Change will be a Constant in Star Wars Battlefront II

starwarsbattlefront
#1

That didn’t take long. SWBF is making shit easier to unlock now. Blah blah blah.

1 Like

#2

I mean, they’ve got (by far) the most downvoted comment on reddit of all time, so I’m not surprised. The 75% reduction brings it much more within reason, I think, though I’m amused by how much backlash they had to receive (lest we forget the Twitter debacle from yesterday) to make a change. It’ll be interesting to see how development continues and what additional pivots occur.

Edit:
Also, that AMA on Wednesday is going to be popcorn-worthy

0 Likes

#3

Having not paid too much attention to it all, were the unlocks available quicker to people who participated in the microtransaction game? If so… very bad pool.

0 Likes

#4

For instance, during my review, completing the campaign earned players a unique loot crate that contained 20,000 credits. That reward is now 5,000 credits.

Source: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2017/11/13/wheres-our-star-wars-battlefront-ii-review.aspx?utm_content=buffer3929d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Also reports that multiplayer credit gain rate has been slashed too. So, if they reduce the cost of heroes by 75%, but make credits 75% more hard to come by, will there still be outrage?

EDIT:
And this apparently…

2 Likes

#5

Welp, that’s pretty much proof positive that EA isn’t listening and is straight-up attempting to deceive consumers. I can’t wait to see the salt that’s mined during tomorrow’s AMA.

Edit:

Edit 2:
Man, if this is accurate, it’s actually awful:
http://www.swtorstrategies.com/2017/11/it-will-take-4528-hours-of-gameplay-or-2100-to-unlock-all-base-game-content.html

0 Likes

#6

Eh, All heroes should be unlocked i I’m paying $60 for the game.

If heroes are going to be locked, then make the game free to play.

2 Likes

#7

Reddit AMA from earlier today

1 Like

#8

It is a shit show. They are so money hungry. All they care about is the bottom line. It’s sad because the game looks and plays amazing. They just add in the micro-transactions to make crazy money.

2 Likes

#9

Honestly, after reading the CFO’s comments about how they “missed an opportunity” to offer a “games-as-a-service model” with Battlefield 4, I have to say I agree. He basically points to how it’s in their top 10 played games still, and rather than looking at it from a “we obviously did something right with this this title because people love it” angle where they’d try to replicate the success, they’re kicking themselves for not finding a better way to monetize it. Towards the bottom of this article, for the curious.

0 Likes

#10

Yeah. I saw that. So many companies don’t know what a finished game looks like without DLC or pay to win. It’s really sad because we get games that would take 1400 hours to unlock all the colors you can be or favorite heros. Just look at Destiny 2 though with a paid DLC 3 months after release. You have to buy it to be able to play the game with your friends online or you will not be the top level.

1 Like

#11

Holy shit. They turned off in game purchases? That must represent an enormously significant impact to EA’s bottom line. I would not be surprised if this hurt stock price on open tomorrow.

0 Likes

#12

The only problem is a bunch of folks have already spent money on the microtransactions, so now some folks will still be ahead and people who want to spend money to close the gap don’t have the option. I can’t tell if this is going to be worse or better, because I highly doubt they’re going to refund everyone’s money and take all the loot box stuff away from folks.

I’m going with worse, at this point.

0 Likes

#13

Yeah I mean it’s all bad. This may be an attempt to save the franchise overall. From the perspective of EA’s investment as a publisher, they have to at least attempt to protect the long term Battlefront title and the potentially 10 year plan.

0 Likes

#14

Please just play the game before you make assumptions like this. I really haven’t found it to be a big deal.

The people who preordered are the ones who were able to buy crystals. What percentage of the full playerbase could that be?

Also, you guys have hated on the loot crate pay-to-win thing for days, and now you’re upset that they stopped it in order to devise a better plan?

0 Likes

#15

I didn’t buy the first, and I won’t be buying this one either. I’ve played 0 games in a week now because of my GPU, so I’ve instead been following BF2’s reception/reviews/etc.

That’s fine, I don’t presume that everyone has, but there’s clearly some issues with the game and its model whether or not you’ve anecdotally experienced it, IMO; the sheer amount of backlash is more than we’ve seen in a while (maybe since ME:A, maybe even ever) at a game’s release from its community. I’ve based my stance/opinion off of reading/watching a lot of content, not just from the reddit salt mines.

Who knows, but the fact that some people had the opportunity and will have a locked-in advantage until further pivots/adjustments are made isn’t really solving the preexisting problem of some players being stronger than others because they spent money, it just removes the opportunity for others to monetarily close that gap if they chose. I just find it interesting.

I’m upset that it ever came to this, and watching them try to put out a grease fire with water has been interesting, to say the least. FWIW, there are a ton of people who aren’t happy with how any of this turned out, and based on some of the things I’ve heard/watched, I’m surprised it’s not everyone, honestly.

Things additional things I’ve found interesting and not previously posted:

Explanation of how it’s p2w in this reviewer’s opinion (especially starfighters), to the point that he didn’t buy the game but instead played on someone else’s account for his review:

ME:A-tier glitches/bugs from the story campaign that I found amusing:

Jim Sterling’s thoughts (warning: language)

Also, I previously mentioned the CFO’s comment about treating their releases as a “games as a service” model rather than focusing on what they did well in previous releases that made them popular/successful (he specifically talks about BF4 in the article), and I think that’s a shit-tier way to make games that cost a premium. I feel like we’re seeing the first attempt at moving beyond the already-obnoxious DLC system where you have to effectively buy the rest of the game (think The Division or Destiny 1, not Witcher 3 or Farcry Blood Dragon; some companies use the system really well), and I’m not keen on it in the least.

0 Likes

#16

I wonder if there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

1 Like

#17

Oh this is just silly. Look, I think there’s quite a few design decisions I have a problem with, but complaining about the fact that a character is locked from the onset (a character that can be unlocked by playing the game) and downvoting the devs when they dare to suggest that maybe they thought you’d get some satisfaction from putting work towards unlocking something is mind blowingly entitled. You might be someone who wants everything unlocked at the start, but at least have the goddamn common decency not to treat it like they’re gouging you or something. Again, I don’t think anything in battlefront is outrage worthy (facepalm, sure, not outrage) but this borders the satirical. Not taking about the time it might take you to, not talking about the fact that you can pay for it instead, but being outraged by the fact that. A. Videogame. Has. Unlockables.

Oh, look, Jim Sterling’s here. He’s like a shark, only instead of blood he can smell cheap drama for miles.

2 Likes

#18

I think the problem isn’t that there’s an unlock system, it’s that the proposed system was very different from any similar game in the genre (Battlefield, CoD, etc.) in terms of time requirements, implementation method, and gameplay impact of unlocks, and at the time that comment was posted said balance was way off.

This is actually at the core of the issue. People don’t care that there’s an unlock system; they care about how (poorly) it’s been done (in their opinion). That particular comment might not illustrate it well, but the OP is based on information the community had already gathered regarding the cost in either time or money to unlock everything in the game, and the OP was cheesed off that he bought the highest-tier version and didn’t even get the main hero or (specifically) villain in the franchise. Here’s a much more rational response on an older thread (expressing the same sentiment) from someone who stands to get directly screwed by the system.

The reaction of the gaming community is what’s steering change (had nobody said/done anything, it would have shipped as it was), and as someone who doesn’t want to see future games go down that road, I’m okay with the downvotes they got (though I didn’t join in, if I’m being honest, because by the time I saw the comment it had become a brigade rather than trying to make a point; well before it reached meme-levels of fame and downvotes it had already become the most downvoted comment, what with the bar not being that low to begin with) and the memes and angst that have followed because of it is something EA as a company will hopefully remember moving forward.

Maybe (and, frankly, I don’t often like his content), but he made some good points in his video (albeit while being, you know, Jim Sterling). Really, I could have dropped dozens of different links to illustrate the problems I agree with, but I went with his because it was a recent watch for me that illustrated issues in both the single- and multiplayer experience, and discussed more than just the loot box situation (though he did ramble on it for a while). I’d be interested in seeing literally any positive review of Battlefront 2 that doesn’t come from an established review site who’s worried about their future ties with EA (at this point, the only one I’ve read is @teh_ninjaneer’s) because I’m curious about the other camp (do they feel the system was fair, and why; does it not bother them because they think things are fair/balanced, or have they not encountered problems and base their opinion squarely on that fact; etc.).


All this is not to say that I think people who like the game are wrong/bad/etc.; I’m not trying to be right here. Rather, I am adding my voice in agreement to the idea that if gamers do not oppose the system they tried to launch with (which I feel was absolutely fucking terrible) and future, poorly-done, systems in games that do not benefit the gaming community, we will only see it repeated and made worse until we do make a big deal about it. I previously mentioned DLC’s as a sour point, and while some companies do them very well, others do them very, very poorly; microtransactions are the same way, in my opinion (with good and bad examples of the system), and I feel like EA has done them horribly in this instance. You don’t have to agree with me; I’m okay with disagreement on the matter because it breeds discussion which leads towards solutions and resolution.

2 Likes

#19

Well my issue is exactly that, from my point of view, people are utilizing the hate bandwagon to justify otherwise asinine complaints like the one I suspect that reddit comment was genuinely making without ever addressing the other, more troubling issues that you well point out. Which leads to what irks me about this: you know a bunch of these people are not legitimately complaining about this stuff, they’re part of a mob of people who are troubling trends on themselves. In that sense, it’s less “the community is steering the game” and more “people are out for blood and this company has issued a blanket measure that is sure to appease those complaints, reasonable or not”.

2 Likes

#20

I think it might go deeper than this, honestly; there’s been a stirring resentment for EA’s practices for a while (they did win worst company in America a couple times in a row, after all), and I think that people who don’t even care about the fate/state of BF2 are on the bandwagon as a way of sticking it to the company they have beef with because of how poorly they’ve managed their sports games, killed off their favorite development companies following acquisition (most recently Visceral Games, which has made a number of games and was working on a single player Star Wars game before shuttering), or whatever other reason they’ve come up with in their head to join in. there are, undoubtedly, people joining the protests just because they want to riot (much like what happens in real life, at least here in America); I’m not sure if they’re doing more harm than good or just lost in the sea of legitimate angst. Time will tell, I suppose.

1 Like