With the "information" about SWBF2 people have wrongly taken as fact without all the proper variables, we take a look at why this controversy is unfounded.
How much is EA paying you to be retarded? Cuz i want some of that money.
Yea the writer has gone Full.
OK, anyone who disagrees is paid off= weaksauce defence. The author actually made alot of good points which none of you countered. "So long as I can ignore them and continue to unlock everything at a normal pace I won’t be upset." ^^^This is what I want to know. "Take into account that games haven’t increased in price for 10+ years, but gaming budgets and development costs have gone up literally 4-6x since LAST generation started. Also, consider people like you bitched about DLC costing extra (because, you know, that should be free to you entitled brats right?)." ^^^^ He made ither good points as well, but yeah just spamm "paid off" because you cant counter= actually just proves his point about gamers. I'm on the fence about buying this game until I get more creditable reviews that speak about progression/unlocks because I know gamers for the most part are over-emotional entitled brats who all too often spread false rumors about games (see ME Shadow of War). If everything can be unlocked without a long grindfest then I don't give 2 shiiiis about what some noob gamer buys.
@4Sh0w: Before going further, I'd like you answer a simple question. Can you name an instance in which the gaming industry, in terms of features not absolutely necessary to the basic function of games or devices, has been remotely trustworthy with implementing those features in a consumer friendly, non-exploitative sense? "This is what I want to know." The answer to your question is in a descriptive exercise. Picture yourself standing in front of a brick wall. The height of which is ever changing. The wall represents a grind, and the height represents what exactly it is you are grinding for. On the other side of the wall is the goal you have. To the right of you is a dude wearing a branded shirt standing in front of a door. Next to him is a table with a jar and a propped up sign. The sign reads "pay $15 to open door and go through." The man is doing nothing but standing there waiting to open the door for the people who pay $15, but you're going to climb that wall. The goal is unlocking Vader. Height of the wall increases by 15,000 feet. On the way up, there are advertisements for your other option, and you can hear people walking through door going "only $15 and I don't have to go through the game to get this? Isn't this awesome?" After hours of climbing you finally reach the other side of the wall to unlock Vader and everyone else has had it forever by paying money. The guy at the door sees how many people are paying this money and thinks to himself "I should try this elsewhere," which he does. He puts more things behind that wall. Small things, big things, all manner of things behind that wall. Soon enough you're finding that basic quality of life things are behind that wall. The guy never makes you pay to go through, but you know that if you don't get to the other side, you're not getting the whole experience. And he's not going to make it easy on you to ignore the door and instead go up that wall.
DragonKnight, 1st of course this is not a a popular gameplay "feature" for most gamers (I never buy in game credits) but yes many casuals like the ability to pay for short cuts. Im big supporter of the free market so it's a huge gray area for me personally to say they should not be allowed to pay for short cuts EXCEPT of course when it allows them to gain a clear unfair advantage over others in multiplayer. 2nd your building a straw man arguement as if my position is that MT's are good news for gaming, they are not but my arguement is more like they are a necessary evil that must be kept in check by reasonable people, sort of like taxes, they are never going away but in many cases can be limited to proper implementation. 3rd I completely understand where you are going with that scenario BUT let's remember how we got here and that gamers completely REJECTED ideas from Sony, Microsoft and Pubs for price increases, which naturally happen far more frequently in every other industry, especially tech. Sure refinements and efficiency can sometimes lower costs for consumers but certainly not on new tech/software. Heres are Ars Technica article from 2010 talking about upward costs of game dev, yet NO PRICE INCREASE even back then. https://arstechnica.com/gam... So let's agree that MT's are bad but lets also agree that studio closings are bad and yes although that can be of devs/pubs own mistakes even good studios fail because of lack of healthy profits due to ever expanding budgets in an effort to WOW gamers. So my question is what do we do about it? -Am I understanding your position correctly as NOTHING, pubs should stand still because gamers say: Bigger and Better Games= Yes. Increase Retail Game Prices= No. MT's that are pay to win= No. MT's that don't impact balance= No. Day 1 paid DLC= No. -Reasonably speaking I just dont see a world where games cost more but retail prices stay the same and pubs dont try to increase profits in other ways....and before you say bu, bu, bu that's what the $80, $100 limited editions are for, No those have always existed for popular games, yet again at a small development increase via extra content or fan items/gear. Simply put we can't have it all our way, raging against ALL MT's will soon result in a deaf ear to legit concerns....maybe this is a case for that legit concern but I need that info, I'm not gonna blindly just follow.
***"So long as I can ignore them and continue to unlock everything at a normal pace I won’t be upset." *** That's where his logic falters. The controversy came to fruition because it was found to be anything but a normal pace. If you suddenly thought people would stop being angry because a company thought that was a good idea to begin with after they lowered that amount, that's not how it works.
Sounds like this guy actually has some common sense. No surprise, most of the people here assume he's mentally challenged, because that is the level of maturity we are dealing with on N4G.
@4Sh0w: 1st: You're arguing for the allowance of a developer to provide for a way for people to not play the actual game. That's what you're legit arguing for when you say "let casuals pay for shortcuts." So I submit this question. What point is there in playing a game you do not intend to play? 2nd: They are not a necessary evil. They are not even necessary at all. Games do not need this extra revenue stream, especially full retail priced games. Publishers do not know how to budget games properly and insist they know what we like better than we do, even though they are consistently proven wrong in this regard. I repeat, there is no evidence proving that MTs and Loot Boxes are necessary at all. 3rd: No, i do not agree with your premise that game prices are going up and thus because gamers supposedly rejected price increases, MTs and other revenue streams are necessary. I disagree for a few reasons. First, the price of game development has not drastically increased over the years. I posted this below, but FFVII cost $45 million to make in '97 and $100 million to market. This means the marketing budget was more than 2x the development cost. With inflation, those prices are approx. $70 million and $155 million for dev and marketing respectfully today. Both current day numbers are industry standard costs. The next reason I disagree is because games don't even have to be so expensive to make in order to A) Be successful and B) Be a quality title. We've seen this happen just recently with Cuphead. The industry spends more time telling us what we want rather than listening to what we want. Therefore as a result, mid-tier games are not made, single player consistently gets the shaft, and we're told we want higher and better resolution instead of better gameplay, more engaging stories, unique art designs, etc... Next. Publishers force game prices to be a specific amount so they know exactly what their cut of the profit should be. So even if game retailers want to lower the price for their own stores, they are not permitted to do so. Doing so means losing out on business from publishers. Next. There was a time when game devs said that games should actually be cheaper, and they are surprised that people are still willing to pay $60. And you better believe that games will never go lower than that price ever. Finally, if games are so prohibitively expensive, why does the PC market have consistently lower prices both on release, and in sales, as well as having far more sales than the console market does? It's not like the games are vastly different in terms of content, yet the PC versions can sometimes cost a mere pittance by comparison to the console market. Basically what I'm saying is that if you look into the whole situation, such as adding into the fact that the larger publishers use tax havens to hoard more and more money, you find that every excuse the industry makes for their practices never holds up under real scrutiny. There is no reason for game budgets to be as high as they are There is no reason for marketing budgets to cost more than twice the development costs Publishers are inefficient Publishers set the budgets beforehand The Industry uses tax havens The industry tells us what we like instead of listening to us And I can keep going and going with this. This is basic greed. When devs like Capcom can keep making games like Monster Hunter World or CDPR can make Witcher 3 without these ridiculous predatory revenue streams, what excuses does the larger publishers and developers have for putting out inferior quality games at higher prices? None.
Everybody knows you never go full...
@4Sh0w Full transparency... you want to keep trotting out that excuse, show us where that money goes. Or better yet, why not use some of that money you're squirreling away to help cover costs. ... EA, not you.
@4Show When was the last attempted price increase that Sony, MS, or any other publisher tried to put upon the consumer, that was summarily rejected? There were a lot of people saying they wouldn't pay more, but would that actually hold up in actual practice? For several generations, these price increases happened with each new generation, people complained, people still paid them. but going into this gen, the prices stayed the same, and there was never an attempt to test the market. Not a single mention from console makers or publishers, or even analyst, who said that game prices would increase this gen. Truthfully, there is a point where these companies know what the market can bear, and the current price may be that, because $60 is a bit closer to $50, than $70 is closer to $100, at least in terms of consumer perception. but the reality of the situation is is that software sales are way up over what they were at the end of the PS2 generation. Like many times over what they used to be. This means that games can stay the same price, because there are just more customers for those games than there were just 10 years ago. The idea of MT/DLC made more sense at the start of last gen where game budgets exploded in the HD age, but they don't as much now where games sell more, with the same budgets they had at the start of last gen. It's not that companies shouldn't try to maximize their revenue through various means, but the profit off the initial game is not an issue like some people make it out to be. But the fact remains that when they're trying to maximize those revenues in ways which the consumer doesn't like or appreciate, then those same consumers are going to express their discontent. In all this, it's not the consumers fault. There are plenty of consumers for games. Particularly this game. Even if we remove the general principal out of the equation, EA pissed off their consumers, by implementing ways to maximize revenue in a game which was all but guaranteed to turn a huge profit....even when you consider that the game is selling for the same price as a PS3/360 game at the start of last gen.
@4Show "Take into account that games haven’t increased in price for 10+ years, but gaming budgets and development costs have gone up literally 4-6x since LAST generation started" Game prices increased last gen to account for the increased development budgets. Last gen, the price of development went up 2-4 times for the most part, the 6X was more an anomoly from companies that didn't really know how to manage their money better. In any case, Game development costs haven't risen at all since last gen. In fact, given inflation, they've gone down. For the most part, the more expensive parts of game development, like extra media, have remained relatively constant, or in some cases have gone down due to better ways to do it. Better tools have made it easier to make games, and because of this, less resources are required to make a game. So, while the argument may have made sense last gen, it doesn't now, given that game dev prices are the same as last gen, and game prices are still the same. On top of that, it doesn't account the fact that game software sales are actually up significantly more than last gen. So the whole things falls into an economies of scale. The more customers you have, the less you have to charge to return a profit. If the customer base remained the same, then sure, game prices would have to increase, even with MT, as the MT market relies on high numbers of users. What it comes down to is that game publishers know they can make more money from adding in MT. Regardless of if there was a price increase, I have no doubt that publishers would still add in these kinds of practices to extract money from those willing to pay it.....and they'd keep on saying how expensive it was to create bigger and better games.
@4Sh0w - "So long as I can ignore them and continue to unlock everything at a normal pace I won’t be upset." point being that another user has figured out the time to level up just the card portion of the game and it came out to something like 4,500+ hours. Do you call that a normal pace? It builds in the near requirement to purchase items to level before you hit retirement age.
Maybe he works at EA
Lmao. If the writer is such a “grow up”, then let see them spend a few hundreds of dollars for the MTs in Battlefront 2, since “grow up” have so much money right?
How does that make you a grown up. That makes you an idiot. You guys are all proving his point by responding with childish retorts. If you’re gonna debate, put on your big boy pants and come at us with facts and reasons.
Regarding the article writer...there always has to be a contrarian in the bunch. I think it's plain to see what EA's GaaS approach is for SW BF2. Lure people in with pretty graphics and the iconic Star Wars brand. Charge people full retail price if not more for a game then hook the whales and gambling addicted persons with constant microtransactions. EA calls it Long term engagement with monetization. Supporting this game by purchasing it will only get more of it. Simply not purchasing MTs is not enough. What do you think Anthem or a future Titanfall will be like?
You made it sound like that one South Park episode. Damn what a sad reality.
A game launched in 2008 at US$60.00 would be priced at US$68.78 in 2017 by simply accounting inflation during the period. Meanwhile, development costs skyrocketed. And yet, people think they could buy a more complex and with higher production values game for less. Let's get real: AAA console games are about to crash if this logic prevails. As long as MT and DLCs are optional and someone else, with money to spare, are OK to pay for it, thus helping to fund my hobby of choice, I'm fine! I just wont buy them.
The price to develop a game are the same as they were at the start of last gen. Maybe some variance here or there, and certainly the stand out titles like GTA which cost much more, but for the most part, given inflation, game development is actually cheaper now than it was 10 years ago. Most of this is due to many of the things which cost more money haven't gone up in price, and the fact that secondary media like movies or music have remained relatively constant, along with much better tools and game engines available to make game development much easier than it was ten years ago. There is a common myth that game development budgets nowadays are somehow much higher than they used to be. That was true at the start of last gen, but they've remained relatively constant, with the only real huge variance being the marketing budgets which go into promoting the games. However, in most cases, the games with the large marketing budgets, they have marketing deals with console makers to offset the costs, thus keeping cost about the same at the publisher level. In the mean time, publishers are making more money by adding in things like MT and using the excuse of how huge the budgets have become. Funny thing is, the higher the resolutions go, and the more power the systems get, the cheaper it actually gets to make these games, as there is less optimization that is required, thus lowering the resources required to make games. The AAA game market is nowhere near crashing. Even when it was ten years ago, it was nowhere close to happening. It certainly isn't happening now when game sales are up more than 3 times what they were 10 years ago.
@4Sh0w part 2: "Take into account that games haven’t increased in price for 10+ years, but gaming budgets and development costs have gone up literally 4-6x since LAST generation started. Also, consider people like you bitched about DLC costing extra (because, you know, that should be free to you entitled brats right?)." Considering this to be a good point is asinine. It isn't a good point. The budget for games has not gone up as much as the industry wants you to think. When you look at the cost of making games over the past 3 generations, you'll notice a trend the industry never talks about. That trend is that they spend more money on things that are NOT about the game's development than they do on the game's development. Marketing specifically is often MORE than what it cost to develop the game. Another issue is that the gaming industry has told people what they like and then used that justification to increase budgets for games. Case in point, the industry is trying to tell us that we don't like, or want, single player games anymore. This is why single player campaigns are either being cut altogether, or are so short and poorly done that they may as well have been cut. Or how about Classic World of Warcraft? Blizzard went on notice saying "you think you want that, but you don't" despite leagues of people saying "uh, yeah, we do." And now that they are doing it, they are still insistent that they know what we like better than we do. So you end up with an industry telling gamers we have to have the highest resolutions, the best graphics, etc.. Meanwhile games like Cuphead do tremendously well with unique artstyles and great gameplay. The industry is not content with making good money, they have to make all the money. So the industry is their own worst enemy when it comes to costs, not gamers. And the notion that games have not gone up in price is A) Ignorant of the world and B) Ignorant of the marketplace. Content is cut out and resold as DLC, which has had a steady upward trend in price. Season passes ask gamers to place faith in the quality of DLC coming from studios, and they too have gone up in price. Different versions with version specific content are being sold, pre-order culture is being boosted, and now the mobile market's predatory systems are infecting console and PC games. So don't try to come at us with this nonsense that games have not increased in price commensurate with the costs to make them, because that is just a load of tripe.
Wow you just proved him right. What a childish, naive response. You can hate what he is saying but he’s right. Accounting for inflation, games have gotten actually cheaper by staying at the $60 price and production has gone up exponentially. Couple this with naive, self deserving gamers and you get a “controversy”. I like to call them millennial controversies cuz they’re always very “me me me” centered. The original destiny ended up at $400 million all in to get to release. The OG Super Mario Bros game was way less than a million. The price of it then in the 80s? $50. That would be $119 today. So how do developers make the difference to stay afloat? Sell you more stuff. Did EA do it right ? Nope. But we can talk about it like adults and probably get further in the debate. I mean people are literally sending developers death threats (it’s not even the devs that make these desicions, it’s creadivte directors and business dev teams). That’s too far for a video game that you don’t even have to buy.
"You can hate what he is saying but he’s right. Accounting for inflation, games have gotten actually cheaper and production has gone up exponentially. Couple this with naive, self deserving gamers and you get a “controversy”. I like to call them mill nail controversy’s cuz they’re always very “me me me” centered. The original destiny ended up at $400 million all in to get to release." You actually proved my point rather than I proving his. Destiny did not cost $400 million to make. The bulk of that $400 million came not from development, but from marketing, deals, distributions, etc... The Gaming Industry has a bloated budget it only has itself to blame for. I'll give you an example. Final Fantasy 7 was released in 1997. It had a development cost of $45 million, and a marketing cost of $100 million. That already means that the marketing cost is MORE than twice the development cost. Adjusting for inflation, those prices today are... Development: $69,157,850.47 Marketing: $153,684,112.15 Rounding to the nearest even numbers you have approx. $70 million and $155 million. Those are standard costs today. They don't have to be more than those numbers to A) Be successful or B) Be quality titles. Show me why they MUST be and then maybe you'd have a point, but the budget for these games is set by publishers to make a showpiece first and foremost. It's designed to grab visual attention first. Explain why a game needs twice its development cost in marketing alone? You're basically apologizing for the industry being inefficient and then passing on those inefficiencies to the consumer.
Why are you acting like Marketing isn't necessary? You're acting like all of that marketing money is wasted and that it's completely unnecessary. So you think that if Destiny had not spent a bunch on marketing that it would have sold as well? No, of course not. You can't just drop that part of the cost and act like it's not there, that's stupid. Just because you watch e3 and read gaming websites and you know every game that is going to be releasing in the next year, that doesn't mean everyone else does. You take that marketing cost away, you also take away a HUGE chunk of their sales.
@UnHoly_One: I refer you to the PC market, where games with zero marketing are hugely successful. But let's say for the sake of argument that you are correct, is over twice the development budget a necessary expenditure for marketing? Especially in the internet age where anyone can make incredible ads for free? I would like for you to elaborate please on why $200 million is necessary to market a game whose core demographic will already know of its existence and will have the highest chance of buying the game.
I don't know. I don't know if it is or isn't necessary. And neither do you, that's my whole point. But if a big company is willing to spend that much money I assume they generally know what the hell they are doing, and I trust them more than Joe Blow on the internet that says they shouldn't do that.
@UnHoly_One: Except I do know that it's not necessary. Again, I refer you to the PC market. PC games get basically zero marketing, and yet PC game sales are on par with, and in some cases greater than, console game sales. You don't see stuff like PUBG getting commercials, or banner postings, or any of that stuff that you'd see games like Star Wars Battlefront 2 get, and yet when you look at community engagement, those PC games with no marketing are always selling well and being played everywhere. So based on what you can see with your own eyes, how are you going to sit there and defend fruitless spending? We know that suits don't know what they're doing in the gaming industry and yet you're trusting them.
Games cost the same to make as they did 10 years ago, so isn't the reverse true, that it is cheaper to make games nowadays than it was 10 years ago....when based on inflation? Also, wouldn't the economies of scale dictate that when you have 3X the software sales as we did last gen, that the larger consumer base means that you can sell your product for less, to gain more consumers overall, all while still making more money overall? The idea that MT are required for AAA gaming to survive is outdated, and it's a myth that the publishers are all too happy to perpetuate so they can justify these practices which just help push out games with monetization schemes that a good portion of their consumer base doesn't actually like. @Dragon Marketing budgets are important, and often do translate to sales. However, with the big marketing budgets, almost without fail, those games have some sort of marketing deal with the console makers so it's not even an issue for the publishers themselves. With SW:BF2, Sony was there for that. Same with Destiny and COD. Two games with huge marketing budgets. MS had ROTTR and AC:O, and well, I'm sure you know who is marketing what. The point is, it's not really a factor to play into the price for the publishers, because they don't have to spend as much on marketing. Every AAA game has some marketing budget, but most of them are nowhere near the development budget, and more often than not, the sales reflect that. A great game gone unnoticed often doesn't sell. A mediocre game with a huge marketing budget can be extremely successful. Obviously, there are instances of everything in between those extremes as well.
The author and some of these people on the message board should play the 4000+ hours required to unlock everything in the game, then and only then will you have a right to say this stuff is overblown. I'll wait for you guys to finish.
Here’s an unpleasant Truth, game publishers receive no revenue from pre-owned or rental sales. Therefore publishers will include DLC, MT’s, subscriptions, or just plain increase the products price through “deluxe” and “legendary” editions. That is, until they go digital distribution only.
So screw over all the people who did pay for the game? If the publishers were still concerned with this, they could have kept online passes in tact.
@rainslacker Unfortunately, Yes. The people who buy the game get screwed. The game couldn’t exist, unless it is profitable. That’s not greed, it’s math.
Dang we're trying to help not hurt it like EA is doing.
By saying that P2W Shouldn't be in a AAA title.
Arm chair bloggers on the Internet ^
And in the comment section.
Dont feel bad, one day your gonna stop being one. Now go back to your chair.
Someone has gone to the dark side
The article is contrarian clickbait to get some money by throwing a figurative grenade in the room.
Oh oh That will not go well. The author had very good points. By all means criticise and bug them but hey, you know what I mean.
Not really the only decent information that he talked about was development cost going up which btw most people know about. What he fails to talk about is that battlefront 2 MT are such an issue because it gives a large edge over a competitive shooter. A game like GTA 5 you don't have to have top tier things to do well after all GTA 5 isn't a competitive online it's a sandbox to do whatever you want. I wouldn't mind a increase in game prices if it meant more developers focused on gameplay and the games more than trying to figure out how to make up for lost money but lets face it that wouldn't happen. MT's and forced online modes have ruined some of my favorite games, Dead Space 3, Mass effect An, Now star wars battlefront so yes it's an issue when you try to make a game something it's not. But to say grow up and not understand what these practices are doing to every genre not just online focused games is a joke.
Lmfao BF is competitive? What gave that away? The heroes running around killing 20 people at a time? 😂 Its a casual fun FPS, I just want to know who these elite super duper rich people are who are gonna hinder everyones gameplay? Also if youre good youre good, perks be damned.
Misinformation, insults, death treats, deriding when an adjustment is made, intolerance to others opinions etc. Granted the author is somehow aggressive but that's what the essence of the piece is. Like I say, keep criticising but in a civilied and grown up way. Is that too hard to understand? Also we are talking about video games. A lot of people need to calm down
So why is development cost going up? It's a company issue not a gamer issue. I know of a company who manage to keep cost down to provide decent products to it's regular customers. They didn't try and make people keep paying and paying until they got fed up and not return.
I think the headline is right. People have a right to be upset about the lootboxes but what I'm seeing ( at least on N4G) is that any time a reviewer scores this game 8 or higher, the most downright idiotic and feral comments come out. You do realise it's not unconscionable for the game to be of a high quality that might outweigh the negatives brought on by the loot boxes right? What I find funny is, people are up in arms about this but will be quick to defend some shitty full priced single player game with zero replayability because....well "the media bias" and that they enjoyed the game so much. Fair enough if they enjoyed what many would consider a shit game but the principle applies here too; someone could enjoy a decent game enough to not allow loot boxes to be an issue.
Loot Boxes and other MT's do serve a purpose but when you use them to give the competitive edge is where i personally have an issue. People still buy the hell out of these in a game like SMITE (Yes i know free to play), COD (skins for guns) and other visual things before and that was like ehh i wish wasn't locked behind a pay wall but no big issue. But these days i think battlefront everyone is coming out the woodwork because nobody wants to see this become the norm for online games. To be honest halo 5 should have been the first game to have this many articles about it since they do the same thing. Defending single player games is one of the most important things for me personally because while yes i love games like Ark Survival, Battlefront 2 (Never said game was bad), ESO and others when these games eventually lose server support i can't pop that disc in 10 years from now and play it. Replay value doesn't have to mean play it over and over it's like reading a book you don't buy books for how many times you can reread you buy it for the story and single player games are no different. I find it hilarious we spend well over 200 dollars sometimes on these kind of games that you won't get to keep once server goes down when you could buy 3 single player games that just came out or 10 used and never lose the ability to play as long as you have a working tv and system
Its not just about this one particular game though. It's more in the direction they're steering our industry as a whole. It's one thing to include these things in trivial matters, it's a whole different thing when they're building their whole games around them. Let's face it these huge publishers have a LOT of pull and it's sad to see them take advantage of our hobby that we're obviously passionate about. How bad does it have to get before people react negatively towards it? They're just testing the water to see what they can get away with. Yes, development costs are rising but come on, these aren't teams that are scraping by. The biggest offenders in how these these things are being implemented are also the biggest, most high profile games being made. They're profitable day one just off pre-orders alone, don't let them fool you. Either way, I've said my piece and I'm moving on. I just won't buy into it.
FFS Septic, don't lower urself into the same sewer as EA/DICE.Its bullshit nothing more nothing less.Don't be that guy.
Jesus Septic, I often agree to what you say but this time you have gone full retarded with your comment. People like you are the problem and make gaming become what it is right now. If you don’t have any constructive criticism to say then I would appreciate it if you just shut the hell up.
“Jesus Septic, I often agree to what you say but this time you have gone full retarded with your comment. “ I’m sorry, do you not have a good rebuttal against what I said? And what was stupid about what I said? And then after your stupid comment above you go on to say: “If you don’t have any constructive criticism to say then I would appreciate it if you just shut the hell up.” Take a piece of your own advice and think before you post bullshit. If I don’t have ‘constructive criticism’?? Did you even read my post? Let alone understand it? I said: “You do realise it's not unconscionable for the game to be of a high quality that might outweigh the negatives brought on by the loot boxes right? “ So go on; please tell me what was stupid about my post. If not, then take a piece of your own advice and stfu. @daBush I'm not even defending BF2 here. I'm talking about the specific behaviour of SOME people on here voicing their discontent about this. The way they go about it is stupid and backwards. I am not defending EA. If people actually bothered reading my post they would understand that.
I just want to know how many people that are foaming at the mouth, have as their only source of information about the game, blogs and articles written by someone you do not know and have never even seen. How many people have actual first hand experience with the game? That said, I do not have a high opinion of the game. Regarding the campaign I have played the first mission and I have to say that the game isn't showing the quality it should. I have not seen so many reused models in a title in years. I thought this picked up as a prequel to Episode VI. I didn't know it was Attack of the Clones. I killed the Carrie Fisher ROTJ look alike ten or twelve times in the level. There were two rebel trooper models I encountered. two aliens, and that was about it. Over and over and over. The same models. The AI would just run out into your blaster fire. There was never a sense of desperation because it felt like I was out to beat a game rather than play a story. There is linear and then there is linear. This unfortunately was the latter. The bad kind of linear. Nothing to do between encounters with dumb rebel AI except get to the next area, wait on them to jump out and frame themselves and be mowed down or blast the door controls and seal them off. Not even one alternate route that I located. It looks completely cut and paste and something designed around 1999 or 2000. Sorry but my issue has nothing to do with loot crates. I just do not see the quality in this title. I have been a documented critic of these games since the first no Space Battles version was announced with BF1 and I said watch them say Space Battles do not matter, the mantra was picked up by people here. Then as I predicted EA built them later and sold them to us as DLC. And I love - not really - EA's penchant for saying In Engine footage rather than In Game. Deceptive and like this game hardly worthy of the name Star Wars.
Did you honestly expect a better campaign? EA is not one for actually caring about the games. Did you play the multiplayer though? Cause loot crates isnt really the issue...its what is in them and how the multiplayer is balanced around them. The the lootcrates only had cosmetics there would not have been any kind of uproar or at least about as much as in other games with lootbox cosmetics.
Well your point of view on the campaign seems fair enough but that's not the topic. I do agree with your first statement.
@Eat Crow, A better campaign? Than what? The last one ha ha? No...just no. But I also would not sit back and criticize without first hand knowledge. That knowledge doesn't necessitate a purchase but it does require gaining the knowledge first hand,
Except he is spreading misinformation himself...BF 2 is not like other games with lootboxes. Its a pay to win model. Before you say you can earn everything in game without paying...keep in mind that doesnt stop it from being pay to win. Pay to win is a model where a player can use money to give himself an edge. Either faster progression...better stats...whatever it may be. The misinformation with regards to specifics is EA's own fault...they go around changing the system so often during beta that nobody knows anymore where its at. They shouldnt touch a game during beta or during review copies.
I think its pay to win to a certain extend, at short term. Its like people buying deluxe edition, and probably not just this game, to get a head start. Or getting early access and level up while most people can start on a few days later. That sort of pay to try to win, get some advantage. Critics are justified, but the point is they should be civilized and constructive
"Misinformation, insults, death treats, deriding when an adjustment is made, intolerance to others opinions etc". youre serious? misinformation? theres no misinformation, its very clear what EA is doing, but you dont see it ? the below text is not my words, but i think its some good information this guy is giving ,maybe you can use it. Here's what will happen: EA already knew it would go down like this. They knew from the getgo people wouldn't like these kind of RNG progression crates. So they release a worse version of them during the open beta. Why? It's a tactic. Right now, everyone is upset. What will happen next is that EA/Dice will come out with a "We heard you!" statement and they will "fix" the loot crates by making them slightly less RNG and pay-to-win before launch. This will then end in tons of people going "Alright, they actually listened, time to preorder again!". People will feel like they got a compromise, it's like a small victory in their minds and it makes them forget about the initial goal of the company to begin with (moving over to loot crate progression). It wouldn't be the first time a company did something like this. Starting off with something in a worse state and then slightly improving it leaves everyone with a better taste in their mouths and they are more willing to then ignore the fact that those RNG crates in this case are in the game to begin with. People underestimate the intelligence of the people at work there, they know how to manipulate the "general sentiment" around their games and additions like these, that are not liked by most but will make them lots of money. Just watch and see. We'll soon hear from them.
I was typing a longer reply when my tablet crashed. I know they misinform th public but there are many 'news' that people jump the gun on without even thinking. Oh dear I'm guessing I'm going to be told of alluding to that. Read the piece he gives some example. The other day I was pointing out a rumour was false but people don't even want to hear something of the like.
Lol, yeah good luck with that.
lol, calling people 'entitled shits' and told them to 'quit gaming' is apparently a journalism now.. game development costs has increased? sure, but it's still pretty much profitable without MTs, nowhere near that "we can't feed our family if we don't put MTs in" shit. It's just doing that brings in way, way more money with practically no extra effort.
Even if it was at the level of "we can't feed our families otherwise," I personally don't remember asking devs and publishers to spend way more than they can afford on making a game. Not my fault if they do that on a product that I don't consider to be worth the money.
Cool, an article shitting on you the whole time and blaming you... nice conversation. Don’t read this. The best point he has is that game costs have risen and that is a good point but still doesn’t validate the greedy scheming way of making money that they’re doing now. And just cause other games have it like GTA V doesn’t mean that this is ok. “ this man murdered my friend! “ — “ what about that other guy who murdered that person? ” — still doesn’t make it ok. This needs to change, another solution needs to be made. This isn’t about costs, they could’ve left the dlc packs and made more there, they clearly are pushing to make way more but playing on “gamer’s“ ( new gamers ) need to get ahead without effort. The one who needs to grow up is you....
Are you high mate?
First comment proves the point of the article.
Calling people who complained (and rightfully so, they're paying money) "idiots", "blight" and demand them to "stop gaming" is sure a very mature and intelligent way to show how "wrong" they were. And why this "journalist" didn't think for a second that he might be a "blight" and should "stop gaming", i have no idea.
In defense of the the article, a lot of people are jumping on the hate bandwagon without know the full facts. people are estimating, guessing some stuff and everyone is taking it as fact.