political backlash EA received over Battlefront II, the industry at large is going to have to walk back its loot box plans a little," Jim Sterling wrote in an email.
Joe Vargas of the AngryJoeShow, who has 2.8 million subscribers for his channel, agreed EA will be forced to permanently change its ways.
"I think gamers have drawn a line in the sand at pay to win loot boxes being tied directly to player progression in Triple AAA games. If EA continues that exact type of practice that was initially in Battlefront II then yes I'm sure it would backfire once again," he wrote in an email. "I don't think they will ever completely remove their loot box systems … instead the best course of action would be to keep it to cosmetic and bonus pieces for only the games where it makes sense instead of this recently insulting shotgun cash grab approach of stuffing ALL their major titles with it. The market will only handle so much."
Electronic Arts shares are still up 39 percent year to date through Tuesday in anticipation of future profits stream from micro-transactions.
Investors are likely to get disappointed under the new industry environment.
And yet, here you are gloating about this while having also whined about EA cancelling games because of reactionary nonsense like this.
Oh well. I enjoyed Battlefront II. All this hyperbolic trash has done is ensure that these Youtube personalities remain on my list of people whose opinion is worthless trash.
"Pay to Win" lootboxes...lol yeah, okay there guy.
Kanluwen wrote: And yet, here you are gloating about this while having also whined about EA cancelling games because of reactionary nonsense like this.
Oh well. I enjoyed Battlefront II. All this hyperbolic trash has done is ensure that these Youtube personalities remain on my list of people whose opinion is worthless trash.
"Pay to Win" lootboxes...lol yeah, okay there guy.
I think it was just time where something had to give, the whole microtransation thing in the whole industry is starting to get outta hand and I think this one blew up just because it's star wars and everyone wants to be luke or vader, and probably 80% of the complaints where just people on the internet jumping in because everyone else was. It's kinda a shame the sales are so down, it seemed like a well done game, it looks great and you can tell lots of talented people worked hard on it. They beta was fun to play and I still plan to pick it up some time.
I'm fine with paying for cosmetic stuff (because I won't pay for that and don't care if someone else does) but in this game I don't think that works as much, I mean there's only so many stormtrooper looks you can have.
I'm kinda worried if the companies can't rake in the dough with micro transactions they will start raising the base prices and DLCs. I'll drop $80-90 for a game + season pass if I really like the game, but that's really as high as I wanna go since I usually buy like 1 game per month on top of my addiction to army men. If the prices go up much more it'll probably mean I buy less and get a lot more selective.
That's quite the kicking EA has taken, hopefully lessons will have been learned
Yep the price of games might go up, but that's been long overdue, part of this whole mess is due to games trying to stick to the £40/$60 box price and then having to piddle about with DLC/passes/boxes, a full and complete $80 game might seem like a hike but it will at least be honest(ish)
Might also result in leaner operating but sadly it'll be the coding drones that'll feel the brunt of that
Turnip Jedi wrote: That's quite the kicking EA has taken, hopefully lessons will have been learned
Yep the price of games might go up, but that's been long overdue, part of this whole mess is due to games trying to stick to the £40/$60 box price and then having to piddle about with DLC/passes/boxes, a full and complete $80 game might seem like a hike but it will at least be honest(ish)
Might also result in leaner operating but sadly it'll be the coding drones that'll feel the brunt of that
That's what they will claim, but don't be fooled. It is all greed and profit. Don't let someone tell you that they need the scummy microtransactions to stay afloat.
Edit:
EA has now tried to explain its loot boxes as them wanting to "protect the canon" of Star Wars.
Turnip Jedi wrote: That's quite the kicking EA has taken, hopefully lessons will have been learned
Yep the price of games might go up, but that's been long overdue, part of this whole mess is due to games trying to stick to the £40/$60 box price and then having to piddle about with DLC/passes/boxes, a full and complete $80 game might seem like a hike but it will at least be honest(ish)
Might also result in leaner operating but sadly it'll be the coding drones that'll feel the brunt of that
That's what they will claim, but don't be fooled. It is all greed and profit. Don't let someone tell you that they need the scummy microtransactions to stay afloat.
It's not a question of "staying afloat". I don't think I've ever once seen EA or any of its companies claim that microtransactions were necessary to "stay afloat". Microtransactions are what finance free MP stuff to prevent fragmentation of player-base.
EA has done it for four games prior to this. It's how they know the model works.
Titanfall 2 had free content(a new Titan, new maps, new executions, and new guns) every quarter since its release. Christ, they even added a horde mode called "Frontier Defense" that costs nothing to get into. The paid content was strictly cosmetic on that end, at least at launch. They had sets of camos for your pilot, weapons, and Titans. They had what was called "Prime" Titans(alternate skins and voices for the AI on your Titan--it was based off the concept art that was otherwise unused) that were something like $4.99 per. And most recently they added the "Warpaint" and "Aegis" skins for your weapons and Titans respectively. Warpaint was the result of some of the artists going nuts and making some interesting weapon skins that have an in-game effect called "Squad Leader"(upon completion of a match, win or lose, there's a 30% chance for you to grant your whole team an XP booster that they can use in another match) that doesn't matter whether the weapon skin is equipped or not. "Aegis" skins were the result of some of the artists wanting to make some silly skins for the Titans and they just so happened to tie in well with the Frontier Defense mode and do the same thing as the Warpaint(30% chance for you to grant your whole team an XP booster).
Mass Effect 3 and Mass Effect Andromeda both had free content drops on the multiplayer side of things with the option(the option) to pay for item boxes that were random. Dragon Age: Inquisition had the same mechanic but their MP was just...bad. It was laggy and they made it annoying to get characters(you had to 'craft' the character using materials/patterns from missions and it was just...bleh. I played it for a month and then gave up) but there were no concerns there about people "paying to win".
And now we go to Battlefront II. They planned on keeping DLC free from the get-go(even before the microtransactions were announced the free DLC was) and anyone who didn't expect to see lootboxes come into play was a fool. With that part said, it's hysterical how many people ignore three factors:
1) Every day you login? You get a loot box. It's called the "Daily Login Crate" and it gives you a small amount of credits(ranging from 5 to 40) and a small amount of crafting materials (ranging again from 5 to 40--which I might add, 40 is how much one would need to craft a card that they did not have yet at its lowest power) and a random card that can be an emote, skill, or victory pose.
2) There is no real way to "shortcut" via lootboxes. Buying lootboxes for the potential credit rewards inside is moronic at best. I know that I'm personally averaging out roughly 175 to 250 credits per match of Galactic Assault when I'm getting dropped into a match halfway through and playing awfully.
3) Challenges. The challenges have credit, Crates, and premium currency payouts. The premium currency payouts, once completed, will be enough to buy a single Trooper Crates it looks like. The Crates that you obtain by completing the challenges, while one-time only, are tied to specific skills. Complete the "Stay True" Challenge for the Specialist's Infiltration ability, for example, and you get a Crate that will give you one of the upgraded versions of Infiltration(saving you having to drop 40 crafting material on the skill to unlock it).
The free DLC we're getting in December isn't just MP stuff though. We're getting a campaign DLC drop for free as well.
Not sure you want to be using Andromeda as an example of the good of EA, considering the state of the game. As well as the fate of its single player DLC.
curran12 wrote: Not sure you want to be using Andromeda as an example of the good of EA, considering the state of the game. As well as the fate of its single player DLC.
Yarp a higher box price wont prevent shenanigans but given the current furore if they up prices and persist in outright greed a bubble or two may well pop
With EA pushing it this far the bubble may be close to bursting already, especially with instances around the world looking into this sort of thing now, which may somewhere down the line result in some guidelines or the like to keep things more in check.
curran12 wrote: Not sure you want to be using Andromeda as an example of the good of EA, considering the state of the game.
Actually I absolutely do. It's another game that got screwed because of the nonsensical whining from people like yourself. There were people who picked and picked and picked at small things(including microtransactions for the multiplayer...which is PvE only so who gives a feth?) and streamers blowing small things like animation glitches out of proportion.
We see this every time EA releases a game that isn't a sports game. There's people who go out of their way to attack the game, people who like it, and people who worked on it.
As well as the fate of its single player DLC.
Oh you mean how the fate is that instead of being released as playable content because of negative feedback(a significant chunk of which comes from people who only do as Shadow Captain talks about earlier, "just watch the cutscenes on YouTube") from people who thought the game didn't deserve to exist or that it was some kind of "affront" to the Mass Effect brand, it's being done up as a novel?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BrookM wrote: With EA pushing it this far the bubble may be close to bursting already, especially with instances around the world looking into this sort of thing now, which may somewhere down the line result in some guidelines or the like to keep things more in check.
So, thanks EA!
I'll wait with bated breath for Activision/Blizzard to get as much crap as EA's been getting over this nonsense.
It won't happen though. EA's been voted "worst company" how many years now? From people who have literally no knowledge of the company or its inner workings.
Actually I absolutely do. It's another game that got screwed because of the nonsensical whining from people like yourself.
No, the game got screwed over because EA gave it to an inexperienced team and made them rush it out. Face it, the game is atrocious quality.
We see this every time EA releases a game that isn't a sports game. There's people who go out of their way to attack the game, people who like it, and people who worked on it.
Thats because the games they release are getting worse with every Launch.
Oh you mean how the fate is that instead of being released as playable content because of negative feedback(a significant chunk of which comes from people who only do as Shadow Captain talks about earlier, "just watch the cutscenes on YouTube") from people who thought the game didn't deserve to exist or that it was some kind of "affront" to the Mass Effect brand, it's being done up as a novel?
At this point, I'd actually prefer that EA continues the Mass Effect series with just Novels and Comics. I don't buy a game when that game is gak. I don't need to play it, I do plenty of research to inform my decision. I watch gameplay footage, I read reviews. I'll gladly take the word of TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling or Yong Yea over a rabid fanboy who refuses to acknowledge the glaring flaws in his favourite games.
Your enduring loyalty to a notoriously greedy corporation is adorable but rather weird and disturbing. Why are you taking this personally? Why do you care so much?
I'll wait with bated breath for Activision/Blizzard to get as much crap as EA's been getting over this nonsense.
It won't happen though. EA's been voted "worst company" how many years now? From people who have literally no knowledge of the company or its inner workings.
You must have been living under a rock for the past month. Activision has been getting plenty of flak over their underhanded and covert XP Throttling in Destiny, their patent for a Matchmaking system that deliberately pairs newer players with experienced players with more powerful MTX weapons to encourage the newbs to buy MTX, and the spectator mode in COD WW2 that makes a public spectacle out of opening Loot Boxes.
Your perception that Activision is not getting crap for their own sins is little more than cognitive bias.
Kanluwen wrote: There were people who picked and picked and picked at small things(including microtransactions for the multiplayer...which is PvE only so who gives a feth?) and streamers blowing small things like animation glitches out of proportion.
Actually I absolutely do. It's another game that got screwed because of the nonsensical whining from people like yourself.
No, the game got screwed over because EA gave it to an inexperienced team and made them rush it out. Face it, the game is atrocious quality.
It had issues but it really wasn't as bad as people thought. I went into it after hearing everyone's complaints (and still having the bad taste of ME3 in my mouth) and I found the game quite enjoyable if flawed.
We see this every time EA releases a game that isn't a sports game. There's people who go out of their way to attack the game, people who like it, and people who worked on it.
Thats because the games they release are getting worse with every Launch.
A problem common to lots of big developers.
Oh you mean how the fate is that instead of being released as playable content because of negative feedback(a significant chunk of which comes from people who only do as Shadow Captain talks about earlier, "just watch the cutscenes on YouTube") from people who thought the game didn't deserve to exist or that it was some kind of "affront" to the Mass Effect brand, it's being done up as a novel?
At this point, I'd actually prefer that EA continues the Mass Effect series with just Novels and Comics. I don't buy a game when that game is gak. I don't need to play it, I do plenty of research to inform my decision. I watch gameplay footage, I read reviews. I'll gladly take the word of TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling or Yong Yea over a rabid fanboy who refuses to acknowledge the glaring flaws in his favourite games.
Absolutely not a fanboy, nor is ME:A a favorite game of mine, but it certainly wasn't gak, flawed yes, gak no. I would have very much liked to have been able to play out more of it's story. Then for BFII, it too is a fun yet ultimately flawed game. I've been fortunate not to experience much in the way of the lag issues or what have you, and have had little issue dealing with upgraded people when I am not as upgraded. My main issue with the game is the Campaign not being what they sold it too me as.
Your enduring loyalty to a notoriously greedy corporation is adorable but rather weird and disturbing. Why are you taking this personally? Why do you care so much?
Not Kan obviously, but maybe he finds your blind and dogged continuing attacks just as weird and disturbing. As well as his own way of encouraging you to think for yourself and try something out rather than blindly adhering to the opinions of others?
I'll wait with bated breath for Activision/Blizzard to get as much crap as EA's been getting over this nonsense.
It won't happen though. EA's been voted "worst company" how many years now? From people who have literally no knowledge of the company or its inner workings.
You must have been living under a rock for the past month. Activision has been getting plenty of flak over their underhanded and covert XP Throttling in Destiny, their patent for a Matchmaking system that deliberately pairs newer players with experienced players with more powerful MTX weapons to encourage the newbs to buy MTX, and the spectator mode in COD WW2 that makes a public spectacle out of opening Loot Boxes.
Your perception that Activision is not getting crap for their own sins is little more than cognitive bias.
Except EA is getting disproportionately more attention over their sins vs Activision.
Kanluwen wrote: There were people who picked and picked and picked at small things(including microtransactions for the multiplayer...which is PvE only so who gives a feth?) and streamers blowing small things like animation glitches out of proportion.
Everyone who buys a game like Battlefront should be on an even playing field. One player
Spoiler:
should not get 100% damage reduction during Rocket Barrage while somebody else only gets 50% damage reduction during Rocket Barrage
just because the first player spent more money.
The problem with this idea is that you don't know one person spent more money or just has played longer/gotten lucky with lootboxes. The way these cards work now is that the more you've played the character and the more you've played in general, the more you're able to craft in regards to upgrades.
For example on the retail release(the screencap you provided is from the Beta build--in case you didn't notice), that card is still a Common one but grants 8/10/12/15% damage reduction instead of the numbers there. You can craft it at any time and since Boba Fett is one of the starter characters that you don't have to actually unlock with credits, he's one that isn't bad to put some upgrades into since you can also go into "Heroes v. Villains" mode and probably get to play as him.
But if you want to craft the upgrades for the card instead of getting them from lootboxes? You're looking at requiring card level 5 on Boba Fett(they've made it so that characters/classes/vehicles are "leveled" based on the number of star cards you own for that specific bit...5 cards on a character="character level 5") and player level 10(gained from actually playing the game) along with 80 crafting material to go from 8% to 10%. The next step up in upgrades each time requires an additional 5 rank, 5 levels, and 40 crafting material.
That was one of the balances they did based on beta feedback. That and y'know, they realized that Boba Fett having 100% damage reduction while doing that was nuts.
curran12 wrote: That's what they will claim, but don't be fooled. It is all greed and profit. Don't let someone tell you that they need the scummy microtransactions to stay afloat.
To be fair, consider that games have stayed the same box price since I was a kid. They haven't gone up in price in nearly 20 years, which doesn't remotely track with inflation or the rising cost of development since the 90s. So it's not really a lie. Fearful that a price hike would negatively impact sales, the industry instead developed the DLC/Season Pass/Microtransaction model, where they make the game and then make supplemental content to maximize profit.
Of course, cynically, a price hike is unlikely to reverse course on the current mode because these companies are greedy and gamers are stupid twits who will buy almost anything (and then complain about it). However I think that it's important to see how the market itself is partly responsible for the model we have coming to be.
curran12 wrote: That's what they will claim, but don't be fooled. It is all greed and profit. Don't let someone tell you that they need the scummy microtransactions to stay afloat.
To be fair, consider that games have stayed the same box price since I was a kid. They haven't gone up in price in nearly 20 years, which doesn't remotely track with inflation or the rising cost of development since the 90s. So it's not really a lie. Fearful that a price hike would negatively impact sales, the industry instead developed the DLC/Season Pass/Microtransaction model, where they make the game and then make supplemental content to maximize profit.
Of course, cynically, a price hike is unlikely to reverse course on the current mode because these companies are greedy and gamers are stupid twits who will buy almost anything (and then complain about it). However I think that it's important to see how the market itself is partly responsible for the model we have coming to be.
If that were true, then how come disabling microtransactions will have "no material impact on projected earnings"?
curran12 wrote: That's what they will claim, but don't be fooled. It is all greed and profit. Don't let someone tell you that they need the scummy microtransactions to stay afloat.
To be fair, consider that games have stayed the same box price since I was a kid. They haven't gone up in price in nearly 20 years, which doesn't remotely track with inflation or the rising cost of development since the 90s. So it's not really a lie. Fearful that a price hike would negatively impact sales, the industry instead developed the DLC/Season Pass/Microtransaction model, where they make the game and then make supplemental content to maximize profit.
Of course, cynically, a price hike is unlikely to reverse course on the current mode because these companies are greedy and gamers are stupid twits who will buy almost anything (and then complain about it). However I think that it's important to see how the market itself is partly responsible for the model we have coming to be.
If that were true, then how come disabling microtransactions will have "no material impact on projected earnings"?
EA's stock price is taking significant hits in the wake of this, compounded by the disappointing news last month that sales were down compared to last year. Of course they're going to tell their investors that it won't effect earnings.
Respectfully, make a better point or clarify it please?
All you said is that if it wasn't profitable then they wouldn't have done the development time. I addressed that. To go a bit deeper the premium currency was there anyways since it's tied to some challenges, they just made it so that you can buy it with real money as well.
All you said is that if it wasn't profitable then they wouldn't have done the development time. I addressed that.
Respectfully you claimed that the earnings on loot boxes were few and far between, which is nonsense because we know it isn't and no company spends effort on something without an expectation of meaningful returns. I called that silly, and you responded with some nonsense response about just linking premium currency to real money, as if somehow these systems weren't an intrinsic part of the development process that is a lot more complicated than just throwing up an interface and calling it a day. So no. You didn't address either aspect of the point. You ignored the first and threw out a shoddy hand waving at the second.
It had issues but it really wasn't as bad as people thought. I went into it after hearing everyone's complaints (and still having the bad taste of ME3 in my mouth) and I found the game quite enjoyable if flawed.
This. Just about everyone posting in the Dakka MEA thread who actually played the game thought it was pretty good overall. This fact was noted on more than one occasion to people who dropped in to start talking about how horrible the game was (and usually hadn't played it).
Getting back to the topic at hand, though, microtransactions are probably here to stay. Look at the mobile game market. It's pretty much driven by microtransactions, albeit often involving amounts of money that aren't so micro. EA and others might get slapped down in this specific area (btw, even Forza Motorsport 7 incorporates lootboxes; and while you can't buy in-game credits for real money yet, I've heard that the eventual plan is to change that), but it'll keep coming back in one form or another. Developers will find one variation after another until they get one that works and that doesn't run afoul of the law. Koei-Tecmo, for instance, makes a lot of its money by selling costumes for its games that often cost more than the game itself (the latest Dead or Alive is KT's biggest offender here, but the Warriors games are also going after that cash).
They're a business. They make money. It's why they exist. It just so happens that the way that they make money is by selling videogames and related content.
To be honest, what I'm finding funny here is that EA claim they can't do cosmetic microtransactions because of canon restrictions, citing that you can't, for example, have a pink or white Vader or Rey with a green lightsaber... Even leaving aside that for most of the troopers there's a whole bunch of options for armour, colours, patters, symbols ect, I find it hard to take seriously the notion that they've had these canon restrictions imposed on them while I see Rey and Han Solo demolishing Battle Droids on Kashyyyk...
I'd also suggest it's not micro transactions that are the problem really, it's the blind element that I think is getting people riled up (though personally I still couldn't care less). There wasn't this fuss around the Shortcut packs in Battlefield One, where you just paid once and unlocked all the guns and tools for a particular class, because it was a single transaction, you knew exactly what you were getting and the reward was more options, not necessarily more power (take the Scout class, some of it's better weapons are the lower rank ones, the top rank one opens up a different playstyle but isn't hands-down better).
I'll happily see microtransactions in games like this in future if that's the price for substantial free DLC, as a) I can ignore them, and get more stuff for no money and b) avoiding a split player-base between the Haves and Have-Nots that comes from paid DLC is essential... Even a few months ago when the Season Pass for the last Battlefront went for a few quid, it was still hard to get games on the expansion maps and modes, especially if you were searching for a specific game type rather than just 'anything from the DLC'.
I'd also suggest it's not micro transactions that are the problem really, it's the blind element that I think is getting people riled up (though personally I still couldn't care less). There wasn't this fuss around the Shortcut packs in Battlefield One, where you just paid once and unlocked all the guns and tools for a particular class, because it was a single transaction, you knew exactly what you were getting and the reward was more options, not necessarily more power (take the Scout class, some of it's better weapons are the lower rank ones, the top rank one opens up a different playstyle but isn't hands-down better).
I think there's always a fuss about microtransactions, even in free games. On its own it doesn't tend to break the base. There's always always a fuss about pay to win, but on its own it doesn't break the base so long as its in a free game. Combine non-free game, with microtransactions, with pay to win, and then throw randomness on top of it?
Thing is, in any games where there's a grind I fully support the option to spend a small amount of money for something of fair value in exchange for the time it would take you to get those things otherwise, on the condition that you know what you're buying.
I play Warframe a fair bit, a free-to-play 3rd person PvE shooter and every now and then, I'll drop a few quid to buy the materials for a new weapon, or buy a new Warframe (basically character class) outright; in some cases, it's not worth it; often I can run a few missions in low-level areas to get most of what I need, or wait for a unique event to come up with a specific reward drop that I need to complete something, but sometimes it's nice to know that I can spend about £4, buy some materials to craft a new weapon and start using it as soon as it's built. I know it's saved me a few hours (especially if the materials required are otherwise locked to higher level areas I haven't got to yet) and I know that I'll use that weapon for quite some time as it takes a fair while to level stuff up to the highest ranks, so I feel I've got my money's worth (and I like to support the devs who've made a genuinely fantastic F2P game)
While I appreciate there are differences (PvP rather than PvE, paid vs free-to-play), I'd have no problem with someone being able to spend a similar amount in Battlefront to unlock all the guns or cards for, say, the Heavy class, if they could just pay once and save themselves the however-many-hours it'd take to unlock them normally. That person gets more out of the game, doesn't have to commit to hours and hours of play to get stuff that's already in the game and assuming things are balanced properly, they're not getting an advantage with the new guns, they're just getting options.
All that said, the progression system in Battlefront II is very odd... I don't see why you need multiple levels of card, just give the class an ability/some optional alternative abilities and call it a day. Paid or grinded, I don't see any reason why someone should have a Shield on the Heavy that significantly more durable than the other. Maybe a different version, sure (say, one that doesn't block all damage but stays up for a set amount of time, for example) but a straight-up more powerful version of the same thing is unnecessary. To go back to Battlefield One, it'd be like one player using Spot Flares with a 30m radius, and another using the same tool but with a 50m radius. That is outright an advantage, whereas paying to unlock a different gun isn't necessarily, it just lets you play a bit differently.
So yeah, Battlefront's progression is broken, and the loot box idea is broken, but I'm fine with micro-transactions as a principle if it means free DLC (and thus a longer lifespan for the game), the price of games not skyrocketing and for people who don't have the time/skill to unlock everything normally, I'm totally fine with them being able to pay to access that stuff (so long as it's their choice, and the alternative progression route is viable rather than an impossibly long grind).
Warframe I think has one of the better microtransaction models for F2P games. The only thing I didn't like about it was how hard it is early on to farm a lot of key materials (looking at you Neurodes!). Until you get to the outer edge of the solar system you're either spending real money to jump ahead on progress, or suffering a particularly bad grind to do it for free.
Probably because, like I've said, the people actually buying loot boxes in batches large enough to affect earnings is few and far between?
Blizzard makes billions a year on microtransactions (as per the article I previously posted) for example. Hardly chump change. The fact that this is EA speaking to investors is more important to focus on, of course they want to keep up the optimistic face to their investors, but this will cut into their profits depending on when they can put it back in. Projected earnings probably didn't take microtransactions into account but just sales, as predicting microtransaction income is much harder. Without the full document outlining the 2018 financial guidance its impossible to say what exactly the reason for saying it it.
Probably because, like I've said, the people actually buying loot boxes in batches large enough to affect earnings is few and far between?
Blizzard makes billions a year on microtransactions (as per the article I previously posted) for example. Hardly chump change. The fact that this is EA speaking to investors is more important to focus on, of course they want to keep up the optimistic face to their investors, but this will cut into their profits depending on when they can put it back in. Projected earnings probably didn't take microtransactions into account but just sales, as predicting microtransaction income is much harder. Without the full document outlining the 2018 financial guidance its impossible to say what exactly the reason for saying it it.
Honestly, you just hit home exactly why I made the statement I did.
Blizzard's microtransactions for, let's say Overwatch for example, are tied to cosmetic items. I would be willing to hazard a guess that it sees spikes when there are in-game events running versus when there is not one active since there is a delineated "ending" time to the event and your ability to get a skin or intro that you want and they keep those event items purposely inflated compared to an equivalent item(an event skin that is brand new to the rotation and is gold quality is 3k credits versus a standard gold skin at 1k credits). Their microtransactions are primarily tied to one or two games and use the same model, as far as I know, for each thing.
EA's microtransactions are varied based on the game. For Battlefield 1, the only loot box you are able to purchase with real money is the worst quality one. For Mass Effect, you buy currency to use on lootboxes instead of just buying the box. For Battlefront II, the same thing was happening(buy currency->use on lootboxes of your choice) at least on the consoles. For Titanfall II, everything's cosmetic and can be only acquired that way but it doesn't go out of its way to shove it in your face. Never played a sports game so can't comment on those.
That's why I made the statement I did. EA knows their sales figures based on microtransactions and the particular models. That's why each game has a different 'style' of microtransactions rather than just "Here have a lootbox for $2.99".
I don't know where that stuff is coming from as I don't see it on my copy. LOL, okay. Figured it out.
So those customization options? They're the different environmental/class skins for the troops. The "Coruscant Guard" for example is the Republic Specialist class.
Yet another case of people not knowing wtf they're datamining. It would be one thing if they showed off, say, some different skins for the Separatists or the other characters(right now only Rey, Kylo Ren, and Han have different skins--Rey and Kylo got theirs via a preorder bonus and Han's comes from getting 3 stars in each Arcade mission)...but really?
Kanluwen wrote: I don't know where that stuff is coming from as I don't see it on my copy. LOL, okay. Figured it out.
So those customization options? They're the different environmental/class skins for the troops.
The "Coruscant Guard" for example is the Republic Specialist class.
Yet another case of people not knowing wtf they're datamining. It would be one thing if they showed off, say, some different skins for the Separatists or the other characters(right now only Rey, Kylo Ren, and Han have different skins--Rey and Kylo got theirs via a preorder bonus and Han's comes from getting 3 stars in each Arcade mission)...but really?
This is the "GOTCHA!"?
Hence in the code not released yet.......
Man you are really trying to push the limits of mental gym on this one.... you got EA stock or something?
Some of that stuff looks, to me, like it's in the files waiting for new maps or is tied to the arcade/campaign. For example the Rebel races are in campaign and arcade, most of the Clone Trooper skins shown are the different classes/environments. Theed is the Republic Heavy minus the kama and Coruscant Guard is the Republic Specialist, to put out specifics.
Did they show any First Order stuff outside of the Officers?
Man you are really trying to push the limits of mental gym on this one.... you got EA stock or something?
Nope, I just can't abide people lying or being misleading about things. The Kylo and Rey stuff, for example, is literally the preorder bonus for the game. It was broken up into two packs when you claimed it. A Light Side crate(Rey's alternate outfit, some cards for her, and some cards for Rey & Chewbacca in the Falcon for Starfighter Assault) and a Dark Side crate(Kylo's alternate outfit, the cards for him, and some cards for his fighter). You don't need to "datamine" for it. They had it blasted all over their webpage as the preorder bonus.
It really is sketchy as hell that they did not show anything from the First Order outside of the Officers(who I might add are likely to be featuring in the forthcoming single player campaign stuff on December 13th) or from the Separatists.
I'm surprised they didn't try to say that the Death Trooper or Snowtrooper were skins too given the fact that they seemed utterly shocked by the existence of skins for the Republic.
Probably because, like I've said, the people actually buying loot boxes in batches large enough to affect earnings is few and far between?
Blizzard makes billions a year on microtransactions (as per the article I previously posted) for example. Hardly chump change. The fact that this is EA speaking to investors is more important to focus on, of course they want to keep up the optimistic face to their investors, but this will cut into their profits depending on when they can put it back in. Projected earnings probably didn't take microtransactions into account but just sales, as predicting microtransaction income is much harder. Without the full document outlining the 2018 financial guidance its impossible to say what exactly the reason for saying it it.
Honestly, you just hit home exactly why I made the statement I did.
Blizzard's microtransactions for, let's say Overwatch for example, are tied to cosmetic items. I would be willing to hazard a guess that it sees spikes when there are in-game events running versus when there is not one active since there is a delineated "ending" time to the event and your ability to get a skin or intro that you want and they keep those event items purposely inflated compared to an equivalent item(an event skin that is brand new to the rotation and is gold quality is 3k credits versus a standard gold skin at 1k credits).
Their microtransactions are primarily tied to one or two games and use the same model, as far as I know, for each thing.
EA's microtransactions are varied based on the game. For Battlefield 1, the only loot box you are able to purchase with real money is the worst quality one. For Mass Effect, you buy currency to use on lootboxes instead of just buying the box. For Battlefront II, the same thing was happening(buy currency->use on lootboxes of your choice) at least on the consoles. For Titanfall II, everything's cosmetic and can be only acquired that way but it doesn't go out of its way to shove it in your face.
Never played a sports game so can't comment on those.
That's why I made the statement I did. EA knows their sales figures based on microtransactions and the particular models. That's why each game has a different 'style' of microtransactions rather than just "Here have a lootbox for $2.99".
You missed part of the point, which was that EA might not include microtransaction profit in their projected earnings. It also depends on the game in question and the 'need' people feel to buy them. As you said, EA games don't all have the same model, which makes it harder to make accurate predictions based on history. In that sense BF2 was attempting to tread new ground on their system. It was an experiment, one they might not have included in their projected earnings for good reason. But as I said, without them stating that they didn't we never know, but something that uncertain might better be left out for investors who look for certainty.
EA sportgames have made them an absolute gakton of money, with an arguably far worse microtransaction model in games that are technically made obsolete on a yearly basis. But that yearly release of basically the same game makes projected earnings a lot easier to calculate as opposed to a game like BF2. The BF2 experiment kinda backfired in the public/pr sphere, another good reason to have kept the microtransaction model out of projected earnings.
curran12 wrote: That's what they will claim, but don't be fooled. It is all greed and profit. Don't let someone tell you that they need the scummy microtransactions to stay afloat.
To be fair, consider that games have stayed the same box price since I was a kid. They haven't gone up in price in nearly 20 years, which doesn't remotely track with inflation or the rising cost of development since the 90s. So it's not really a lie. Fearful that a price hike would negatively impact sales, the industry instead developed the DLC/Season Pass/Microtransaction model, where they make the game and then make supplemental content to maximize profit.
Of course, cynically, a price hike is unlikely to reverse course on the current mode because these companies are greedy and gamers are stupid twits who will buy almost anything (and then complain about it). However I think that it's important to see how the market itself is partly responsible for the model we have coming to be.
Interestingly, these "no price rise" arguments always conveniently manage to ignore the ascent of digital distribution, which is much, much cheaper for game companies to make use of then the traditional "game-in-a-box" retail model.
Paradigm wrote: To be honest, what I'm finding funny here is that EA claim they can't do cosmetic microtransactions because of canon restrictions, citing that you can't, for example, have a pink or white Vader or Rey with a green lightsaber... Even leaving aside that for most of the troopers there's a whole bunch of options for armour, colours, patters, symbols ect, I find it hard to take seriously the notion that they've had these canon restrictions imposed on them while I see Rey and Han Solo demolishing Battle Droids on Kashyyyk...
I'd also suggest it's not micro transactions that are the problem really, it's the blind element that I think is getting people riled up (though personally I still couldn't care less). There wasn't this fuss around the Shortcut packs in Battlefield One, where you just paid once and unlocked all the guns and tools for a particular class, because it was a single transaction, you knew exactly what you were getting and the reward was more options, not necessarily more power (take the Scout class, some of it's better weapons are the lower rank ones, the top rank one opens up a different playstyle but isn't hands-down better).
I'll happily see microtransactions in games like this in future if that's the price for substantial free DLC, as a) I can ignore them, and get more stuff for no money and b) avoiding a split player-base between the Haves and Have-Nots that comes from paid DLC is essential... Even a few months ago when the Season Pass for the last Battlefront went for a few quid, it was still hard to get games on the expansion maps and modes, especially if you were searching for a specific game type rather than just 'anything from the DLC'.
Loot boxes can die in a fire, but I'm not opposed to direct microtransactions for specific, known items. I've bought outfits and cosmetic items, occasionally additional weapons in SP games that were previously pre-order bonuses and crap like that, but I won't ever pay to gamble for them.
Hopefully we get some laws in place from places like Hawaii, Belgium, France, AU and that causes other nations to get on board with killing this cancer on the gaming industry.
Interestingly, these "no price rise" arguments always conveniently manage to ignore the ascent of digital distribution, which is much, much cheaper for game companies to make use of then the traditional "game-in-a-box" retail model.
Digital distribution is really only a major thing on PC, where actually getting a game on disc is something I haven't done in like... 8 years? Everything on PC is digital now. Consoles in comparison have been much slower to adapt and even today most people who play console games still buy games on disc. There's a reason PC developed games are often $10 or so cheaper than their console equivalents, but with so many games coming from the same companies I don't think it's odd that those companies keep their pricing consistent across platform.
I think that that's changing but I'm not sure the cost savings there cancel out the costs of development. I don't know if there's any numbers out there that parse this out though.
The Nintendo Switch is also pushing hard for digital distribution now and it seems to be working well for them, so maybe with the next generation of consoles they'll also catch up, much to the chagrin of Gamestop and its ilk.
What is insulting is that nine times out of ten a digital copy of the game costs the same as a physical copy of the game. Well, I guess more of that money goes directly towards the publisher then.
I've noticed that in the past 2 years, I'm far more likely to buy digital than physical.
It's a pain when you can't fit all the games on a ps4 harddrive however, but for some dumb reason the games seem to take up the same space whether they are disk or digital.
welshhoppo wrote: I've noticed that in the past 2 years, I'm far more likely to buy digital than physical.
It's a pain when you can't fit all the games on a ps4 harddrive however, but for some dumb reason the games seem to take up the same space whether they are disk or digital.
Yeah, I don't quite understand that. If you get the disc, it installs the whole damn game on there, and then still won't let you play without the disc.
At anyrate, my PS4 needs a bigger hard drive. I've found I can't really have more then 4-5 games at any given time on there.
The thing on consoles lately seems to be letting you buy a disc with the game, and then forcing you to download enough content that it almost would have been worth it to get the digital version, instead.
Um...
In any event, when discussing price differences between digital and non-digital, is the disc and packaging really that much more expensive? Materials are pretty cheap these days, especially with mass production. Everything else - including the retailer that acts as a middle-man between the publisher and the customer - remains in place.
Eumerin wrote: In any event, when discussing price differences between digital and non-digital, is the disc and packaging really that much more expensive?
Doubt it. CDs and cases are cheap as dirt. I suspect the value is not in the cost savings of the material itself but in how digital distribution avoids the mess of inventory and retail distributors. That stuff just costs a lot to manage, and the digital format bypasses it and enables the publisher to sell directly at the same price (thus more profit).
With retail you're not just looking at the cost of the DVD/Bluray and case, but the full production line. Burning the disks, printing the image over it and the cover inside the case, insertion into the case, shipping to distributors, plus paying the employees who do all of that.
This cost is then passed on to Distributors, who add their own fee to pass on to retailers as they're paying for shipping beyond themselves to stores and have their own employees, then retailers, who add their own percentage onto the price as they have their own employees and rent to pay.
Overall the material cost of the case and DVD/Bluray would barely register on the final price you pay.
With digital distribution you're just paying whatever surcharge the distributor (Steam/GOG/Origin/etc) are charging per unit.
With digital distribution you're just paying whatever surcharge the distributor (Steam/GOG/Origin/etc) are charging per unit.
There's still the development team, advertising, etc...
Obviously.
I was just referring to the 'how much does the case and disk add to the cost'. Production of that case and disk and global distribution of it contributes far more to the cost of games than their material cost.
Here's a question from someone who doesn't play video games anymore, but is the father of 2 boys who do:
Can Battlefront 2 be played at all WITHOUT a single lootbox purchase?
I know there is a very short campaign mode, but I don't want them to buy the game if the bulk of the content is
A) online as they really are too young to be playing games online in the first place, but a Star Wars game "should" be a good intro for them and
B) I will not allow them to get into the mindset that microtransactions are ok. They are not ok. When I used to play video games, you bought the system and the game and that was all you needed. It should be this way and if other players buying loot boxes makes the experience hard for them, I'm not letting them get it.
Can Battlefront 2 be played at all WITHOUT a single lootbox purchase?
Yes. But the game is designed in such a way as to make it such a long and frustrating grind that players will feel coerced to spend on Lootboxes to speed up progression. Someone on Reddit I think calculated it will take a thousand hours to unlock everything in the game.
If you get this game, your kids will either lose interest quickly due to the artificially slow progression or they will most likely pester you to pay for Lootboxes.
I know there is a very short campaign mode, but I don't want them to buy the game if the bulk of the content is
A) online as they really are too young to be playing games online in the first place, but a Star Wars game "should" be a good intro for them and
Unfortunately the bulk of the game is still online only. There is an Arcade mode but they'll probably get bored quick. Battlefront is designed first and foremost to be a multiplayer game, everything else is largely tacked on.
B) I will not allow them to get into the mindset that microtransactions are ok. They are not ok. When I used to play video games, you bought the system and the game and that was all you needed. It should be this way and if other players buying loot boxes makes the experience hard for them, I'm not letting them get it.
EA has announced that they will be bringing Microtransactions back, after making a few tweaks and changes to appease the fan base (a.k.a. lip service). They've also said that they have no intention to compromise by making the Lootboxes cosmetic only "Because Canon".
They're simply waiting for the outrage to die down.
Can Battlefront 2 be played at all WITHOUT a single lootbox purchase?
Yes. But the game is designed in such a way as to make it such a long and frustrating grind that players will feel coerced to spend on Lootboxes to speed up progression. Someone on Reddit I think calculated it will take a thousand hours to unlock everything in the game.
If you get this game, your kids will either lose interest quickly due to the artificially slow progression or they will most likely pester you to pay for Lootboxes.
This is exceedingly wrong. You CANNOT speed up progression in any meaningful way with lootboxes. Someone who buys a bunch of lootboxes might get some good character cards, but they won't be able to upgrade them further without the actual player level and scrap to do so.
I know there is a very short campaign mode, but I don't want them to buy the game if the bulk of the content is
A) online as they really are too young to be playing games online in the first place, but a Star Wars game "should" be a good intro for them and
Unfortunately the bulk of the game is still online only. There is an Arcade mode but they'll probably get bored quick. Battlefront is designed first and foremost to be a multiplayer game, everything else is largely tacked on.
I will agree with Shadow Captain on this(aside from the "tacked on" part). The Arcade mode is mostly there for you to be able to practice for playing Online and to set it up so that by the time you've gotten all 3 stars in all of the Arcade missions, you're going to have enough credits to have unlocked at least 4 other Heroes(aside from Iden Verso, who the game basically gives you as a reward for completing the campaign) for MP.
Kanluwen wrote: This is exceedingly wrong. You CANNOT speed up progression in any meaningful way with lootboxes. Someone who buys a bunch of lootboxes might get some good character cards, but they won't be able to upgrade them further without the actual player level and scrap to do so.
No its not. Characters are gated behind big in-game currency costs....someone thing like 30,000 credits for Luke Skywalker IIRC (at least before EA started changing things in response to feedback). You can grind for credits to unlock Skywalker...or you can gamble on Lootboxes and hope to get a Skywalker card.
That IS speeding up progression, you're paying money to unlock Characters and not have to grind for Credits.
I will agree with Shadow Captain on this(aside from the "tacked on" part). The Arcade mode is mostly there for you to be able to practice for playing Online and to set it up so that by the time you've gotten all 3 stars in all of the Arcade missions, you're going to have enough credits to have unlocked at least 4 other Heroes(aside from Iden Verso, who the game basically gives you as a reward for completing the campaign) for MP.
I think a pig just flew past my window.
By "tacked on", I mean that the Arcade and SP Campaign are not the core focus of the game. The game is still
Kanluwen wrote: This is exceedingly wrong. You CANNOT speed up progression in any meaningful way with lootboxes. Someone who buys a bunch of lootboxes might get some good character cards, but they won't be able to upgrade them further without the actual player level and scrap to do so.
No its not. Characters are gated behind big in-game currency costs....someone thing like 30,000 credits for Luke Skywalker IIRC (at least before EA started changing things in response to feedback). You can grind for credits to unlock Skywalker...
Just so we're clear: Characters cap out at 15k credits now. 15k is for Luke and Vader. 10k credits can get you Chewbacca, Leia, or Emperor Palpatine. 5k credits gets you Iden(and the lootbox you get for completing the campaign gives you 2x Rare quality cards for Iden and 5k credits to unlock her).
Han, Maul, Boba Fett, Bossk, Yoda, Lando are for sure unlocked from the start. I don't know if Rey and Kylo Ren are unlocked from the start since the preorder bonus got you cards and an alternate skin for them so I can't say for sure.
You get 1k credits each time you level up your player rank. Payout for challenges tends to be around 100 credits, with the last "tier" of challenges granting 1k credits or a lootbox for a specific skill. Every day you get a Daily Login crate that grants you credits, scrap, and a random card. Multiplayer matches tend to payout around 175 to 300 credits for mid-level play on the Galactic Battlegrounds playlist(longer matches) while Starfighter Assault can be around 500 since you get more kills/objective play points.
or you can gamble on Lootboxes and hope to get a Skywalker card.
That IS speeding up progression, you're paying money to unlock Characters and not have to grind for Credits.
You cannot unlock characters via lootboxes as far as I have seen. You can unlock character cards for the locked characters, but you still need to unlock them with credits. Even the lootboxes you get during the campaign related to locked characters(Luke and Leia specifically) did nothing but give upgrades for them while not unlocking them.
You can get credits via lootboxes however and duplicate cards grant you credits so maybe that is where this idea of characters unlocking via lootboxes is coming from.
Well, thanx for the quick responses. It's a lot to think about for my situation.
My kids get a meager weekly allowance to buy games as my wife and I do not buy them games at all to encourage good spending habits from them.
Loot boxes might corrupt that goal. If they really want the game, it will come with the condition that they cannot buy Loot boxes with real currency.
If that makes the "grind" hard for them, so be it. It could be a good lesson on patience and hard work.
Galef wrote: Well, thanx for the quick responses. It's a lot to think about for my situation. My kids get a meager weekly allowance to buy games as my wife and I do not buy them games at all to encourage good spending habits from them. Loot boxes might corrupt that goal. If they really want the game, it will come with the condition that they cannot buy Loot boxes with real currency. If that makes the "grind" hard for them, so be it. It could be a good lesson on patience and hard work.
-
Truthfully, despite all the complaining about lootboxes...they don't do jack for you. They really don't. It, IMO, really is another case of people throwing a fit over something EA has in one of their games that won't affect your game.
You gain enough credits over the course of a few games to buy them using credits rather than real money. The Arcade mode has all of the Heroes unlocked without you having to do anything since it's the Arcade mode. That kills the 'need' for people to buy them to complete challenges and the like via Arcade...which get you credits that can be used to unlock them for MP.
Okay so I just tallied it up. Completing all of the challenges that award Credits? Across Campaign, Arcade, and MP will grant you 30,400 Credits.
The MP side only includes the challenges that can be completed using Heroes that are unlocked from the get-go. There is another 1250 credits at least in the form of challenges for Luke, Leia, Palpatine, and Chewbacca that award Credits. There are also Challenges for MP and Arcade that award Crystals(which is the Premium Currency and can only, currently, be used to buy Loot Boxes) instead
Galef wrote: Well, thanx for the quick responses. It's a lot to think about for my situation.
My kids get a meager weekly allowance to buy games as my wife and I do not buy them games at all to encourage good spending habits from them.
Loot boxes might corrupt that goal. If they really want the game, it will come with the condition that they cannot buy Loot boxes with real currency.
If that makes the "grind" hard for them, so be it. It could be a good lesson on patience and hard work.
-
If you want to get single player experiences, I recommend some of the older Star Wars games. The original LucasArts Battlefront, and the two Knights of the Old Republic are fantastic single player experiences that hold up well to this day except in graphics and are still some of the best ever Star Wars games. Plus they're cheap and not demanding on system specs.
Galef wrote: Well, thanx for the quick responses. It's a lot to think about for my situation.
My kids get a meager weekly allowance to buy games as my wife and I do not buy them games at all to encourage good spending habits from them.
Loot boxes might corrupt that goal. If they really want the game, it will come with the condition that they cannot buy Loot boxes with real currency.
If that makes the "grind" hard for them, so be it. It could be a good lesson on patience and hard work.
-
If you want to get single player experiences, I recommend some of the older Star Wars games. The original LucasArts Battlefront, and the two Knights of the Old Republic are fantastic single player experiences that hold up well to this day except in graphics and are still some of the best ever Star Wars games. Plus they're cheap and not demanding on system specs.
Also, depending on how far back you want to do, the Dark Forces series.
Interestingly, these "no price rise" arguments always conveniently manage to ignore the ascent of digital distribution, which is much, much cheaper for game companies to make use of then the traditional "game-in-a-box" retail model.
Digital distribution is really only a major thing on PC, where actually getting a game on disc is something I haven't done in like... 8 years? Everything on PC is digital now. Consoles in comparison have been much slower to adapt and even today most people who play console games still buy games on disc. There's a reason PC developed games are often $10 or so cheaper than their console equivalents, but with so many games coming from the same companies I don't think it's odd that those companies keep their pricing consistent across platform.
I think that that's changing but I'm not sure the cost savings there cancel out the costs of development. I don't know if there's any numbers out there that parse this out though.
Uh... no.
Digital sales on console have been WAY up since last year.
We're also not talking about cancelling the costs of development, though either Skill Up or Jim Sterling found some numbers around that which was very interesting, but physical production and distribution costs are literally slashed, despite the digital infrastructure needed for digital.
Galef wrote: Well, thanx for the quick responses. It's a lot to think about for my situation.
My kids get a meager weekly allowance to buy games as my wife and I do not buy them games at all to encourage good spending habits from them.
Loot boxes might corrupt that goal. If they really want the game, it will come with the condition that they cannot buy Loot boxes with real currency.
If that makes the "grind" hard for them, so be it. It could be a good lesson on patience and hard work.
-
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with Kan, but unless your kids MUST have the Star Wars BF game, there are lots and lots of other very good quality games they could purchase. If you were to let the forum know what they're interested in (and their age range) then I'm sure you could get a lot of useful suggestions.
Interestingly, these "no price rise" arguments always conveniently manage to ignore the ascent of digital distribution, which is much, much cheaper for game companies to make use of then the traditional "game-in-a-box" retail model.
Digital distribution is really only a major thing on PC, where actually getting a game on disc is something I haven't done in like... 8 years? Everything on PC is digital now. Consoles in comparison have been much slower to adapt and even today most people who play console games still buy games on disc. There's a reason PC developed games are often $10 or so cheaper than their console equivalents, but with so many games coming from the same companies I don't think it's odd that those companies keep their pricing consistent across platform.
I think that that's changing but I'm not sure the cost savings there cancel out the costs of development. I don't know if there's any numbers out there that parse this out though.
Uh... no.
Digital sales on console have been WAY up since last year.
It's interesting to note that it is something that Xbox was really trying to push towards during the initial development of the One.
Galef wrote: Well, thanx for the quick responses. It's a lot to think about for my situation.
My kids get a meager weekly allowance to buy games as my wife and I do not buy them games at all to encourage good spending habits from them.
Loot boxes might corrupt that goal. If they really want the game, it will come with the condition that they cannot buy Loot boxes with real currency.
If that makes the "grind" hard for them, so be it. It could be a good lesson on patience and hard work.
-
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with Kan, but unless your kids MUST have the Star Wars BF game, there are lots and lots of other very good quality games they could purchase. If you were to let the forum know what they're interested in (and their age range) then I'm sure you could get a lot of useful suggestions.
I don't think it has to be a pissing contest, Azazel. I will wholeheartedly admit that I am being extremely argumentative on this topic--but it's something I feel that has had a lot of misinformation(whether maliciously or ignorantly) getting spread around with regards to this game specifically because of one aspect of it.
It's not a bad game. I don't know if I'd suggest it to someone who wasn't interested in it for a reason other than "It's Star Wars!". I'd probably suggest Titanfall 2 over this one to someone just looking for a scifi shooter and wanting something that isn't PC independent developer fodder.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *comes into thread to see who's the one defending EA*
Kan's defending the loot boxes huh?
Ok then...
Oh stop with the blind hate already.
Since when is giving facts and correct data "defending lootboxes"?
Lets all just quote some crap a random guy posted on reddit (of all places) instead of what actually is or else we're EA and lootboxes white knights and apologists.
H.B.M.C. wrote: *comes into thread to see who's the one defending EA*
Kan's defending the loot boxes huh?
Ok then...
Oh stop with the blind hate already.
Since when is giving facts and correct data "defending lootboxes"?
Lets all just quote some crap a random guy posted on reddit (of all places) instead of what actually is or else we're EA and lootboxes white knights and apologists.
He IS defending lootboxes. His argument is that they aren't as bad as we think they are and that the game works perfectly fine without them.
The end-of-round payout has been increased. This is an area we agree needed to be buffed a bit, especially when it comes to rewarding players for doing well in-game. We're upping the number of Credits you get for a match across the board, and specifically bumping the top players on each team by even more.
Earn 3X more Credits daily in Arcade Mode. It's been made clear that you were hitting the Arcade Mode Credit cap faster than we expected, so we wanted to alleviate that by increasing it to 1500 Credits. While we're still looking into ways to add more content into it the mode in the long-term, we think that this should help in the near-term for those who want rewards for completing the different scenarios.
Daily Login Crates will now provide more crafting parts than before. You'll notice the change right away when you log in. Crafting the Star Cards you want will help make sure you're progressing in the direction you want, and we absolutely want to empower that. This should help you get where you want to go faster when it comes to crafting and upgrading.
They did nothing to XP. Progressing various characters in BF2 involves having cards for those specific characters.
OgreChubbs wrote: After removing loot boxes they boosted exp because the game was not rewarding enough. Proof lootboxes are paid to win?
Removing Lootboxes exposed what a tedious grind the player progression was.
IMO, paid Lootboxes have NO place in a game that is marketed at Children. Battlefront is STAR WARS, and therefore heavily marketed towards Children. We restrict Children's access to violent, sexual and bad language content, and we should do the same for Gambling. And not just Children, Lootboxes are also exploitative of addictive personalities, they employ the same psychological tricks and mechanisms that actual Gambling uses to exploit vulnerable adults.
Lootboxes done right is Overwatch or Battlefield 1, which are Cosmetic only. I still don't like that parts of the game (Cosmetic skins) are being locked behind a paywall, but I can tolerate that because its easier to ignore. I don't care about decorating my character.
(Battlefield 1 does have Legendary Melee Weapons in Lootboxes, but Melee weapons don't really have a huge influence on the game so they don't bother me as much).
H.B.M.C. wrote: *comes into thread to see who's the one defending EA*
Kan's defending the loot boxes huh?
Ok then...
Oh stop with the blind hate already. Since when is giving facts and correct data "defending lootboxes"?
Lets all just quote some crap a random guy posted on reddit (of all places) instead of what actually is or else we're EA and lootboxes white knights and apologists.
He IS defending lootboxes. His argument is that they aren't as bad as we think they are and that the game works perfectly fine without them.
My argument is that you don't know what in the world you're talking about and have done nothing but parrot garbage arguments from the internet, usually from people who don't have the first clue as to how the game actually worked/works.
I've bought 0 lootboxes using real money purchases, everything I've gotten has been using in-game currency or awarded from Challenge completions and Daily Logins. I've got the Specialist sitting at rank 23, Heavy at rank 25, Trooper at 12, Officer at 8, heroes sitting around 3-5 for most of the ones I've unlocked, and Bomber is sitting at 15 (my preferred fighter for Starfighter Assault) and just hit player level 22...
And yet I've never felt outclassed by anyone I've come up against. The closest I have come to that feeling is when playing Rebels versus Imperials and someone pulls out Vader or Maul since the Rebel heroes trend towards being support heroes rather than killy heroes.
OgreChubbs wrote: After removing loot boxes they boosted exp because the game was not rewarding enough. Proof lootboxes are paid to win?
Removing Lootboxes exposed what a tedious grind the player progression was.
IMO, paid Lootboxes have NO place in a game that is marketed at Children. Battlefront is STAR WARS, and therefore heavily marketed towards Children. We restrict Children's access to violent, sexual and bad language content, and we should do the same for Gambling. And not just Children, Lootboxes are also exploitative of addictive personalities, they employ the same psychological tricks and mechanisms that actual Gambling uses to exploit vulnerable adults.
By this logic, anything that is a "blind buy"(whether it be the Lego/Playmobil minifigures that come in a baggy, trading cards, etc) should be restricted as well.
Lootboxes done right is Overwatch or Battlefield 1, which are Cosmetic only. I still don't like that parts of the game (Cosmetic skins) are being locked behind a paywall, but I can tolerate that because its easier to ignore. I don't care about decorating my character.
(Battlefield 1 does have Legendary Melee Weapons in Lootboxes, but Melee weapons don't really have a huge influence on the game so they don't bother me as much).
"locked behind a paywall" != "lootboxes".
You understand this, right? Locking content behind a paywall means you have to pay for the content in order to get it. Also worth mentioning that Overwatch absolutely does the same garbage despite having cosmetic skins. They do it with their event skins, which have a limited availability during the event and they keep them in the "standard" loot pool. They make it very clear that you have X amount of time to get the event skins and then they get locked away until the event happens next year.
They basically took Warframe's idea of "Vaulting" items and ran with it.
It's interesting to note that it is something that Xbox was really trying to push towards during the initial development of the One.
The backlash against the XBone was much more to do with the "always-on DRM", locking discs to machines, an expensive kinect that the machine couldn't function without right until it absolutely could, and of course, sports, sports, sports, television, television, call of duty, television, sports, television. And that dill weed, Adam Orth. Less horsepower than the PS4 didn't help it on top of all that.
But the shift towards DD needed to be a gradual one that is consumer-driven rather than company-driven. gakky little 500gb HDDs certainly doesn't help, so having an external 4TB is pretty much a mandatory purchase for either machine.
I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with Kan, but unless your kids MUST have the Star Wars BF game, there are lots and lots of other very good quality games they could purchase. If you were to let the forum know what they're interested in (and their age range) then I'm sure you could get a lot of useful suggestions.
I don't think it has to be a pissing contest, Azazel. I will wholeheartedly admit that I am being extremely argumentative on this topic--but it's something I feel that has had a lot of misinformation(whether maliciously or ignorantly) getting spread around with regards to this game specifically because of one aspect of it.
It's not a bad game. I don't know if I'd suggest it to someone who wasn't interested in it for a reason other than "It's Star Wars!". I'd probably suggest Titanfall 2 over this one to someone just looking for a scifi shooter and wanting something that isn't PC independent developer fodder.
I enjoyed the MP gameplay of the OB, but I didn't enjoy the way that the loot-box progression was structured. I also don't like loot boxes one bit, though I'm ok with direct "known" DLC purchases, including some cosmetics. So I bought it from EB, played through some of the campaign, then returned it 6 days later. Didn't get to play the MP at all (I've had a lot going on IRL).
Graphically, it's fething amazing. Ground missions in SP unfortunately felt a bit like bad MP rather than the visceral feel that a good SPFPS or 3PD gives you. I really did enjoy the Starfighter battles, though.
The SP story started well, but then took a turn for the awful. Standout bad moments being the "Luke vs Bugs" level (WTF? Who thought that would be fun?) The "turning" segment, which threw away what was a pretty cool thing that they had in a weak, unconvincing way, and then who they had you bodyguarding on Naboo not 5 minutes after you turned. Because you can completely trust those former Elite Imperial Commandoes to not be enemy agents. Right? Naboo's gameplay also being particularly bad - feeling like a MP match with bots!
I'm still keeping an eye on it, though. Because I'm honestly enjoying seeing EA's practices get a good fething kicking, because I'm hopeful that loot boxes will be legislated into oblivion, and because if they adjust the game's progression systems to my liking enough, I'll purchase the game. I didn't like Destiny 2's monetisation route either - and they're continuing to feth up, constantly - and didn't buy that game either. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out (and of course you haven't bought any loot boxes using real monies - unless you got the "early start" edition and then immediately dropped a ton of cash before the real-money purchases were disabled, it hasn't been an option.
Because in the end, I'm a consumer. That means I'll buy the things I judge to be worth my time and money, and not buy those I don't. These huge publishers don't know I exist or give two gaks about whether I live or die, so I don't feel any loyalty to them, either. So taking the emotive bs out of the equation, it's purely a business transaction. And if anyone like Macok (some random guy on Dakka) wants to Stockholm Syndrome for EA or talk gak about what some random guy on Reddit said.... I give zero feths.
So when it drops in price for the digital version, I'll consider buying it - especially if it continues to be forcibly evolved from the current progression system. (It's less than half price for the disc version, but I game share with my wife on 2 of our PS4s, and we have some friends who do the same for 4-player LAN-style MP gaming - so not much of a saving when you buy 2x the copies on disc vs 1 digital)
I'd like to provide a casual player's perspective.
So, I have two young children. Too young to play games. I have little free time, so I never get to play online games long enough to get good at them, and to be honest my reflexes are not with it these days. I bought BF2 because it was half off, and because I'd just seen Last Jedi and had an urge for more new Star Warsy stuff in my life. I was not aware of the loot box controversy, or the "pride" in your accomplishment statements, or the general EA vrs Everyone that was going on.
Free of all of that, I booted the game up.
And... it is really, just intensely mediocre.
The graphics are splendid; I almost couldn't ask for better. But, the graphics in the last Battlefront were pretty spectacular. I can't see much of a difference, in fact.
The single player campaign is pretty much what I bought the game for, and it's fine. I'm enjoying it. It's like a Call of Duty single player campaign, I would say. I like seeing ships from X-wing miniatures in action. It's almost like getting a little Rogue One style side movie.
The arcade mode... is really limited. Load one of a handful of maps, kill a number of enemies, repeat. There's very little to enjoy here, other than the pretty environment. Even playing a light saber wielding special character falls apart for me when it takes multiple direct hits to kill a minion; it makes the saber feel like a wiffle bat. Is there a way to play with aircraft, or AT-ST type vehicles in this mode? If so, it's not readily apparent.
Multiplayer is fine... I'm not very good at it, but I'm the kind of person who can only barely be bothered with those dang star cards or crafting or whatever frippery they want me to do. Once I'm actually in a level, I honestly can't tell it apart from Battlefront 1. Did anything change? The only difference a casual player can see is that the ability to customize your character is gone. So, a downgrade. The worst, for me, is that we're still fighting over the Kamino clone farm or the streets of Theed with battle droids. It's like the prequels will never go away, and I don't see a way to pick an era or level.
So... I'm glad I like that single player experience, because that's all it has going for it. It's super pretty. But, load times are long on the Xbox One. Rest assured, I feel no temptation to pay EA for crates; I barely get what the contents of them are supposed to do for me. Crafting components? Neat.
I would recommend this game only on a steep sale, to enjoy the single player game. Multiplayer lacks features and concepts you would expect of games from twenty years ago, and is indiscernible from the previous game to me. Oh, and you better like the Clone Wars and Star Killer base, because you're going to see a lot of both.
Figured it was worth waking this thread up as there is a good bit of news about future updates swirling around...
There will be a few season that are “more or less locked” – mainly related to when something big happens in the movie world of Star Wars. But from then on out it will be mainly community requested stuff.
Career and progression is the first major thing they are looking to fix
All multiplayer planets added to Arcade for the next patch and whenever a new planet is added to the game, you will be able to play it in all core modes (including Arcade).
Next patch will include another balance patch on the Supercharged Sentry because of a overnerf
Era Select screen (starting with Galactic Assault as a test) in the near future.
They’re looking at expanding the graphics options.
Spectator mode later, but not a priority
Option for a non-holographic look for the menu
Seasons will vary quite drastically in content – some will large content drops with planets and heroes, while others might be more focused on overhauls and new game modes.
Some maps from Battlefront 2015 will make their return in the upcoming patches.
FOV slider on consoles
Fixing the delay between lightsaber impact and actual damage registration soontm
More flying maps, not all in space
Private Matches in the future
More campaign content not planned right now
Emote fix (Some emotes for heroes weren’t activating properly)
Arcade won’t get a direct port of GA (because of AI issues) but another big mode that will allow you to play big battles offline
Customization coming
Sometimes 0 heroes in a season, sometimes more than 2
An improved “play with friends” system that’s not unlike a Squad System. No ETA just yet.
Online co-op like in bf 2015 is planned but no ETA
Expanding the roster of announcers.
Lightsabers will get an update to make them look more like Battlefront 2015 (via a twitter reply from Dennis)
Jetpack cargo will be added in the next patch
Droidekas teased by Dennis on twitter but not confirmed in any official way
A client-side patch is going through QA right now (Quality assurance)
I have also seen some stuff about some Clone Wars content (hopefully Rex!) which would be pretty cool. Apart from that I look forward to a larger range of offline maps as while I am really enjoying the multiplayer, it is nice to feel like a super powered hero once in a while and cruise through the enemy ranks!
Microtransactions are also returning soon but I doubt they will be as aggressive as before and if it means we get free DLC I am fully on board with it. Some people get to spend $200 on some skins or new powerups and I don't have to spend $70 on a season pass, works for me.
Microtransactions are also returning soon but I doubt they will be as aggressive as before and if it means we get free DLC I am fully on board with it. Some people get to spend $200 on some skins or new powerups and I don't have to spend $70 on a season pass, works for me.
As of right now, we're right about where it is that DICE usually releases "shortcut" kits for their Battlefield games. They're like $9 DLCs that let players unlock a bunch of stuff for a specific class/vehicle so they don't feel overwhelmed in MP--it also usually coincides with a drop in the game's price or a 'repackaging' of the game to include a code for the shortcut kits.
Let players buy MTX bundles of skins where the contents are fixed and clearly advertised; and Class Kit Shortcuts like in Battlefield so new players late to the game can catch up. I happily tolerate MTX where the contents are fixed and advertised, I don't feel like I'm being cheated when I know what I'm getting.
Do NOT push gambling mechanics into video games, its anti consumer. Do NOT let players buy in-game competitive advantage, whether in Lootboxes or direct MTX. Thats just Pay-to-Win. The game should be Free-to-Play if the Developer wants to go down that route.
And if EA insists on continuing pushing Lootbox gambling in their games, then I think its long past time that it be regulated and marked clearly on the box so customers, parents etc are fully informed. Games carry warnings for foul language, violence, sex, they should carry warnings for Gambling too.
Either the gaming industry does this voluntarily (the PEGI board) or Governments will step in and intervene directly before long, which is never good for the industry.
And, if rumors are to be believed, this may be EA's last hurrah with a Star Wars license. According to rumor, Disney is asking around to other AAA developers to see who else might want the Star Wars IP.
curran12 wrote: And, if rumors are to be believed, this may be EA's last hurrah with a Star Wars license. According to rumor, Disney is asking around to other AAA developers to see who else might want the Star Wars IP.
Yeah, I wouldn't believe that.
Respawn Entertainment(owned by EA) is working on a Star Wars game, saying they're aiming for 2019 for a launch.
-Loki- wrote: If anything, I'd believe they might lose exclusivity on the license. Which would be fantastic.
Yeah, let's get Actiblizzard releasing Call of Star Wars every year!
With that snark out of the way, I think there was something about EA's deal being limited to certain eras/films? It apparently impacted the first EA Battlefront pretty heavily.
curran12 wrote: And, if rumors are to be believed, this may be EA's last hurrah with a Star Wars license. According to rumor, Disney is asking around to other AAA developers to see who else might want the Star Wars IP.
There's honestly nowhere to go but up. EA's efforts thus far, regardless of whether you like them or not, are so mundane. A whole universe to play with and in three years they've produced nothing but two Battlefront games, both heavily criticized for various things and dead within a year. It's not really a stellar track record or taking full use of the license.
I don't think Total War's model works for Star Wars. Warfare is just not rigid and formational enough past the 19th century.
Yeah, as is. I was sort of thinking of an updated version of Rebellion/Supremacy with a lot of the gameplay elements that the Total War series has used over the years (and tactical play would just be starship battles, not individual ground actions). It's probable there are better 'fits' in terms of strategy series but I'm not much of a gamer these days.
Still, imagine what an updated version of Yoda Stories could do with the current generation of GPUs?
Makes your mouth water just thinking about it, right?
I think my ideal Star Wars game would be a huge open world experience much like the Witcher 3, it had a compelling main storyline but really excelled with its side quests.
I don't see that studio ever getting the license as they are too small but Ubisoft seems like they made some interesting improvements to AC Origins which could be incorporated into a SW game.
I could see a game where you play as a surviving Jedi from order 66 be all kinds of fun.
EA can keep the online license as that is where they excel, fun, fast paced gameplay with some fun objectives. Single player stuff should go elsewhere however as it is clear that is not where they want to take the franchise having cancelled the Uncharted in Spaaace game.
Ubisoft is good at the open world experience and I like plenty of their games (FarCry and Wildlands are both my favourites) but they're at the point now where they've hit a good sweet spot for many players, but don't really innovate enough to keep things fresh. It's become a bit by the numbers in execution.
If there were to be an open world Star Wars game I'd settle for something outside of the current canon and either go off the rails, or set it millennia before any of the established stuff they've kept in.
BrookM wrote: Ubisoft is good at the open world experience and I like plenty of their games (FarCry and Wildlands are both my favourites) but they're at the point now where they've hit a good sweet spot for many players, but don't really innovate enough to keep things fresh. It's become a bit by the numbers in execution.
Playing through Origins right now, and with some work it could be a good Star Wars game. Not sure about Jedi, but playing a smuggler type in that kind of environment would work. Basically everything would translate to that kind of character. Bases to take down with commanders to kill (they're competition/they've got a bounty on your head/etc) and loot to steal (you want it), Papyrus leading to hidden rare items (dataslates leading to stuff you can make money off), more loot in random locations. People transporting goods to take. Major tough characters roaming the world to hunt you down. A central story and random side missions (little jobs on the side of the main story).
Yeah, Origins structure would pretty perfectly translate to a Star Wars open world game if you centered it around a smuggler type character.
Just overhaul the combat. Shift it to a cover based shooter rather than melee for the majority of the combat, with melee mostly moved to stealth. Set it in a large city with a space port with surrounding smaller towns and all kinds of scum and villainy. Give players a few types of speeders - fast bikes, slower armed speeders, etc. If they absolutely need a lightsaber in there, have the overall bad guy be a dark Jedi. Or even just a normal bad guy who managed to get his hands on a lightsaber, like Finn in TFA.
Since release, we've been hard at work making changes based on your feedback to create a better game for all our players. Today, we're happy to announce that the Star Wars™ Battlefront™ II Progression update, which includes a complete re-design of the in-game progression system, will begin rolling out on March 21st. There are also some additional changes coming to the cosmetics in the game, but we'll get to that in a bit...
With this update, progression is now linear. Star Cards, or any other item impacting gameplay, will only be earned through gameplay and will not be available for purchase. Instead, you’ll earn experience points for the classes, hero characters, and ships that you choose to play in multiplayer. If you earn enough experience points to gain a level for that unit, you'll receive one Skill Point that can be used to unlock or upgrade the eligible Star Card you'd like to equip.
You'll keep everything you’ve already earned and unlocked. You will keep all of the Star Cards, heroes, weapons, or anything else you have already earned. What you have earned will still be available to use with this update regardless of how much or little progress you have already made.
Crates no longer include Star Cards and cannot be purchased. Crates are earned by logging in daily, completing Milestones, and through timed challenges. Inside of these crates, you'll find Credits or cosmetic items, such as emotes or victory poses, but nothing that impacts gameplay.
Starting in April, you’ll be able to get appearances directly through in-game Credits or Crystals. The first new appearances are coming soon, meaning you'll be able to grab new looks for your heroes and troopers directly by using either Credits (earned in-game) or Crystals (available to purchase in-game and through first-party stores). If you’ve ever dreamed of being a part of the Resistance as a Rodian, your chance is right around the corner.
These changes are a major step as we continue to improve the core of the game and add new content. And there’s a lot more to come. In addition to continued balance patches, we will also add a number of modes to Star Wars Battlefront II in the coming months, offering several standout, brand-new ways to play. Some of these, like the recently released limited-time Jetpack Cargo, are radically different than anything you've experienced in the game before, and we're excited to surprise you with what we have planned.
The Star Wars Battlefront II Progression Update releases on March 21, with more content rolling out in the following weeks. We're truly excited for the future of the game, and we would be honored if you would join us on this journey.
Yup, just spotted that. Will have to wait & see exactly how the changes shake out(what's the speed of XP progression like, what's the rate of gain for Credits from regular play), but at first glance it *looks* tolerable. More generous than I was expecting, actually - seems like a near complete capitulation from EA and a move back to the first reboot Battlefront model, or something like it.
Yodhrin wrote: Yup, just spotted that. Will have to wait & see exactly how the changes shake out(what's the speed of XP progression like, what's the rate of gain for Credits from regular play), but at first glance it *looks* tolerable. More generous than I was expecting, actually - seems like a near complete capitulation from EA and a move back to the first reboot Battlefront model, or something like it.
That's going to be huge with regards to XP progression.
Right now? A new player can 'fully kit out' a specific class by completing the campaign, playing some Arcade, and signing in for a few days. You're softcapped from progressing too far, too fast by the 'class level' since you have to hit 10 or 12 to be able to equip 3x Star Cards to a kit and I think you need 20 or 30 to be able to craft the purple tier for upgrade cards.
If the softcaps are still in play, it'll be...interesting to see the feedback from the 'winners' on this topic.
I don't see how anybody "wins" here. This is how the game should have been from the start.
The damage has already been done to the game, its going to have a permanent shadow hanging over it and its potential has been stunted due to EA and Battlefront's poor reputation.
At this point, I too would be more inclined to play the game now that it has a proper and fair progression system. But theres not much point now because its too late, the launch hype has died off as a result of the controversy and the player population is probably dwindling already (which is death for a competitive multiplayer). If Battlefront 2 manages to pull off a Rainbow 6:Siege style comeback, and the population grows to a stable level over the next 6 months, I might go for it.
I can tolerate MTX for Cosmetics only. It's still slightly regressive, because Cosmetics used to be a normal part of video games that you didn't have to pay for seperately, but I'd much prefer a Pay-2-Look-Cool system over a Pay Gamble-2-Win system.
Well, I caved. The big patch goes live today and with it the game got a 60% price cut to 22 quid - I don't believe for a picosecond that their contrition is genuine, in a couple of game's time once the froth has died back down to the normal baseline tolerant resentment of MTs in full-price games, they will try something like this again, or more likely go back to the frog-boiling incremental approach, but I'm happy to take advantage of their transparent grovelling while it lasts.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, I caved. The big patch goes live today and with it the game got a 60% price cut to 22 quid - I don't believe for a picosecond that their contrition is genuine, in a couple of game's time once the froth has died back down to the normal baseline tolerant resentment of MTs in full-price games, they will try something like this again, or more likely go back to the frog-boiling incremental approach, but I'm happy to take advantage of their transparent grovelling while it lasts.
I've heard that EA has made public statements to the effect that, going forward they no intention of changing their micro-transaction model in light of the Battlefront 2 controversy. I take that to mean Lootboxes in Anthem. They'll probably be cosmetic only this time, but they will test the waters again.
I suspect that Anthem will be the death knell of Bioware if EA feths around with Lootboxes again.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, I caved. The big patch goes live today and with it the game got a 60% price cut to 22 quid - I don't believe for a picosecond that their contrition is genuine, in a couple of game's time once the froth has died back down to the normal baseline tolerant resentment of MTs in full-price games, they will try something like this again, or more likely go back to the frog-boiling incremental approach, but I'm happy to take advantage of their transparent grovelling while it lasts.
I've heard that EA has made public statements to the effect that, going forward they no intention of changing their micro-transaction model in light of the Battlefront 2 controversy. I take that to mean Lootboxes in Anthem. They'll probably be cosmetic only this time, but they will test the waters again.
I suspect that Anthem will be the death knell of Bioware if EA feths around with Lootboxes again.
Once again, nothing in Battlefront 2 actually affected gameplay to any noticeable degree. Especially not once the Daily Login boxes(Credits, a random card, and crafting materials) went live.
Anyways, hope you have fun Yodhrin. Be aware in the future that EA drops prices on games pretty regularly. Every other month we have an EA Publisher Sale on Xbox.
Back in November I got Battlefield 1 Revolution(the version including the season pass) for $25 USD.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, I caved. The big patch goes live today and with it the game got a 60% price cut to 22 quid - I don't believe for a picosecond that their contrition is genuine, in a couple of game's time once the froth has died back down to the normal baseline tolerant resentment of MTs in full-price games, they will try something like this again, or more likely go back to the frog-boiling incremental approach, but I'm happy to take advantage of their transparent grovelling while it lasts.
I've heard that EA has made public statements to the effect that, going forward they no intention of changing their micro-transaction model in light of the Battlefront 2 controversy. I take that to mean Lootboxes in Anthem. They'll probably be cosmetic only this time, but they will test the waters again.
I suspect that Anthem will be the death knell of Bioware if EA feths around with Lootboxes again.
Once again, nothing in Battlefront 2 actually affected gameplay to any noticeable degree. Especially not once the Daily Login boxes(Credits, a random card, and crafting materials) went live.
Yodhrin wrote: Well, I caved. The big patch goes live today and with it the game got a 60% price cut to 22 quid - I don't believe for a picosecond that their contrition is genuine, in a couple of game's time once the froth has died back down to the normal baseline tolerant resentment of MTs in full-price games, they will try something like this again, or more likely go back to the frog-boiling incremental approach, but I'm happy to take advantage of their transparent grovelling while it lasts.
I've heard that EA has made public statements to the effect that, going forward they no intention of changing their micro-transaction model in light of the Battlefront 2 controversy. I take that to mean Lootboxes in Anthem. They'll probably be cosmetic only this time, but they will test the waters again.
I suspect that Anthem will be the death knell of Bioware if EA feths around with Lootboxes again.
Once again, nothing in Battlefront 2 actually affected gameplay to any noticeable degree. Especially not once the Daily Login boxes(Credits, a random card, and crafting materials) went live.
Eh, whut?
So, "progression" previously for classes was based upon the number of cards you had for a class.
If you wanted your Specialist, for example, to get higher ranks? You wanted Specialist cards. Now you could either:
a) Buy lootboxes with credits(since microtransactions were turned off basically the week before the game launched)
OR
b) Use all of your crafting materials to boost that specific class up by crafting the lowest quality cards and filling out the card selection.
Now it's important to mention that the whole idea of how this idea of the game being "pay to win" falls apart is that you could get as high in levels for that class as you wanted, the actual weapons and their upgrades would only unlock from you making kills with the class and weapon. If you wanted to get the special scopes and stuff for the Specialist's sniper rifles? You had to get headshots en masse with that specific gun.
Kan, I'm well aware how the mechanics worked, I'm just staggered that anyone could sit there with a straight face and claim it isn't P2W. Is this you doing your "I'm going to argue a position I don't even believe just to see if I can annoy anyone" shtick?
There were ability cards that were demonstrably more powerful relative to not having them, or even having the max upgraded version versus the entry level one, and with the right combos of the right maxed out cards the level of advantage over a normal "I just bought the game and play it" shlub was ridiculous. And the more money you spent, the more likely you were to get those cards at those levels, and the quicker you'd get them. The crafting system was a farce as well, since the quickest way to get mats for it was also to buy and open loot crates.
Paying money for an ingame advantage is the literal actual definition of P2W, it doesn't matter if you get it by buying a gun, or buying a boost that makes that gun categorically superior when active, or just a straight up ability.
Now that everything gameplay-related is unlocked through gameplay, BF2 is no longer P2W, but it absolutely, without question was designed to be P2W, and was P2W in practice right up until the backlash over the fact it was P2W got them to stop selling the lootboxes for real money.
Yodhrin wrote: Kan, I'm well aware how the mechanics worked, I'm just staggered that anyone could sit there with a straight face and claim it isn't P2W. Is this you doing your "I'm going to argue a position I don't even believe just to see if I can annoy anyone" shtick?
If you think I do that, we're done here.
There were ability cards that were demonstrably more powerful relative to not having them, or even having the max upgraded version versus the entry level one, and with the right combos of the right maxed out cards the level of advantage over a normal "I just bought the game and play it" shlub was ridiculous. And the more money you spent, the more likely you were to get those cards at those levels, and the quicker you'd get them. The crafting system was a farce as well, since the quickest way to get mats for it was also to buy and open loot crates.
Paying money for an ingame advantage is the literal actual definition of P2W, it doesn't matter if you get it by buying a gun, or buying a boost that makes that gun categorically superior when active, or just a straight up ability.
Now that everything gameplay-related is unlocked through gameplay, BF2 is no longer P2W, but it absolutely, without question was designed to be P2W, and was P2W in practice right up until the backlash over the fact it was P2W got them to stop selling the lootboxes for real money.
So literally it was P2W for all of a day?
Because that's how long it took for them to shut everything down. A day into the week long early access.
Yodhrin wrote: Kan, I'm well aware how the mechanics worked, I'm just staggered that anyone could sit there with a straight face and claim it isn't P2W. Is this you doing your "I'm going to argue a position I don't even believe just to see if I can annoy anyone" shtick?
If you think I do that, we're done here.
I mean, you've stated outright in the past that you sometimes post contrarian things just for the sake of being contrarian, but I am more than happy to be done here.
There were ability cards that were demonstrably more powerful relative to not having them, or even having the max upgraded version versus the entry level one, and with the right combos of the right maxed out cards the level of advantage over a normal "I just bought the game and play it" shlub was ridiculous. And the more money you spent, the more likely you were to get those cards at those levels, and the quicker you'd get them. The crafting system was a farce as well, since the quickest way to get mats for it was also to buy and open loot crates.
Paying money for an ingame advantage is the literal actual definition of P2W, it doesn't matter if you get it by buying a gun, or buying a boost that makes that gun categorically superior when active, or just a straight up ability.
Now that everything gameplay-related is unlocked through gameplay, BF2 is no longer P2W, but it absolutely, without question was designed to be P2W, and was P2W in practice right up until the backlash over the fact it was P2W got them to stop selling the lootboxes for real money.
So literally it was P2W for all of a day?
Because that's how long it took for them to shut everything down. A day into the week long early access.
So in your mind, the fact that a massive backlash over the fact it was designed as a P2W game caused them to pull back from the brink, leaving only a game that spent months bleeding players thanks to the entire "progression" setup being dependent on the P2W mechanics and as such being an interminable grind designed to get you to buy lootboxes, somehow negates the intent? And the period of slog where people who got in and spent a big whack of cash(or bought the "deluxe" edition with included boosted cards) had a demonstrable, measurable, substantial advantage over normal plebs? Well, you're either being contrarian for the sake of it, or just being stupendously disingenuous.
Due to the fact that real money purchases were disabled very early on I don't think it had as much of an impact as it could. Rather it became a situation where the people with the most spare time progressed in the game much, much faster than those who only logged in once a week. With the new update this is lessened slightly as you can better focus your progression but I don't see anything wrong with people who play the game more having an advantage over casual players.
I don't think the game will recover from its botched launch any time soon however. It is a shame in my opinion as while EA deserves nothing better due to their awful track record of treating their customers, BF2 is a really fun game at its core.
I am interested to see what cosmetic items will be up for grabs come April. I know I would be down for some stormtrooper paint schemes that make me slightly less of a shiny white target prancing around the forests of Endor!
Just a heads up, there's a challenge up right now for buffing 25 friendly players with any Officer command. It gives you the Rodian appearance just for the Rebel Alliance Officer.
Those beautiful bastards...Huuuuuuuuuge wall of text incoming. Spoiling it.
Spoiler:
Welcome to the very first edition of the Community Transmission the brand-new Star Wars Battlefront II Community update.
Moving forward, what can you expect?
Our goal is to provide you with overview of everything that’s happening during the month, the new content that’s coming, as well as addressing some of your burning questions. Occasionally we may focus on a specific topic and dedicate an entire edition to just that.
We expect the Community Transmission to evolve over time and you, our Community, are going to be at the heart of this evolution. But enough of the introductions, we’ve got a lot to talk about so let’s dive straight in.
Ewok Hunt
For the first time in Star Wars Battlefront II, you will be able to play as Ewoks. Take to the forest moon of Endor in this new game mode, Ewok Hunt.
The ambush begins as the Ewok attacks the unsuspecting stormtroopers, using spears, Wisties, and whatever abilities they can muster to take down the intruders. Each defeated stormtrooper spawns as another Ewok, multiplying until the Empire’s forces have been completely eliminated, and the Ewok celebration can begin. Imperial forces will need all their training to survive until their evacuation arrives. Do so, and they’ll make it off of Endor and claim the win.
You can read more about the Ewok Hunt game mode here.
New Appearances
The addition of new appearances are some of the most requested items to date amongst the Battlefront II Community and we’re pleased to confirm that more are on the way, starting this month.
So here’s what’s arriving in this update for heroes:
Wounded Chewbacca, with Arm Patch
Scarred Kylo Ren, Patch over Scar
Administrator Lando, Bespin
Commander Iden, no Helmet
Hooded Yoda, pulled up Hood
Endor Leia
Endor Han
Ahch-To Rey
Trooper Appearances
Heroes aren’t the only ones getting some new Appearances, as Troopers are also going to be receiving some brand-new looks. We know this is something that many of you have been asking for, so we can’t wait to see them in action across the galaxy.
In total there are forty new Trooper Appearances, including new Officer Appearances for both the First Order and The Empire.
Rebels will be receiving Appearances across all Trooper classes, including the Heavy Quarren Rebel and the Twi’lek Specialist.
Heavy Zabrak and a Duros Officer are just two of the appearances that you’ll have available when playing as the Resistance.
Game Improvements
In the next update you will be able to convert Crafting Parts to Skill Points. Simply head into the Collection menu, select the Hero, Class or Vehicle of your choosing and you’ll be able to purchase skill Points, using your already existing Crafting Parts. One Skill Point will cost you 40 Crafting Parts.
Winning a round will now provide you a small bonus to the Credits you earn, making those wins that little bit extra valuable. A great way to earn some additional Credits towards the Appearance you have your eyes set on.
Season Two and Updates
We know that there has a been a lot of discussion within our Community about the release of Season Two and we can confirm that yes, it is coming. As many of you have suspected, all our focus was on the Progression Update, as we felt this was the most important improvement to the game that we needed to make.
As we move forward with Star Wars Battlefront II, there are two types of content update that we will be releasing. The first is in the same style as the Night on Endor Update that we’re releasing on April 18th, and the second is Seasons.
Seasons will focus around a specific theme (such as a new Star Wars film, or an anniversary in the Star Wars Universe) and will usually span multiple months.
In March we launched the Progression Update, April is Night on Endor and moving forward we’re committed to keeping up this cadence of content updates.
We can confirm that Season Two will be coming in May, and you’ll get more details a little closer to the time.
Upcoming Challenges
We’ve got some great Challenges coming up, and fans of Emotes are going to enjoy the two below:
Name: Coatee-cha tu yub nub
Date: April 19 - 22
Objective: Defeat 25 Enemies in Night on Endor
Reward: Peekabo Emote
Name: Fastest Hunt of Junk
Date: April 26 - 29
Objective: Defeat 10 Enemies as a Starfighter
Reward: Chosen One Emote
Remember that there’s a new Challenge every day and a bonus one over each weekend.
Balancing, Bugs and Tweaks
We’ve heard a lot about the Iden the last couple of weeks and the consensus amongst the Community has been that she was a little overpowered. We agree, and as a result of this we’ve removed the double stun from her Stun Droid. We’ve also increased the stun duration from 0.5 to 0.9 seconds.
The intent was to give players a chance to roll away from the second stun and provide some skill reward. This became confusing and rarely did it play out as we originally intended. What we saw was players being stunned for a total of 2.3 seconds, which usually resulted in defeat.
We’ve also made some tweaks to the core combat system. We have improved the melee combat responsiveness for all melee attacks including things like lightsabers and Phasma’s staff attack. Timing for effects, audio, camera shake, and the application of damage has been aligned to the expected moment of the impact to make the melee combat experience tighter and to reduce the feeling of latency.
You’ll be able to read about all the fixes coming in the next update when the full patch notes go live. Keep your eyes on our forums to be amongst the first to view them.
Your Questions, Answered.
Q) When can we hear more about Season Two?
A) As many of our community have suspected, the Progression update was given our primary focus. Season Two is on the way and we can confirm that you’ll hear more about this in early May.
Q) Levelling Hero Starfighters is very slow, are there any plans to address this?
A) We’re currently looking at a few ways we can address this. It is on our radar.
Q) Are there any plans to replace the in-game holographic effect?
A) Yes there is. You will hear, and more importantly see this in action soon. We’re aiming for the first look at this to go live at the same time as Season Two arrives. As always though, things are subject to change, but this is our current target date.
Q) Many people would love to see Starfighter Assault get added to Arcade, is this something we can expect in the future?
A) We share the same love for Starfighter Assault, as a lot of our Community do. While we have nothing to announce in terms of dates, this is something we are actively looking at.
Q) Spending Skill Points pre-round would be an excellent quality of life addition to the game. Currently it’s frustrating having to back out of a game just to spend them. Any plans?
A) We agree and fully support this. The current goal is to have this implemented at the same time Season Two arrives.
Q) Can we expect to see something Clone Wars related in the future?
A) We hear you and will update you on anything Clone Wars related in the future.
Q) Communication is something that the community has been requesting more of. What are your thoughts now that the Progression Update is out?
A) We appreciate that communication has probably not been at a level that our players have wanted. The Community Transmission is a first step towards improving on that. We will continue to strive to be better and if we falter, we’re sure our community will let us know.
So: Customizations are coming soon, Skill Points will be purchasable using Crafting Parts(they seem to basically just be running those down at this point--good on them as it also opens up a bit more parity for those of us who had tons of parts but didn't have the card levels to craft Epic cards for some classes/kits), and we get to play as freaking Ewoks attacking Stormtroopers.
Haven't played the full game
should not get 100% damage reduction during Rocket Barrage while somebody else only gets 50% damage reduction during Rocket Barrage
