Gaming Star Wars: Battlefront (2015) & Battlefront 2 (2017) [Mod Approved]

It doesn't matter if you buy them. You are actively supporting a game that preys on children and people with addictive personalities to pad their bottom line and encouraging a disease that's spreading throughout the game industry.

If you buy the game, you are part of the problem. Everyone needs to vote with their wallets to show EA that we've had it with their BS, and to show Disney that their license has been misplaced in the hands of a manipulative company that will do nothing but screw over the brand and the people that enjoy Star Wars.

 

Okay if we're gonna be 100% super srs you can pull back on the pedal a bit bruh-- I've written at-length not supporting microtransactions here and elsewhere and the game was actually a gift.

I'm wicked proud of how the community has responded and so far gotten results, and I intend to support that community going forward as well.

 

Ok cool.

When it comes to games, especially corruptive practices like micro-transactions, games as services, etc, I'm always serious. I love video games, and think they're one of the most innovative mediums we have that can be used to create the most amazing experiences imaginable. So when stuff like this happens, I get very... Heated.

 

They removed the ability to pay for loot boxes and given the outrage and potential legal action, it’s likely never coming back. How am I supporting the practice by purchasing a game that doesn’t include said practice?

 

Insurgency.

 

Ok seriously. You guys need to drop the self-righteous crusader attitude. I bought a video game. That's all. I'm not part of a problem. There isn't a disease spreading through the game industry. Microtransactions and games as service are hardly corruptive practices. Pay to win isn't an evil that needs to be stamped out. You need to dial back the fiery rhetoric and get a better sense of perspective, and please don't use children to garner emotional support for your argument, it just makes you look hysterical (especially since the rating of this game is for late teenagers).


The ability to purchase crystals in-game will become available at a later date, only after we’ve made changes to the game

Why are people always missing the second part?

 

Don’t treat me like an idiot who hasn’t read the press release, thanks.

That doesn’t confirm P2W is coming back, just crystal purchases. Given that the whole gambling aspect could get EA in trouble with ACTUAL GOVERNMENT BODIES, I don’t think it’s going to be coming back.

 

I don't think the micro-transactions can possibly return as they were after the last 2-3 days.

This.

Because EA are a corporation that people have zero trust in, thus the statement has no credibility for them.

 

because the fact they went down this road in the first place suggests they're actually more tone deaf than we realise, and it therefore feels like a short term gesture to let the news cycle move on?

 

That's... a very good point, actually. I'll keep that in mind when constructing my arguments going forward.

 

redxavier

I know you're not part of a problem. You just want to play your Star Wars game, and have a good time in the process. But that comes with an understanding that you're playing a game made by one of the most manipulative corporations operating within this medium. Even though you won't buy crystals, you're supporting an economy where other people will, due to the way it's all set up by EA. Even with the crystals removed now, they will be re-enabled, and I doubt they'll be cosmetic only.

For a cosmetics only system to work, you need to have an attachment with the game and the will to play it regularly enough for a cosmetic to be justified. Overwatch is an example of this where the game's fan-base is massive, the publisher is generally well liked, and the game is played constantly. Battlefront II doesn't have any of these things. The Star Wars license will help, sure, but that'll only get people in the door, and with all the bad PR the game has accrued, it might not even do that. So the only viable system is for EA to try to salvage what it can by re-implementing micro-transactions for in-game items to try and get some of their money back, or pull a 180 and just cut them entirely, which I don't see as very likely considering how much weight they've put into loot crates.

As for your points that games as services, loot boxes, etc, aren't bad things, i'm going to have to disagree.

It was recently discovered that Activision had patented a concept where matches are made to intentionally unbalance skill levels to encourage micro-transactions, and pair players who purchase better weapons with weaker players to increase their perceived value.​

​

In NBA2K18, you have to play over 200 matches to rank a single player up to max level, with matches taking anywhere from 20 to 40 minutes to complete, while micro-transactions cut this time drastically.​

​

Some mobile companies use a system called Scientific Revenue to change prices on a per-person basis to entice people into paying more, or into buying at a lower price when they usually wouldn't.​

​

"Games as a Service" can be a good thing. However, it also gives developers an excuse to implement systems to charge the end user more money when such is unnecessary. Games like The Witcher 3 are able to provide free content, such as armor and quests, to its players free of charge, with substantial content coming in Expansion Packs.​

​

Square Enix allegedly forced Eidos to include Microtransactions in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided two weeks before release.​

​

Microsoft made Forza 7 actively worse by redesigning the VIP system to require multiple purchases, and removing the skill based driving system in favor of loot boxes and temporary unlocks.​

​

GTA Online has made 500 Million alone in micro-transactions by adding new equipment with high in-game prices and having players buy currency for them.​

​

Take Two plans on having every game they release include micro-transactions, requiring multiple payments for each release.​

​

We have overwhelming evidence that these practices are not only bad, but that they will keep happening if these corporations are not shown how their sales will be impacted negatively.

And I will use children in my examples, because children will be affected. I know, first hand, that children play games designed for teens and adults, such as Halo, Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto, and more, and I have studies to prove it. I remember all my friends in Elementary School who played M and T games. The ratings don't do a lot for a lot of people. This doesn't even go into the mobile market, which I got suckered into as a kid. And even then, we have people with addictive personalities who will get conned into these things.

It's fine if you want to play these games. More power to you. But this is an issue that you should be aware of while doing so.

 

GTAO is especially notable because the cost of in-game currency stayed static since launch, whereas inflation pushed the price of in game cars, apartments, warehouses, planes etc up in some cases tenfold.

 

So I just returned from some Black Friday shopping and I bought a physical copy of this game. Should I return it? Does the campaign suck? That’s all I’m really interested in.

 

From what i've seen, it's only 4-5 hours. The DLC releasing next month might make it more worthwhile, but i'd recommend you wait for a price drop in a few months if you're intent on getting it.

But, as I ranted above, i'd advocate not buying it at all.

 

Thanks. I’m going to return it and get Horizon: Zero Dawn instead.

 

If you haven't played it, I recommend The Witcher 3 and its expansions. Great game, great expansions, great company.

 

I do get what you're saying. It would probably be better if companies just charged more for games. While you've provided evidence of these practices becoming more common, I don't see a persuasive case about why they are bad - it's unfair for the person who pays more not to get more? That's a curious logic. Balance discordance has been in games since arcades, where they would rig the system to beat you, as well as "play-walls" where those who are able to invest more time in the game get advantages over those who don't.

As for the wider issue, I don't see anything more predatory here than any business that seeks to sell you things, often by creating a superficial demand that they invented. People who spend money on these things get things. The value of those things we could very likely debate endlessly. Games are a luxury item with no intrinsic value beyond the fun that they provide people. If people feel ripped off and abused, then they won't buy anything more and the system self-corrects. But that's not the case is it? People who spend this money, even the children who play this game unsupervised and somehow have full use over a parent's credit card, or those with addictive personalities, continue to get something from it. And it's really not only these vulnerable groups who participate. Otherwise these economies would fail. Then it comes down to one person insisting "you got ripped off!" to the other who's happily playing.

I'd be wary about dictating what other people spend their money on, much less shaming them for it. I can think of all sorts of utterly inane ways that other people spend their money. If we're going to chastise an industry on the basis of being manipulative or taking advantage, that opens up practically everyone. My tolerance for the games industry is mostly based on that it's a luxury item; not food, medicine, shelter, or other essential items (like gas/petrol and electricity). Further, this idea that my transaction for an item is support for the business (or holding company) seems a little too simplistic to me. We're in trouble if everyone who ever bought anything is considered to have endorsed the policies and actions of all those involved in creating or selling you that item!

(As a side story, my two experiences with MTs have been Star Trek Online, where I grinded for days in order to try and get enough to buy one of the iconic ships, gave up and put down some real cash, and then went off the game entirely before I actually spent it. Similarly, I was grinding on Rainbow Six Siege for weeks to unlock the DLC operators and then bought the season pass for year 2 plus a discount package for the year 1 guys... then proceeding to stop playing. In both cases, I found the chase to be more appealing than the destination.)

Anyhow, Witcher 3 is awesome.

 

re: Loot boxes

Regulate the paid-for variant as gambling, with the restriction to adults only and I think most of us would live with it. It's this well-they're-not-really-gambling, followed by that-means-we-can-sell-them-to-kids that is most objectionable.

On a game with Star Wars in the title the age rating matters less, of course kids and teenagers will play this.

An even easier way for EA to have avoided the controversy would have been to follow Overwatch and render all cards as cosmetic effect only. Instead they did progression based loot boxes which looks a whole lot more dodgy. Especially when you get to see what cards someone who killed has, with the expected effect that you'd want to go and get those cards, but you can't just buy them, you have to buy the boxes and hope you get lucky.

On the gambling front, there's an aspect which I don't think has been addressed. Take a person who has gambled but recognises they have an addictive personality so works to avoid it. This person ends up taking up gaming as it's a gambling free zone. What does this game do, with its undeclared hazy gambling-or-not-really-gambling mechanisms, do to this person? It breaks the sense of safety and instead renders games a potential danger. And all because EA decided a big Star Wars release, on its own, ahead of The Last Jedi wouldn't make them enough cash.

(The only game I have seen where they have worked, as quest rewards, is in Horizon: Zero Dawn, which integrates them with its crafting system and ensures they are a bonus, not something you absolutely have to get and, oh, here's a pay route.)

 

You don't absolutely have to get lootboxes. You don't need any of the star cards. I've played for a week without using any (in all modes except Arcade, where they're kinda handy to complete some of the scenarios against the cheating AI). It's beneficial to unlock additional weapons and weapon modifications, as some seem better than others, but these are entirely progression-based and have nothing to do with the lootboxes.

 

And while not the most effective way, all the cards can be bought with crafting materials, which really makes me wish they would give those out after every match as well. Not hundreds of the things, but maybe about ten per match would be enough. That way you still have to play the game, but at least you can go after more cards that you want.

 

But it's still buy-a-chance-to-get-card-X, not buy-card-X-with-(y amount of crafting materials) right?

 

You get crafting materials frequently from challenge rewards or in crates. You can then use those to specifically “craft” the cards you want. You don’t get a whole lot, and I think everyone wants them to be more common, but it’s still enough for you to be able to tune your builds more the way you want.