Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

This was part of their plan all along.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
This was part of their plan all along.

Sure, sure, sure.

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".

I am ever thankful for Nintendo's outdated business models that produce things like Odyssey.

 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?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

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.

So? What-about-ism is not a valid counterargument.

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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 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.

Well, considering how disappointing ME: Andromeda was, I think that'd be a drop in the bucket.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

This whataboutism is bad for everyone here.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mobile-gaming-micropayments-who-pays

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:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

http://www.wired.co.uk/article/mobile-gaming-micropayments-who-pays

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.

Like a good friend, I rubbed it in.

don't care either way as am too old and slow to play shooty bangs game but the official nonpology was a work of newspeak beauty

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.

It's a Star Wars game, it will sell well enough regardless of the press surrounding it.

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'

 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."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 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.

Man, that EA sure is awful...

 Kanluwen wrote:

Man, that EA sure is awful...

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.