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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/29 23:37:14
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 00:23:38
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 12:14:45
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
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".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 12:44:09
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!"?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 15:07:40
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 15:09:37
I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me.
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/11/30 15:20:32
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/11/30 18:51:25
Sorry for my spelling. I'm not a native speaker and a dyslexic.
1750 pts Blood Specters
2000 pts Imperial Fists
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
Tomb Kings 1500 points Sekhra (RIP)
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/02 03:53:07
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/02 07:28:06
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.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/12/02 21:18:48
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/02 22:43:23
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/12/03 14:56:21
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.
1750 pts Blood Specters
6000 pts Disciples of Fate
3500 pts Peridia Prime
2500 pts Prophets of Fate
Lizardmen 3000 points Tlaxcoatl Temple-City
