EA Star Wars Battlefront II (2017)

[Fryto]

Just in the news here: the Belgian gambling commission has opened an investigation, as the "buy loot crates with real money" could be considered illegal gambling. EA risks a fine of a couple 100k euro or a ban of the game from the Belgian market.

Article (in Dutch): https://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/onderzoek-naar-nieuw-star-wars-spel

 

[Leadfoot530]

Just in the news here: the Belgian gambling commission has opened an investigation, as the "buy loot crates with real money" could be considered illegal gambling. EA risks a fine of a couple 100k euro or a ban of the game from the Belgian market.

Article (in Dutch): https://nieuws.vtm.be/binnenland/onderzoek-naar-nieuw-star-wars-spel

What I don't understand is, why is this only becoming a major issue now? If I recall correctly, DICE (Again with EA) faced some heavy backlash from Battlefield 1 players after a really rareskin was added into their Battlepack system. Players dumped hundreds of dollars (Why would you even...?) in attempts to get the skin. After players complainef enough, DICE added in new UI text tellig players an items level of rarity, which then calmed players/legal actions against them.

I don't see why they wouldn't just put that solution in again, if it isn't already in there in the first place.

I'm not one much for talking about buying these "lootboxes" with real world money as they've all come across as a way of nickel and dimeing players. If I want a crate, I'll buy it with in-game currency, or not at all. Just my opinion.

 

[JakeMR2]

With the microtransaction scheme they have going on is that with the players backlash against this is alright, but you know it's funny. Why of all people would defend EA that killed companies that produced good games. To be honest this isn't DICE's fault for the scummy practice, the devs want to make a good game without being shut down in EA;s eyes. Even better they think Microtransactions is a feature in a game. Some developers speak to differ about that. Plus, EA being EA doesn't know what a "Reward" is. You either obtain it during the journey to get a certain item, car, etc for doing some type of thing (not daily events). Thus, you get the reward you wanted that isn't randomized in the system of loot. It's like being a Triple A game that needs microtransactions without reason, just only because it's worth $60 to them. I played Battlefront EA, and it was alright fun, but it became repetitive to a point I just couldn't enjoy it.

If microtransactions do get into a big controversy like this to fuel the fire, then I think it might be the end of it. I'm just waiting till the day a company puts high values for items, but less rewards in a premium priced game. Then if they push this even further microtransactions are not going to be profitable as the publisher thinks they are. But, it is our fault for allowing it to happen in the first place, and I am still a bit shocked that players are now looking at the current issue at hand.

If it weren't for the backlash, I don't know if you would say anything differently about the game.

 

[shoemaker]

Games are more expensive now than ever before, if iam spending £50 on a star wars game, its fair to expect that the 2 biggest characters in the franchise will playable from the start. I don’t agree with micro transactions one bit or paid dlc for that matter. Its greed by publishers plain and simple. We are all being taken for mugs by games companies.

 

[inCloud]

Games are more expensive now than ever before

SWBF+SP was around 110$, afaik. All DLC for SWBF2 are free.

 

[NLxAROSA]

What I don't understand is, why is this only becoming a major issue now?

Because it's on a sliding scale and this implementation is arguably one of the worst. But I think the main reason is that SWBF2 and NFS: Payback are marketed at minors (16+ and 12+ respectively) rather than 18+ (Battlefield 1 is 18+ according to PEGI). And then authorities step in when people complain about this.

Quite frankly, I have very little issue with microtransactions like Ubisoft is doing them. With AC: O for instance you get exactly what you pay for, e.g. a fixed amount of credits, resources or some gear piece. But the ones from EA deliberately tap into addictive-inducing psychological patterns (as in: reward you, but not always) to make them more money. And then you're immediately in the same realm as tobacco/alcohol/drugs/gambling IMO.

 

[inCloud]

ith AC: O for instance you get exactly what you pay for

Problem with AC: O is that SP still a thing, along with microtransactions.

With AC: O for instance you get exactly what you pay for

There are lootboxes with random loot, system isnt any different. You can buy helix points, drahmas with helix points and loot boxes with random items with drahmas.

 

[NLxAROSA]

There are lootboxes with random loot, system isnt any different. You can buy helix points, drahmas with helix points and loot boxes with random items with drahmas.

Except that those lootboxes are completely optional and not getting them will not impact your progression whatsoever. Yes, it's possible to spend money on them indirectly (or anything you can buy with ingame credits for that matter), but you would be extremely stupid since you can just buy a pack from the store and outfit your character with a legendary gear set. It's not like Ubi has locked the best sets behind a grind and paywall, you can just get them from the appropriate quest or just buy them directly. Even credits to upgrade legendaries (the most expensive thing to do in the game) are easily attained.

 

[Fryto]

What I don't understand is, why is this only becoming a major issue now? If I recall correctly, DICE (Again with EA) faced some heavy backlash from Battlefield 1 players after a really rareskin was added into their Battlepack system. Players dumped hundreds of dollars (Why would you even...?) in attempts to get the skin. After players complainef enough, DICE added in new UI text tellig players an items level of rarity, which then calmed players/legal actions against them.

I don't see why they wouldn't just put that solution in again, if it isn't already in there in the first place.

I'm not one much for talking about buying these "lootboxes" with real world money as they've all come across as a way of nickel and dimeing players. If I want a crate, I'll buy it with in-game currency, or not at all. Just my opinion.

The major difference for me is that it's not an item that gives you an advantage over other players. Although that itself has nothing to do with the gambling regulator over here opening an investigation. They probably picked it up because SWBFII was causing so much uproar.
Apparently they're now looking into Overwatch as well, as it's employing the same type of loot crate system (be it just for cosmetics).
This could blow up really quickly and affect more and more games if they didn't apply for a gambling license...

 

[inCloud]

Except that those lootboxes are completely optional

as those from SWBF2.

and not getting them will not impact your progression whatsoever

nope

but you would be extremely stupid

you can just buy a pack from the store and outfit your character with a legendary gear set

Consumer that buying lootboxes is stupid. You were right in you sentence about gambling, but when we talking about gambling there isnt any excuses. Its ****** move. Only difference is that in Origins there is season pass and in SWBF2 isnt.

The major difference for me is that it's not an item that gives you an advantage over other players.

Microtransactions in AAA games(NFS, Mordor, SWBF2, ACO) isnt pay to win and completely optional, as NLxAROSA said. They are more about quality of life and speedruning the game progression, if you compare them with f2p microtransactions(WoT for example).

 

[Casey]

 

[NW48]

Well for anyone turned off of this game cause it'll take "40 hours to unlock Darth Vader", I just did it in less than an hour, maybe even 30mins of online play. And I suck at shooter games. This game is great, the campaign I felt was terrific, and left me on a cliffhanger for the add-on, and the offline play is decent as well.

 

[JakeMR2]

As much as I want to trust EA or better yet DICE. Looking at their own intentions as a whole is quite honestly a mistake to them. Even if they change the game this will still be haunting them forever, no matter how you slice it. Microtransactions are only apart of these Triple A titles without any reason to be there. Hell, it doesn't even fit. Like I said in the last post. Would you guys be saying the same when those historical characters cost 70,000 with everyone getting the same earnings. I highly recommend you watching Act Man's video on this issue. EA/DICE highly deserves it since I believe EA has ties to DICE.

If it were the same without the changes, would you say the same?

This is a marketing tactic to say that players complaints are invalid because the game updates, which invalidates the players concerns about such a franchise. If we let this continue, I can't say what else would be bad. I thoroughly enjoyed Battlefront (2015), and it was fun.

Trusting EA is just a mistake and the last game I bought was Battlefront (2015), but sadly I won't anymore because just buying the game still nets them profit. It won't help the situation at all

 

[Dan]

It truly is a shame that EA had to pull their usual tactics and be a cancer to the gaming industry, because SWBF2'17 looks amazing. The graphics and sound design are mind-blowing, and the gameplay seems exciting. If it weren't for the microtransactions, I probably would have bought the game. I refuse to purchase this game because EA has not earned my business, and they will not until they can make a proper game without these massive issues before and after release.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Their hand was forced.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/11/17/gamer...sactions-in-star-wars-battlefront-ii-7086453/

 

[Dan]

If you have decided not to buy the game, please stand by your decision. EA is only postponing the microtransactions. As soon as we forget or let this die down, EA will come back harder than before.

[Language]
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ge-anything-just-postponed-money-grab-scheme/

 

[Lain]

I'll be standing by my decision. Though admittedly, I never planned on buying Battlefront II in the first place

 

[Skygrasper550]

If you have decided not to buy the game, please stand by your decision. EA is only postponing the microtransactions. As soon as we forget or let this die down, EA will come back harder than before.

[Language]
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ge-anything-just-postponed-money-grab-scheme/

Yeah, you give them so much as a breathing room the size of a millimeter, they WILL come back. We need to keep the pressure. We have the upper hand now.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Well for anyone turned off of this game cause it'll take "40 hours to unlock Darth Vader", I just did it in less than an hour, maybe even 30mins of online play. And I suck at shooter games. This game is great, the campaign I felt was terrific, and left me on a cliffhanger for the add-on, and the offline play is decent as well.

So, luck of the loot crate draw, then?

I've finally got to sit down and play the review copy I have yesterday. It's a shame the economy is so predatory and confusing — and that skill plays so little into the rewards in the game. I say this, because looking past this stuff, there's a really good game here. It's fun, easy enough to grasp (I hadn't played BF in about six months by this point), and the campaign, while short, is a cool bit of Star Wars lore. Wholly predictable, but fun nonetheless. This being the Star Wars franchise, it's little wonder EA chose it to debut such an aggressive MT/P2W-style system: there are a lot of people out there that will buy it because of the name on the box. I get it: the production values are very high, and the sounds/visuals are so on-point, it's very much a heart-led purchase. You really feel a part of the Star Wars universe.

Removing MTs (for now, not forever) doesn't really change the grindy nature of the game, though. My plan is to just build up a lot of credits/crafting parts for a few weeks before figuring out how to spend them. The system is very hard to follow, which is a shame, since BF1's was straight-forward.

 

[Marqus]

Well for anyone turned off of this game cause it'll take "40 hours to unlock Darth Vader", I just did it in less than an hour, maybe even 30mins of online play. And I suck at shooter games. This game is great, the campaign I felt was terrific, and left me on a cliffhanger for the add-on, and the offline play is decent as well.

And that's a good thing??? They are straight up admitting they chopped up the campaign to sell later.

 

[Deadheadbill]

Too little too late. They are only backpedaling because they made the mainstream news in a negative fashion and the execs at Disney are ******** themselves over it. Their methods have not changed, their business practices are simply being spotlighted now. They will go back to business as usual once the spotlight is gone, the release momentum has died down and the holiday surge is over.

 

[NW48]

And that's a good thing??? They are straight up admitting they chopped up the campaign to sell later

It's not being sold, DLC is free. It's being chopped up to extend the lifetime playability of the game.

So, luck of the loot crate draw, then?

Not that I know of. Only lootcrates I got with credits were from completing parts of the campaign. And I'd imagine they'd be the same for everyone if it is a reward for completing the campaign.

 

[Skygrasper550]

Too little too late. They are only backpedaling because they made the mainstream news in a negative fashion and the execs at Disney are ******** themselves over it. Their methods have not changed, their business practices are simply being spotlighted now. They will go back to business as usual once the spotlight is gone, the release momentum has died down and the holiday surge is over.

I'd like to think that they only turned off the microtransations for the moment so as to avoid a possible investigation by the Belgian and Dutch governments. Because lootboxes are gambling through and through, even though they heavily claim that it's not. They know it is. If the Belgian and Dutch governments succeed, it's gonna be a ripple effect I'm sure.

 

[Marqus]

It's not being sold, DLC is free. It's being chopped up to extend the lifetime playability of the game.

That doesn't sound much better. It's like when games artificially extend the the game by padding it out with fluff. Gotta have that audience retention when microtransactions make a comeback, I guess.

 

[NW48]

That doesn't sound much better. It's like when games artificially extend the the game by padding it out with fluff. Gotta have that audience retention when microtransactions make a comeback, I guess.

I'd much prefer having a game that has a decent sized campaign, where they add to it constantly to extend the playability of the game. I know I tend to finish story modes within a couple of days or weeks, so when they add a whole new part to it, for free, I ain't complaining, and neither should anyone else. Keeps me coming back to the game instead of playing it for a week then benching it for ages.

 

[Marqus]

I'd much prefer having a game that has a decent sized campaign, where they add to it constantly to extend the playability of the game. I know I tend to finish story modes within a couple of days or weeks, so when they add a whole new part to it, for free, I ain't complaining, and neither should anyone else. Keeps me coming back to the game instead of playing it for a week then benching it for ages.

Sorry, just because you're okay with their antics, doesn't mean everyone should be too. And it's that kind of complacency that landed us in this mess in the first place. Frog in boiling water analogy.

 

[Jawehawk]

I'd much prefer having a game that has a decent sized campaign, where they add to it constantly to extend the playability of the game. I know I tend to finish story modes within a couple of days or weeks, so when they add a whole new part to it, for free, I ain't complaining, and neither should anyone else. Keeps me coming back to the game instead of playing it for a week then benching it for ages.

When I pay full price for a game, I expect it to be a finished product. Of course it's not okay to release the ending at a later time... Artificially prolonging the life of the game by withholding content is insanity.

 

[Skygrasper550]

It's not being sold, DLC is free. It's being chopped up to extend the lifetime playability of the game.

I'd much prefer having a game that has a decent sized campaign, where they add to it constantly to extend the playability of the game. I know I tend to finish story modes within a couple of days or weeks, so when they add a whole new part to it, for free, I ain't complaining, and neither should anyone else. Keeps me coming back to the game instead of playing it for a week then benching it for ages.

Why should anyone be okay with publishers/developers deliberately withholding content just so to artificially extend the life of the game? That's just plainly stupid. This is the kind of mentality and exploitative leeway that has allowed them to push out half-assed, unfinished games. Games weren't like this before, and before you say "well they aren't like that nowadays, accept it/deal with it", no, I am not accepting it. You want a gold standard of a game that actually has a proper, finished single player and proper additional content that is actually additional and not chopped off from release? Look at The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Their Blood & Wine DLC was released a full year (yes, 365 days) after the game's launch, because it actually is additional content that contains a brand new map to explore.

 

[Dan]

When I pay full price for a game, I expect it to be a finished product. Of course it's not okay to release the ending at a later time... Artificially prolonging the life of the game by withholding content is insanity.

Why should anyone be okay with publishers/developers deliberately withholding content just so to artificially extend the life of the game? That's just plainly stupid. This is the kind of mentality and exploitative leeway that has allowed them to push out half-assed, unfinished games. Games weren't like this before, and before you say "well they aren't like that nowadays, accept it/deal with it", no, I am not accepting it. You want a gold standard of a game that actually has a proper, finished single player and proper additional content that is actually additional and not chopped off from release? Look at The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Their Blood & Wine DLC was released a full year (yes, 365 days) after the game's launch, because it actually is additional content that contains a brand new map to explore.

So, I guess you guys aren't fans of Hitman 2016 then.

 

[Deadheadbill]

Why should anyone be okay with publishers/developers deliberately withholding content just so to artificially extend the life of the game? That's just plainly stupid. This is the kind of mentality and exploitative leeway that has allowed them to push out half-assed, unfinished games. Games weren't like this before, and before you say "well they aren't like that nowadays, accept it/deal with it", no, I am not accepting it. You want a gold standard of a game that actually has a proper, finished single player and proper additional content that is actually additional and not chopped off from release? Look at The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Their Blood & Wine DLC was released a full year (yes, 365 days) after the game's launch, because it actually is additional content that contains a brand new map to explore.

I spent almost 30 hours on Blood and Wine, easily twice what some full releases are these days. CDPR is the gold standard for integrity based developers imo.

Hmm, did I just coin a new phrase?

So, I guess you guys aren't fans of Hitman 2016 then.

Actually, I'm a big fan of the game, just not their chapter thing. Gonna pick up the complete edition as soon as it goes on sale somewhere during the holiday season. I do the same thing for the few Telltale games i buy.