Star Wars Battlefront II (Nov 17)

[XX]

I don't think you're wrong, I think you're just defining some of the concepts improperly. Risk is the most important factor here, because although the "reward" for a success is much bigger than it used to be, the risk is equally larger.

Literally said risk has gone up as a result of raw increased costs and MTs are a manifestation of the corporate desire to minimize said risk but okay.

The stagnation of prices has a lot to do with them, as if games have followed inflation, the amount a game would have to sell to be a financial success would be a lot less. The problem is now that games haven't had incremental increases, so raising the prices now is very difficult.

And yet 30 and 40 dollar titles like PUBG and Overwatch are wildly popular and profitable. There is nothing set in stone that says you must spend X on a game to generate Y return. If you increase prices, you limit your market even more. If anything, prices need to come down. $40, capturing 95% of that, is preferable to getting 45% of $60. The plan was to move to digital only but people still don't seem ready for that. The used game churn is really hurting widescale releases, especially single player titles. The market at this point is simply bloated and can't support endless AAA releases. Somebody has to lose the arms race.

Back on topic: I've been playing shooters for close to 20 years now and this game has the worst set of objective maps I have ever seen or played. The first game is miles better. What the f*** happened?

 

[ColbyChaos]

can confirm. I lost all of my heroes, what little starfighter cards i had are gone but i can still earn credits and my assault class seems in tact.

Played about an hour ago nothing changed at all for me. Still have my cards I got along with Vader,Luke, Chewy etc

edit: nvm too late

 

[XX]

Spend 4,000, get 600

 

[Commander Clueless]

Spend 4,000, get 600

You lose some, you lose some.

 

[Dolemite]

EA just goofed majorly.

New patch rolled out (1.03) and though it may be a glitch, literally everyone had their collection progress reset (all heroes, cards, etc are locked up again) and you can no longer earn credits.

Hoo boy...

That was the previous patch and only when your controllers weren’t connected. It’s been fixed.

 

[Emperoreddy]

No mobile game had the fan pushback like this game did.

No mobile game is $60 on top of MTs

 

[ColbyChaos]

apparently via reddit the guy who made the article about fans overreacting and that EA should charge more is none other than an EA shareholder

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

Yep, sounds about right. Being paid to spread falsehoods. Sounds about right for a corporate shill like him.

 

[ColbyChaos]

Crazy that guy actually tried pushing B.S that people would spend easily 1,000 hours on bf2, I dont even know if I ever hit 700 hours on the old total war games I had for almost a decade now. 1000 is hard to hit on any game and a fps game is probably the last style of game that people would ever hit 1000+ hours on.

 

[Dolemite]

It’s getting worse for EA.

https://kotaku.com/hawaii-wants-to-..._source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

 

[Emperoreddy]

https://kotaku.com/hawaii-wants-to-fight-the-predatory-behavior-of-loot-1820664617

Representative in Hawaii calls out the predatory nature of loot boxes. Uses Battlefront as an example.

The interesting part is he says other states are also looking into it. EA may have massively overreached with this.

 

[ColbyChaos]

I would love if lootboxes were somehow changed to cosmetics such as changing the color of clones armor to a certain legion/company. There were a few mods that did it for the old battlefront 2 and it was pretty cool seeing clones on Felucia look different than the clones on Kashyyyk and giving them both the appearence of how they looked in episode 3 rather than practically every soldier looking the exact same on every map.

 

[Leafs at Knight]

Honestly this might turn out to be a great things for the future of gaming and mts or lack thereof hopefully..

 

[KingBran]

As long as you aren't forced to spend real money on loot boxes in any game I don't get the big deal. Do people HAVE to be forced not to spend their money on things that aren't a good deal? They need the government telling them that it's dumb to spend money on micro-transactions and make laws because dumb people have no self control?

I just don't get why it's someone else's fault when other people want to be really stupid with their money.

That said, I wouldn't care if they make it so you have to say you are 18 to buy such things because I do believe loot crates do hit a twinge in the brain that's sort of like gambling. I mean there are already parental controls on systems though so parents should use them and not allow their kids to spend money on stupid shit like loot crates.

On topic, just won 13 matches in a row in Hero's vs Villains. I freaking love that game mode! I keep going back to Blast and other game-modes but they just aren't as exciting to me as HvV. Just so much more fun to play as an iconic SW character than some random soldier / stormtrooper.

 

[Bocephus86]

Crazy that guy actually tried pushing B.S that people would spend easily 1,000 hours on bf2, I dont even know if I ever hit 700 hours on the old total war games I had for almost a decade now. 1000 is hard to hit on any game and a fps game is probably the last style of game that people would ever hit 1000+ hours on.

I just checked - Empire Total War is the "oldest" game I have on steam that I consistently play to this day - I've had it since 2011 and played it a lot; it was about the "best" game my old PC could handle (still play it on my new one I built a year ago). 873 hours. That's 6 years of it being the most consistent game played.

 

[SolidSnakeUS]

https://kotaku.com/hawaii-wants-to-fight-the-predatory-behavior-of-loot-1820664617

Representative in Hawaii calls out the predatory nature of loot boxes. Uses Battlefront as an example.

The interesting part is he says other states are also looking into it. EA may have massively overreached with this.

And what's amazing is that they would basically have to respond to Disney about this shit as well. Oh boy I do not want to be EA right now being in Disney's crosshairs.

 

[Commander Clueless]

As long as you aren't forced to spend real money on loot boxes in any game I don't get the big deal. Do people HAVE to be forced not to spend their money on things that aren't a good deal? They need the government telling them that it's dumb to spend money on micro-transactions and make laws because dumb people have no self control?

I just don't get why it's someone else's fault when other people want to be really stupid with their money.

That said, I wouldn't care if they make it so you have to say you are 18 to buy such things because I do believe loot crates do hit a twinge in the brain that's sort of like gambling. I mean there are already parental controls on systems though so parents should use them and not allow their kids to spend money on stupid **** like loot crates.

Well, yes and no.

I don't think we're talking abolishing them because the crowd obviously loves them, just putting some protective regulations in place similar to "real" gambling.

The ESRB making any game with them an 'M' Rated game would be a good start, as you (indirectly) mentioned...although that would also involve parents actually paying attention to the ratings which, as anyone who has played CoD multiplayer knows, NEVER happens.

On topic, just won 13 matches in a row in Hero's vs Villains. I freaking love that game mode! I keep going back to Blast and other game-modes but they just aren't as exciting to me as HvV. Just so much more fun to play as an iconic SW character than some random soldier / stormtrooper.

HvV is a great mode, but I'm absolute garbage with heroes.

Maybe controversial, but I honestly wish they just left heroes in that mode only. Take them out of Galactic Assault/Starfighter. The spam is worse than the token campers in the last one in my personal opinion....

 

[KingBran]

Well, yes and no.

I don't think we're talking abolishing them because the crowd obviously loves them, just putting some protective regulations in place similar to "real" gambling.

The ESRB making any game with them an 'M' Rated game would be a good start, as you (indirectly) mentioned...although that would also involve parents actually paying attention to the ratings which, as anyone who has played CoD multiplayer knows, NEVER happens.



HvV is a great mode, but I'm absolute garbage with heroes.

Maybe controversial, but I honestly wish they just left heroes in that mode only. Take them out of Galactic Assault/Starfighter. The spam is worse than the token campers in the last one in my personal opinion....

I completely see your point here I just am very anti adding laws or regulations just because someone is dumb enough to spend money on some of this crap. As far as making the game M rated and as you say we know doesn't really do much it at least puts the onus on the parents who *gasp* might have to / should take some responsibility if their kids are being dumb and wasting money. I just think its insane that it's everyone else's fault for someone making a person choice to be stupid.

I would be fine with HvV being the only mode with Hero's. I think that would do two things.
1 - More people would play HvV (sometimes I wait a while for 8 people to join a game... nothing horrible but can be annoying) because that would be the only online place to play them and...
2 - No more having 10 guys at an obj about 5 seconds away from capping it and winning but then Kylo Ren shows up and kills everyone an the game is over.

Oh man the token camping was the worst in the previous version.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I completely see your point here I just am very anti adding laws or regulations just because someone is dumb enough to spend money on some of this crap. As far as making the game M rated and as you say we know doesn't really do much it at least puts the onus on the parents who *gasp* might have to / should take some responsibility if their kids are being dumb and wasting money. I just think its insane that it's everyone else's fault for someone making a person choice to be stupid.

While I see your point, when addiction comes up it gets a little more muddied.

If all it was was stupidity and negatively affecting the quality of games, I think the gamer backlash is all you'd see.

I would be fine with HvV being the only mode with Hero's. I think that would do two things.
1 - More people would play HvV (sometimes I wait a while for 8 people to join a game... nothing horrible but can be annoying) because that would be the only online place to play them and...
2 - No more having 10 guys at an obj about 5 seconds away from capping it and winning but then Kylo Ren shows up and kills everyone an the game is over.

Oh man the token camping was the worst in the previous version.

It was bad, but at least then it was capped to one hero.

 

[KingBran]

While I see your point, when addiction comes up it gets a little more muddied.

If all it was was stupidity and negatively affecting the quality of games, I think the gamer backlash is all you'd see.

To quote a famous Star Wars character... "That's the real trick isn't it?"

It was bad, but at least then it was capped to one hero.

True. And the maps seemed better designed to take them out. The maps in BF2 have lots of hiding spots and nooks and crannies and it seems Hero's can last a lot longer.

 

[Commander Clueless]

True. And the maps seemed better designed to take them out. The maps in BF2 have lots of hiding spots and nooks and crannies and it seems Hero's can last a lot longer.

Map design used to be the reason I loved DICE games. Fast forward to today, and they seem to be getting progressively worse.

Artistic design is incredible, but from a game play standpoint some of the "murder hallway" sections of the maps are mind boggling. Who thought that was a good idea, especially in game with hero units and infinite cooldown-based grenades?

 

[KingBran]

Map design used to be the reason I loved DICE games. Fast forward to today, and they seem to be getting progressively worse.

Artistic design is incredible, but from a game play standpoint some of the "murder hallway" sections of the maps are mind boggling. Who thought that was a good idea, especially in game with hero units and infinite cooldown-based grenades?

Lets not forget health regen too. One of the few non-hero games I played was on Starkiller base and when attacking you quite literally have to capture a point at a bottleneck. All the First Order can do is shoot through 2 doorways while the resistance clogs them up trying to cap the point in a giant open area outside. I was a heavy and just kept peeking around the corner killing a guy then back behind the wall... repeat that and toss a grenade every once in a while and its too easy to get that point because the FO can't do anything else but sit inside a room looking through two doorways.

Like you said though, the game looks beautiful!

 

[Bjorn Le]

Literally said risk has gone up as a result of raw increased costs and MTs are a manifestation of the corporate desire to minimize said risk but okay.

And yet 30 and 40 dollar titles like PUBG and Overwatch are wildly popular and profitable. There is nothing set in stone that says you must spend X on a game to generate Y return. If you increase prices, you limit your market even more. If anything, prices need to come down. $40, capturing 95% of that, is preferable to getting 45% of $60. The plan was to move to digital only but people still don't seem ready for that. The used game churn is really hurting widescale releases, especially single player titles. The market at this point is simply bloated and can't support endless AAA releases. Somebody has to lose the arms race.

Back on topic: I've been playing shooters for close to 20 years now and this game has the worst set of objective maps I have ever seen or played. The first game is miles better. What the **** happened?

And that's why I said I don't think you're wrong. But you're focusing on the wrong aspects. You're placing risk on a different plane from costs increases from development, when they're integrally linked. Your argument was that costs have gone down because the market has increased, which comes about from a linear assumption that since a developer is likely to sell more copies than they were in the past, their costs are lower. But risks are part of costs, and along with the increase of production costs/secondary and tertiary costs associated with publishing a game. Ergo while the reward for a successful game is larger than it used to be, a failure is much more dangerous due to a massive increase in costs. A company has a lot more to lose from a lukewarmly/poorly received game then they used to, which is why I think the increased costs of developing games has driven microtransctions and like-minded content.

I'm not making a normative argument that there ought to be lower prices. I was pretty clear in my last post that this is pretty untenable now. I'm making a descriptive claim about what I see to be the case. Basic economics tells you that a dramatic increase in the price, all other factors held constant, is going to lower consumer demand (and in the case of video games, unlikely to result in higher revenue). But publishers should have been incrementally raising the price of games along inflation lines. Almost all other products that don't have declining costs work this way. Prices coming down is only going to lead to more microtransactions and after the fact costs. The market is bloated, which is why microtransactions aren't going anywhere.

 

[XX]

And that's why I said I don't think you're wrong. But you're focusing on the wrong aspects. You're placing risk on a different plane from costs increases from development, when they're integrally linked. Your argument was that costs have gone down because the market has increased, which comes about from a linear assumption that since a developer is likely to sell more copies than they were in the past, their costs are lower. But risks are part of costs, and along with the increase of production costs/secondary and tertiary costs associated with publishing a game. Ergo while the reward for a successful game is larger than it used to be, a failure is much more dangerous due to a massive increase in costs. A company has a lot more to lose from a lukewarmly/poorly received game then they used to, which is why I think the increased costs of developing games has driven microtransctions and like-minded content.

Did you gloss over this?

It doesn't matter if per team costs have tripled. If your potential revenue/expected sales have outpaced that, your costs have actually gone down per unit. The only thing that went up is your risk. If you miss by a wide margin now, it will hurt more.

Of course if you are spending three to four times as much per game you stand to lose more on a flop. ME:Andromeda soaked up a lot of resources for a pretty pitiful performance, which is why EA is shelving that franchise for now. They want things that are bankable.

Battlefront 2 isn't in danger of losing money but it's in real danger of coming in under forecast. And EA might have royally screwed the pooch if increased attention to regulators threatens things like FUT.

Map design used to be the reason I loved DICE games. Fast forward to today, and they seem to be getting progressively worse.

Artistic design is incredible, but from a game play standpoint some of the "murder hallway" sections of the maps are mind boggling. Who thought that was a good idea, especially in game with hero units and infinite cooldown-based grenades?

This game shipped with the worst set of maps I've ever seen in an objective based shooter. It wasn't like Battlefield 1 was great design wise either. Lots of pretty maps but tons of explosive spam, cheesey ass gadgets and the like.

Only a couple maps actually feel like Star Wars sized battles, the rest feel like you're running through the cloud city hallways. First stage of Kamino should be studied as an example of what not to do by future developers.

 

[KingBran]

And that's why I said I don't think you're wrong. But you're focusing on the wrong aspects. You're placing risk on a different plane from costs increases from development, when they're integrally linked. Your argument was that costs have gone down because the market has increased, which comes about from a linear assumption that since a developer is likely to sell more copies than they were in the past, their costs are lower. But risks are part of costs, and along with the increase of production costs/secondary and tertiary costs associated with publishing a game. Ergo while the reward for a successful game is larger than it used to be, a failure is much more dangerous due to a massive increase in costs. A company has a lot more to lose from a lukewarmly/poorly received game then they used to, which is why I think the increased costs of developing games has driven microtransctions and like-minded content.

I'm not making a normative argument that there ought to be lower prices. I was pretty clear in my last post that this is pretty untenable now. I'm making a descriptive claim about what I see to be the case. Basic economics tells you that a dramatic increase in the price, all other factors held constant, is going to lower consumer demand (and in the case of video games, unlikely to result in higher revenue). But publishers should have been incrementally raising the price of games along inflation lines. Almost all other products that don't have declining costs work this way. Prices coming down is only going to lead to more microtransactions and after the fact costs. The market is bloated, which is why microtransactions aren't going anywhere.

Well said.

Its like why EA had such a small inexperienced team running ME: Andromeda. They took their big Mass Effect team and have them working on Anthem. They banked that ME:A would sell just because it's a ME game. Huge risk for potential huge reward if the ME fans love it. They didn't and EA said ME is done for now.

Also like movies. The big ones cost hundreds of millions to make. For instance the new Justice League movie cost an estimated $300m to make... Only made $94m on opening weekend. It will probably make a little bit of profit by the time all is said and done but their ambitious estimates were that they would make $1b (yes, that's a B).

The biggest problem with Video Games, Music and Movies are that they spend all their money making these things then it's done. They give it to the public and pray that they can make a profit. In the video game world what micro-transactions / loot crates / DLC does is keeps the game making money with little to no cost for extra development or marketing. It's essentially the "bonus content" or "deleted scenes" or "X rated version" of buying the movie after you saw it in theaters a few months ago. They are finding more ways to offset their costs because its getting more and more expensive to do these things. Lots more risk.