How EA Can Improve Star Wars Battlefront II's Microtransactions Going Forward

Star Wars Battlefront II may no longer have microtransactions, but players know that they're coming back at some point. Jordan Ramée analyzes FPS video games that have implemented micotransactions well, and details how EA can use these games as an inspiration to do the same for Battlefront II.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
-Foxtrot365d ago

You can't improve MTs...only get rid of them

There's no middle ground

Either we have them or we don't

JMRamee365d ago

But wouldn't you say there's a RIGHT way and a WRONG way to use them? People don't seem to mind the loot crates in Assassins Creed Origins or Overwatch (or most free to play games for that matter). So if they are going to be in Battlefront II, let's help EA make sure they do it the RIGHT way.

ZehnDrachen365d ago

They shouldn't be in ANY game. They are cancer.

365d ago
TheVetOfGaming364d ago

You're trying to say $60 isn't enough for a video game? You are delusional.

Artemidorus364d ago

Many don't enjoy them at all.

Artemidorus364d ago

$60 dollars from millions of fana is enough. Not a gamers problem if a company spends too much money.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 364d ago
Godmars290365d ago

And they wont get rid of them because they make money.

JMRamee365d ago

Obviously. Making AAA games is very expensive. Yet gamers only pay $60 for them. That's not nearly enough. There needs to be a system that allows devs to make more money off players even after the game is released so they can make up the sunk cost. It's either microtransactions, or raise the price of games to $80-90.

Godmars290365d ago

That myth needs to die. Things like DLC and MT have compromised product or game quality and thus lowered their base value. That plus considering that marketing costs are often included when a game is "made", the example of small dev teams have made far better titles than larger ones, the whole thing about AAA costing more is artificial. Something publishers made up so profit margins could reach absurd levels.

When CDs where introduced they greatly reduced production costs versus cartridges which made some games $120. Made $60 a standard price. When direct download started to become a thing the only justification for game prices to remain unchanged was so they physical sales weren't effected - how is that not BS?

Likewise, now that DLC and MTs have become a thing, do you honestly think that publishers are going to give them up if base prices increase by $20-30?

cooperdnizzle365d ago (Edited 365d ago )

JMRamee. You should start looking at Spread sheets for games. The market exploded in 2008 2009. Publishers are making hand over fist.

Perfect example movies cost substantially more to make, do you see them raising price. Theaters have lowered price and upgraded. Movies in stores are still 20 bucks.

I was in the music industry for awhile and I know first hand what is happing. Game industry is heading down same path as music industry. They Artificially raise the price of games to monopolize the market, making it to hard to compete.

The music industry did this in the 90’s and its been going ever since. They don’t push the industry the keep right where it’s at charging the same price for CD even though they are supper cheap now, and recording has gone down substantially with digital.

People need to wake up or games will stall with all the wrong none creative people killing the industry. It’s not hard to see what is happening

Imalwaysright364d ago (Edited 364d ago )


Are you a gaming "journalist" or a gaming journalist? If you are a gaming journalist how about you do some digging and write an article about how much does it cost to develop a video game today compared to last gen? When I see an indie game like Team Ninja's Hellblade selling for €30 and being profitable without selling nowhere near as much as SWBF 1 or DLC/season passes etc then I have to question if € 60 is not enough

When I see someone from Kojima productions telling us that the Fox engine reduced development costs by 1/5 I'm guessing compared to their previous game: MGS4 then I also have to question if €60 is not enough http://www.metalgearinforme...

I would really like an in-depth article from you supporting that claim that €60 is not enough.

Godmars290364d ago

You present examples of $60 being both more and not enough for a game yet need me to "work" to prove it? Nevermind that in the pro example they're allotting money to charity telling you where their heads at in regards to profit.

Imalwaysright364d ago


My comment wasn't directed to you at all. Also I gave an example of an indie game that looks like this being sold at €30 and being profitable without selling nowhere near as much as SWBF1 with its 14 million copies and without DLC and I gave an example of an engine allowing development costs to be reduced by 1/5 (or 5 times less) compared to whatever engine Kojima Productions used in their previous games (their words, not mine even if in the end the game wasn't profitable which I doubt ) so I would like the author of this article to not throw words in the air and back up his claim that €60 is not enough for AAA games to be profitable.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 364d ago
Ashlen365d ago (Edited 365d ago )

While I am totally against MT's and am on full on boyvcott mode. There are ways in which I wouldn't hate it so much.

1. no duplicates
2. only cosmetic
3. allow currency gain in game
4. no artificial grind
5. no shoving "buy VC" your face all the time

If it's implemented like this and it's in exchange for free content updates, it's not so bad. Like Overwatch, it doesn't make me want to puke in that game, you could totally never buy anything and the game would be exactly the same for you as someone who has bought everything. Though even Overwatch could be improved by removing the duplicates.

JMRamee365d ago

This. This right here is probably the best system we could hope for. It's not perfect, but it's certainly better than what Battlefront II was initially doing.

Prince_TFK364d ago

Well the thing is, your logic would only apply in an ideal world. In a real world, why would the devs waste resources to implement MTs/lootboxes to the game if it mean people don’t have a reason to buy them? Hiding the VC tab or letting people people earn everything without paying would have defeated the purpose of lootbox/MTs.

You can never have a middle ground with MTs/lootboxes. That is why I say remove them outright, or only place them in a free to play game.

_-EDMIX-_364d ago

I actually believe similar to what people see from OverWatch in regards to cosmetic only is the best compromise for both business and user.

_-EDMIX-_364d ago


If anything I just say leave it cosmetic it should be nothing that actually Alters the game play itself.

Other than that I actually believe the best thing they should do is actually not bring them back at all.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 364d ago
PhoenixUp365d ago

The only good microtransactions are nonexistent microtransactions

JMRamee365d ago

I disagree. I think Free to Play games use microtransactions incredibly well. Have 98% of players play for free and the rich 2% (the whales) supporting the game so developers don't starve and the game can keep releasing content.

So microtransactions CAN be good. EA just needs to find a way to bend them so they fit into a AAA FPS experience. I think Overwatch does a good job with it. EA should look to Blizzard.

Immorals365d ago

As Overwatch stands, they shouldn't get off lightly. It'd be fine if it was a F2P game, but it's not.

cooperdnizzle365d ago (Edited 365d ago )

Free to play games suck though. So your are fine with people getting suckered in so you can play some lame game for free, got ya.

Plus game devolopers are now seeing that hey, you can make a crappy game and people will actually play it. It’s bad for the industry.

TheVetOfGaming364d ago

You should stick to FTP games then. No gamer wants what you're trying to help push. You are part of the problem.

TheVetOfGaming364d ago

Yes, in free games. Why would anybody who pays $60/$100 for a full/premium game think they are good in said game? And why are you trying so badly to support such garbage? What a terrible article and mindset.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 364d ago
PhoenixUp365d ago

But Star Wars: Battlefront 2 isn’t a free to play game now is it?

JMRamee365d ago

No it isn't, but neither is Overwatch the other example I used.

Liqu1d365d ago

Cosmetic only. In game advantages should never be available for purchase.

Nodoze365d ago (Edited 365d ago )

The entire progression system is BORKED. They need a ground up rework. At it's core it is designed to randomize progression, remove skill entirely, and most importantly to get people to PAY MORE MONEY.
- The payouts for matches are ridiculously low ON PURPOSE.
- The loot boxes that are REQUIRED to progress are priced high ON PURPOSE.
- The matchmaking pitting high levels versus new low levels is done ON PURPOSE.

The token gesture from the executive suite is laughable at best. Appease the masses and temporarily disable their ability to buy their progress. They will purchase then, and quickly discover that the grind is real, the progression is slow, and eventually a large number will cave and BUY progression.

In short EA is holding the Star Wars license hostage. They are whoring it out to all who will pay. Meanwhile the true fans, the ones who love the license are SCREWED. This problem goes beyond EA, and involved Disney as well.

Lucas knew this would happen. He commented on it when he sold the license.

Sgt_Slaughter365d ago

Even F2P games have broken microtransactions. It's one of the worst things that has been introduced into gaming in many, many years.

If I have to pay any sort of money for a game, it should not have a single extra charge after that.

Show all comments (41)
The story is too old to be commented.