Star Wars Battlefront II (Nov 17)

[XX]

EA's response on Reddit actually succeeded in making everything even worse.

Yeah but the top reply is priceless:

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes.
As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we're looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we'll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.
We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.
Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

I wonder if Burger King wants to sell me a sense of pride and accomplishment by making me work 10 hours for my f***ing fries.

 

[HanSolo]

100,000 downvotes. My god

 

[XX]

100,000 downvotes. My god

That's 4x the most downvoted comment in reddit history previous to this. Fun day to be working PR at EA.

I can already tell they'll talk about changes and then lower the grind a negligible amount. This stuff is so sketchy, especially compared to games like R6 Siege and Overwatch that have found a way to grow without being obnoxious about microtransactions.

That community dude that was whining about armchair developers stepped in it, he should be let go because he already had zero credibility (bribed the reddit mods during BF1)

 

[Leafs at Knight]

Won't matter when it's the best selling game of the month besides Cod unfortunately, but that reddit post and its down voting is hiliarous.

I'm hoping the reviews absolutely rip it apart.

 

[XX]

Won't matter when it's the best selling game of the month besides Cod unfortunately, but that reddit post and its down voting is hiliarous.

I'm hoping the reviews absolutely rip it apart.

I've read that at the 'review event' (why are these still a thing?) they had a different price for the heroes in the review build (10k vs 60k) so that reviewers wouldn't really notice or make a fuss. That's probably the single scummiest thing I've seen in the gaming industry so far. It's right up there with having matchmaking that's designed to pressure players into using microtransactions (great job Activision).

This shit is indefensible in the age of games like R6 Siege and Overwatch. People literally don't have time to grind unlocks like this, on top of all the star card nonsense. That's 40 hours without spending a single credit on anything else. That's insane.

 

[KingBran]

Played this a lot this weekend (I have EA Access) and its beautiful on the Xbox One X. Though it seems the cutscenes aren't in 4K? They seem to start out in 4K for about 2 seconds then all of a sudden everything gets washed out.

Anyways, you can do 3 campaign missions during the trail and that was enough to make me purchase it, its really good so far. Played some Heros vs Villains in multiplayer and it was good except you would get people that would die as say Lando then just wait for Yoda or Rey to die and press A by accident (or on purpose?) after death to switch their hero which unlocked that hero so that person waiting could pick it then you are stuck being a hero you didn't want to be just because you pressed A after dying.

So need to train myself not to press A after death or you may risk losing being able to play that hero. Or simply need to unlock more hero's. I like the hero battles much more than Blast or the huge battles but those are still fun too. Hero battles just have more of an Overwatch-ish type feel as far as having each character be different. I like how they do it now too with Targets instead of just kill count and I like that there are no extras either... Its 4v4. Hero's only. Good changes there.

The loot crate system and boost cards suck and I hate it but eh... ill play it enough I am sure to get the unlocks I want. At least you can get "scrap" to unlock specific ones you want. But the whole system is dumb to begin with.

I wish it were more like overwatch and rocket league where your crates are only cosmetic changes not that they actually make your guy more powerful. That really blows. I am sure at some point some dude will find this amazing combo for a class and it will become what everyone plays because to most people it's about how exploit the game the most instead of just having fun. But I digress... Then it will take months for EA to fix the issue then there will be another combo that becomes OP... on and on.

 

[Commander Clueless]

I personally blow all my points on rocket troopers/super battle droids well before I get to heroes cuz I'm an idiot, so I guess this doesn't hurt me too much.

 

[Tatar Shots]

We are nearing 300K downvotes. I don't understand why anyone with any knowledge of how this game works would purchase it. The vast majority of the sales will be to parents who are buying the new Star Wars game as a present for their kids. I wonder how they would feel realizing their 60-80 dollars just gets the bare bones minimum. I really am just dumbfounded that people continue to support EA's corrupt business practices. They can just flat out say 'we are testing how much people are willing to put up with/pay for content I our games' and people still flock to purchase their games. This is basically a 'freemium' game with a $60 starting point.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Well, probably because it's still fun.

What you are describing isn't just EA. It's pretty much all AAA publishers at this point. It's basically the new normal.

I don't like it and I certainly won't buy any freemium bullcrap, but if the base game is fun I'll probably still play it.


You do have to note, though, that while we might not like this new normal of lootboxes and fees and the like, obviously there are many people who do. Lootboxes and microtransactions earn these companies more money than sales.

 

[KingBran]

We are nearing 300K downvotes. I don't understand why anyone with any knowledge of how this game works would purchase it. The vast majority of the sales will be to parents who are buying the new Star Wars game as a present for their kids. I wonder how they would feel realizing their 60-80 dollars just gets the bare bones minimum. I really am just dumbfounded that people continue to support EA's corrupt business practices. They can just flat out say 'we are testing how much people are willing to put up with/pay for content I our games' and people still flock to purchase their games. This is basically a 'freemium' game with a $60 starting point.

Some people buy games for the single player. I am playing the trial and the SP is what sold me on it. You can only play the first 3 missions of it but I really want to see what this canon says about the time between Jedi and TFA. I will play the multiplayer knowing full well all of its' shortcomings but the main draw for me is the campaign and the arcade.

It's like COD. I bought and played COD WWII for the campaign though I am sure 95% of the people who bought it will never play the campaign.

I wont be buying any crates or anything and I never do (with the rare Overwatch or Rocket League crate key). But people are out there who do so they will keep doing it.

 

[Tatar Shots]

Well, probably because it's still fun.

What you are describing isn't just EA. It's pretty much all AAA publishers at this point. It's basically the new normal.

I don't like it and I certainly won't buy any freemium bullcrap, but if the base game is fun I'll probably still play it.


You do have to note, though, that while we might not like this new normal of lootboxes and fees and the like, obviously there are many people who do. Lootboxes and microtransactions earn these companies more money than sales.

EA is by far the worst offender with this and their ultimate team gambling. And it's only becoming the normal because of people like you who state they don't like it but will put up with it and purchase the product regardless.

So you are perfectly content spending $60 on a Star Wars game and having core characters such as Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader locked behind paywalls? Not to mention whoever else is being withheld to be added at a later date. Your participating in a 'freemium' game whether you purchase the content or not. You can either grind for 40 hours to unlock a single character or just purchase the character.

And many people do not like these tactics by EA. These loot box/micro transactions/ freemium/ gambling, whatever you want to call it that are implemented into games are designed to prey on people. They suck in a very small percentage of people with addictive personalities (whales) and these people make up the vast, vast majority of sales. There are studies out there if you are interested in how these business practices really work.

 

[KingBran]

I don't see how EA is "the worst offender" when Blizzard, Psyonix, Ubisoft and a plethora of others (I.E. mobile games) have been doing this for years as well.

I get it, it sucks, lots of people hate it... but acting like EA is "the worst offender" is pretty far from the truth.

You can unlock Luke and Vader by playing the game. Really only have to spend money if you can't wait. EA is easily not the only people who do this. This isn't like some games where it's almost literally impossible to move on in the game without buying in game stuff. I can think of a bunch of mobile games that once you get to a certain level, to move on you have to pay like $1.99 or you can wait 24 hours to unlock the next set of levels. THAT is worst than what EA is doing IMO.

 

[Papa Francouz]

I don't see how EA is "the worst offender" when Blizzard, Psyonix, Ubisoft and a plethora of others (I.E. mobile games) have been doing this for years as well.

I get it, it sucks, lots of people hate it... but acting like EA is "the worst offender" is pretty far from the truth.

You can unlock Luke and Vader by playing the game. Really only have to spend money if you can't wait. EA is easily not the only people who do this. This isn't like some games where it's almost literally impossible to move on in the game without buying in game stuff. I can think of a bunch of mobile games that once you get to a certain level, to move on you have to pay like $1.99 or you can wait 24 hours to unlock the next set of levels. THAT is worst than what EA is doing IMO.

It’s tough to compare mobile games like that and console games like BF2 due to the initial barrier to entry cost. Mobile games are typically free to download, or don’t cost very much to purchase. BF2 has an initial barrier to entry cost of $60/$80, and then you are forced to continue spending more money to remain competitive in the game.

Blizzard doesn’t do this with Overwatch, if that is what you’re referencing. All of the loot in the loot boxes in Overwatch are purely cosmetic, and they do not change the gameplay experience or the balance of the game. Blizzard also makes every hero available from the very start of the game, and every new hero they release is free.

I stay away from Ubisoft games, so I’m not sure what you’re referencing there.

 

[Starry Knight]

If your game isn't free-to-play, you better not be having non-cosmetic microtransactions. People are already shelling out $80 to play your game, they better not have to invest 100s of hours (or additional money) to have access to all of the content and be on an even playing field.

I cancelled my pre-order because of this practice for this game. Unacceptable greed on EA's part.

 

[KingBran]

It’s tough to compare mobile games like that and console games like BF2 due to the initial barrier to entry cost. Mobile games are typically free to download, or don’t cost very much to purchase. BF2 has an initial barrier to entry cost of $60/$80, and then you are forced to continue spending more money to remain competitive in the game.

Blizzard doesn’t do this with Overwatch, if that is what you’re referencing. All of the loot in the loot boxes in Overwatch are purely cosmetic, and they do not change the gameplay experience or the balance of the game. Blizzard also makes every hero available from the very start of the game, and every new hero they release is free.

I stay away from Ubisoft games, so I’m not sure what you’re referencing there.

That's a fair point about the initial cost but you don't have to pay any more if you don't want to. I have yet to see a $60 game be impossible to beat without micro-transactions or actually prevent you from playing unless you pay more $.

Yes, I know Blizzard is all cosmetic. But it's still micro transactions that change your game. Part of gaming is the visuals. But just like this new Battlefront game, you can complete it and be competitive in multiplayer without paying for any micro transactions. Again, I am not defending this - I hate it - but it doesn't make the game unplayable without it.

Ubisoft -
Assassins Creed Origins. Micro transactions for "helix credits" that you can use for cosmetic gear or legendary / ultra rare / rare weaponry. You can also buy in-game currency and attribute points to level up your guy faster. Well, his level wont actually go up but you can unlock skills in the skill tree if you want to pay for it without actually leveling up or exploring tombs (the in-game way to get attribute points). You can also pay to reveal important areas to explore on the world map instead of just finding all that yourself.

Rainbow Six Siege. Some people will just call them expansions but look, they sell a "starter" edition now where you can pay piece by piece for new operators. Or you can play the game... A LOT... and unlock them. They keep adding new operators and people keep paying.

I wont be surprised if Farcry 5 has something similar to what AC:O has.

My point was only that lots of companies do this. There is nothing that would point to EA being the worst. I think they just get yelled at the most but lots of other games do this.

 

[Tatar Shots]

I don't see how EA is "the worst offender" when Blizzard, Psyonix, Ubisoft and a plethora of others (I.E. mobile games) have been doing this for years as well.

I get it, it sucks, lots of people hate it... but acting like EA is "the worst offender" is pretty far from the truth.

You can unlock Luke and Vader by playing the game. Really only have to spend money if you can't wait. EA is easily not the only people who do this. This isn't like some games where it's almost literally impossible to move on in the game without buying in game stuff. I can think of a bunch of mobile games that once you get to a certain level, to move on you have to pay like $1.99 or you can wait 24 hours to unlock the next set of levels. THAT is worst than what EA is doing IMO.

Please explain how Blizzard and Psyonix are remotely comparable to what EA does? Blizzard and Psyonix have cosmetics in loot crates that do not have any impact on game content/balance. You can't pay for advantages over opponents like you can in Ultimate Team and Battlefront II. Yes you can unlock Luke and Vader by grinding out 40 hours of gameplay per character. Not sure how that is different from "almost literally impossible to move on in the game without buying in game stuff."

And yea like I said, this is mobile game freemium practice attached to a $60 price tag. It's not like this will get better if people just accept it. Publishers will just continue to press the boundary of what they can get away with.

Your free to choose to support and reward these tactics if you want, but I refuse to do so. I won't purchase cosmetic loot boxes either, but those don't have any effect on gameplay. Not to mention Rocket League is a $20 game and competitively balanced. There is no paying for superior cars. Heroes of The Storm is free with all heroes being available outside of loot boxes with loot boxes containing cosmetic items.

 

[KingBran]

I am not saying Blizzard and Psyonix are comparible. I am saying micro-transation loot crates have been around for a long time and I don't see how someone can say EA is "the worst offender" when so many other companies do it.

Just because EA makes a ton more games so more of their games have it doesn't make them worse.

If these other companies pumped out as many games as EA did they would be doing the same exact thing but they aren't as big. That's why I mentioned Ubisoft. They have been doing it to all their games lately too.

Yes, I get the difference between cosmetic and boosts. What you are not understanding is those boosts are STILL UNLOCKABLE in the game. You only pay money to save the time it would take to get the boosts.

Again, I am not defending this practice at all. Just explaining how crates and microtransactions are not some EA exclusive thing.

 

[Tatar Shots]

I am not saying Blizzard and Psyonix are comparible. I am saying micro-transation loot crates have been around for a long time and I don't see how someone can say EA is "the worst offender" when so many other companies do it.

Just because EA makes a ton more games so more of their games have it doesn't make them worse.

If these other companies pumped out as many games as EA did they would be doing the same exact thing but they aren't as big. That's why I mentioned Ubisoft. They have been doing it to all their games lately too.

Yes, I get the difference between cosmetic and boosts. What you are not understanding is those boosts are STILL UNLOCKABLE in the game. You only pay money to save the time it would take to get the boosts.

Again, I am not defending this practice at all. Just explaining how crates and microtransactions are not some EA exclusive thing.

EA is the worst offender because they sell competitive advantages and lock game content behind absurd and unceccsary grinds/paywalls. If you think it is reasonable to play 40 hours to unlock a single character, I don't know what to tell you. There is absolutely no reason besides greed that these things shouldn't be available from the get go. Why on Earth should anyone ever have to pay for a game and then work to access content in the game?

 

[Commander Clueless]

EA is by far the worst offender with this and their ultimate team gambling. And it's only becoming the normal because of people like you who state they don't like it but will put up with it and purchase the product regardless.

No, it's becoming the normal because people want it and pay for it. I ignore it because it's a part of the game that I have no interest in. If it ruins the game, then yeah I won't play the game. Simple as that.


EA is hardly any worse than Activision (CoD, Destiny) or Warner Bros (Shadow of War) in this regard. It's all the same bull. In fact, Activision's patent on its microtransaction-based matchmaking system might give them the crown for most manipulative.

So you are perfectly content spending $60 on a Star Wars game and having core characters such as Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader locked behind paywalls? Not to mention whoever else is being withheld to be added at a later date. Your participating in a 'freemium' game whether you purchase the content or not. You can either grind for 40 hours to unlock a single character or just purchase the character.

While yes that is annoying, I'm perfectly fine with paying $80 (CDN) for a game I enjoyed. That's pretty much the bottom line here.

I'll be honest, I'm mostly interested in the single player.

And many people do not like these tactics by EA. These loot box/micro transactions/ freemium/ gambling, whatever you want to call it that are implemented into games are designed to prey on people. They suck in a very small percentage of people with addictive personalities (whales) and these people make up the vast, vast majority of sales. There are studies out there if you are interested in how these business practices really work.

I personally agree, but other people obviously like to gamble. I'm not a gambler, myself.

I've voiced my concerns on this crap multiple times, but the players obviously want it since they continue to buy it.

 

[KingBran]

EA is the worst offender because they sell competitive advantages and lock game content behind absurd and unceccsary grinds/paywalls. If you think it is reasonable to play 40 hours to unlock a single character, I don't know what to tell you. There is absolutely no reason besides greed that these things shouldn't be available from the get go. Why on Earth should anyone ever have to pay for a game and then work to access content in the game?

40 hours to unlock a character?

I am playing the trial right now. Vader is 60,000 credits to unlock. I played multiplayer for about an hour and have over 15,000 credits. So 4 hours to unlock a character that I will have fun with and probably play for at least another 4 to unlock another? OH THE HORROR! lol. I have enough scrap to unlock a boost card of my choosing too. I have also had maybe 6 free crates with random goodies. It's so easy not to feel forced to pay for any of this stuff since you are constantly getting new things to play with.

So in 1 hour of play I have unlocked about 6 crates with 6 boost cards, earned enough scrap to unlock another, a few emotes (wahoo...) and I am 1/4 of the way to unlocking Vader.

Why do people make stuff up just so they can hate on something they haven't done the research on? - Should be the question you are asking.

And even though I say all that, I still hate it. But at least I know some of what you are saying simply is not true.

 

[Papa Francouz]

I imagine that major backlash comes from the fact that these heroes are not easily accessible. You can buy them (which is exactly what EA wants), or you can dedicate the amount of time required for a full-time job just to unlock one hero. And given that these heroes do affect gameplay and game balance, this is an extremely anti-consumer practice. Blizzard and Psyonix do not do this, as their loot boxes don’t have any affect on the gameplay.

As for the campaign: I just hope whoever is buying this game just for the campaign didn’t rally too hard against The Order: 1886, because this game is extremely short but but sold at full price, just like The Order.

 

[KingBran]

I imagine that major backlash comes from the fact that these heroes are not easily accessible. You can buy them (which is exactly what EA wants), or you can dedicate the amount of time required for a full-time job just to unlock one hero. And given that these heroes do affect gameplay and game balance, this is an extremely anti-consumer practice. Blizzard and Psyonix do not do this, as their loot boxes don’t have any affect on the gameplay.

As for the campaign: I just hope whoever is buying this game just for the campaign didn’t rally too hard against The Order: 1886, because this game is extremely short but but sold at full price, just like The Order.

Most shooters don't have a super-long campaign. They are saying this game is what? Around 5-7 hours?

Wolfenstein II is 7-9
COD: WWII is 5-7
Most battlefield games are 6-9

Kind of fitting in with most other shooters really.

 

[Tatar Shots]

40 hours to unlock a character?

I am playing the trial right now. Vader is 60,000 credits to unlock. I played multiplayer for about an hour and have over 15,000 credits. So 4 hours to unlock a character that I will have fun with and probably play for at least another 4 to unlock another? OH THE HORROR! lol. I have enough scrap to unlock a boost card of my choosing too. I have also had maybe 6 free crates with random goodies. It's so easy not to feel forced to pay for any of this stuff since you are constantly getting new things to play with.

Why do people make stuff up just so they can hate on something they haven't done the research on? - Should be the question you are asking.

And even though I say all that, I still hate it. But at least I know some of what you are saying simply is not true.

I'm not making anything up. EA hasn't even attempted to deny it anywhere just stating how they will 'monitor' it and 'wants players to have a sense of accomplishment and pride' when they are able to unlock a hero. With this being all over the internet and under heavy criticism, you think EA would at least attempt to deny it if it were not true. But yea, everyone is just making things up to make EA look bad.

 

[Commander Clueless]

Most shooters don't have a super-long campaign. They are saying this game is what? Around 5-7 hours?

Wolfenstein II is 7-9
COD: WWII is 5-7
Most battlefield games are 6-9

Kind of fitting in with most other shooters really.

Titanfall 2 was 6-8 and was an awesome campaign.

 

[Papa Francouz]

Most shooters don't have a super-long campaign. They are saying this game is what? Around 5-7 hours?

Wolfenstein II is 7-9
COD: WWII is 5-7
Most battlefield games are 6-9

Kind of fitting in with most other shooters really.

Sure, but there was a ton of backlash against The Order: 1886 when it first came out for having a super short campaign. Granted, there was no multiplayer for The Order, but if people are planning to pick up BF2 for the campaign, they should know what they’re getting themselves into. BF2 is only worth its price tag if players are planning to play both SP and MP.