I want(ed) to play this game so bad, my head still spinning because DICE here (again) has made a great game. You get to play as the empire (a black female lead too) when they were dealt a huge blow, the story -just- has to be good.
Then here comes EA again, creeping up ready to do no good and stand there to suggest that 'it's best for the community'. I just can't support a full priced game and micro-transactions on top of it, others shouldn't either (IMO) just to send a message to the big wigs that this is not acceptable.
Unfortunately I know it won't change a thing, EA has been a plague on the gaming community for a very long time. It's pretty much what I'd expect hell to be like. Ran by EA, giving you AMAZING things but then saying "oh wait there is also this" then shooting you in the hands.
If you skip a good game over rhetoric you're just screwing yourself over. Why not play and enjoy the game with whomever you want.
How very presumptuous of you to act as if he didn't come to his conclusion based on his on consumer values and his own research into the game systems, and instead simply listened to others' "rhetoric" and based his decision solely upon the opinions of others.
I did presume a bit because common sense says it's very unlikely that anyone arrived at this place in a vacuum. Are you suggesting otherwise? It's very presumptuous of you to assume someone didn't.
I never said he based his decision solely on what others have said. I implied that "noise" is an influencing factor and my position being that if so then he's the only one losing out. Talk about presumptuous and putting words in others mouths. You twisted my words to fit your agenda again.
Your bias is showing. It's not at all far-fetched to think he simply agreed with those who feel as if the monetization practices inflict harm on his gameplay experience. You're the only one attempting to presume anything here; better if maybe you asked why he came to the conclusion?
Your point here basically seems to amount to: "That opinion seems to be popular around here, so I'm assuming you're just parroting it and didn't assess the situation for yourself."
I can explain my own points. I don't need or want your lame help. Once again you love to put words into my mouth. Why don't just speak for yourself. Do you even have your own point and opinion in this? I said and implied nothing of the sort, but you infer what you want to hear. You do that a lot, rephrase what other people say how you want it framed.
So stop pretending like you know what I think and give an opinion why he shouldn't take that advice. I've already explained what I meant.
I don't need to give him an opinion on why he should or shouldn't take any advice. I trust he can make his own decisions like a big boy.
You can backtrack all you like, what you can't do is act as if your post wasn't presumptuous in its tone.
And the reason I chimed in is how incredibly hostile you got with other posters attempting to tell others how they should or shouldn't feel about the situation, only to chime in later in the same thread and imply someone's missing out, presuming (by your own phrasing) that they weren't coming to their conclusion based on their own assessment of the product's value to them, but based upon others' "rhetoric".
Not everyone assesses a purchase the same way you do. You're quick to point that out when you wanna berate someone else, but the point seems totally lost on you now.
It's a discussion forum. I made a comment to a poster about the thread topic. I'm not berating him and I certainly didn't talk down to him. I stand by that opinion. If someone likes a game and really wants to play it then they should and not let others influence that decision.
And for anyone reading his post, or yours, I'd say if they listen to your rhetoric and miss out on a good game then they're only screwing themselves. What a waste to miss out because some else is offended by a game for a week or two.
Do you play games like this, or play games at all?
Then you're telling them how they should assess a purchase, which is exactly what you berated others for doing. You're just on the other side of it and trying to deflect from the idea that you are telling them how to assess it by insisting he did nothing but listen to "rhetoric". It has the added effect of implying you think he didn't assess the value of the purchase on his own terms, but on someone else's.
I play many games, and you know that from previous threads. I don't purchase games for a solely singleplayer experience, so the monetization tactics of the multiplayer side and how it affects the experience is important to me (EDIT-, I should say generally here, as I do make exceptions for some RPG experiences such as Pillars of Eternity). By all accounts, Battlefront 2 didn't need such predatory tactics to entice players to play. I played Battlefield 4 for hundreds of hours, so I know how talented DICE is. But I won't be playing Battlefront 2, because supporting such predatory tactics has shown to signal to publishers they can push the line a little further next time. It's not something I'm interested in supporting, because it destroys the integrity of the multiplayer portion.
An 8.5??? Are you high? I unfortunately bought the deluxe addition and have been able to play over the past few days. Yes the game looks great, yes the game sounds great. The campaign is 4 hours long and no conclusion, the multiplayer is 100% pay2win, and if that's not bad enough they locked how many credits you can earn in arcade mode behind a time wall because EA felt that it could be exploited. So to sum it up playing the game and earning your credits and progression is viewed as bad, but pulling out your credit card and buying your advantage 100% ok. Go fuck yourself EA and this shit review.
"The objective reality is that they’ve already changed the way games are designed and released, and that’s going to impact reviews and the critical discussion around each game."
And there's the rub. You're no longer buying a game. You're buying a shell wherein you then get to buy the rest of the game. It won't destroy gaming, but it will entirely change the way we game and the games we choose to play. Studying how a game is monetized will be more important than the game itself because it will define the gameplay.
"The objective reality is that they’ve already changed the way games are designed and released, and that’s going to impact reviews and the critical discussion around each game."
And there's the rub. You're no longer buying a game. You're buying a shell wherein you then get to buy the rest of the game. It won't destroy gaming, but it will entirely change the way we game and the games we choose to play. Studying how a game is monetized will be more important than the game itself because it will define the gameplay.
And it is also an extremely important consideration in reviewing games if the reviewer cares about keeping a connection with their audience and the credibility they live or die by.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I am simply never going to spend $60 on any computer game. But then, I think people are crazy for what they pay to watch sports live, too. Or the money some put into "F2P" games so they can have their virtual goodies, castles and empires. The whole world seems to be going crazy in a lot of different ways.
I think everyone has something. For some people it's gambling, traveling, or collecting clothes, shoes, cars, or like you said, sports. Even with a high end PC and getting the latest games, gaming isn't all that expensive compared to some other hobbies people have.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I have been a Star Wars geek for most of my life, and still am, but honestly (IMHO) feel that the franchise is terribly watered-down now. I didn't think the last two movies were very good at all, and doubt the next one will be much better. I just think there's too much of it, and when you start to let Everyman write books, scripts, shows, etc, you just thin the pot too much. I do still love the franchise but haven't been seeking anything Star Wars related for several years now.
"We are all as God made us, and many of us much worse." - Don Quixote
"The objective reality is that they’ve already changed the way games are designed and released, and that’s going to impact reviews and the critical discussion around each game."
And there's the rub. You're no longer buying a game. You're buying a shell wherein you then get to buy the rest of the game. It won't destroy gaming, but it will entirely change the way we game and the games we choose to play. Studying how a game is monetized will be more important than the game itself because it will define the gameplay.
And it is also an extremely important consideration in reviewing games if the reviewer cares about keeping a connection with their audience and the credibility they live or die by.
I don't think many people come here for the reviews.
I'm waiting to see what they come back with once micro transactions are enabled again before deciding whether or not I should buy it. I definitely wasn't going to buy it before.
No more debates or opinions, the ball is in EA's court now and the whole online gaming community is watching. It's pointless talking about it and reviewing it now until we see what's next but I think if you haven't bought it yet, you should wait.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Gamer's tend to be very competitive,that is why micro transactions can flourish,players will do whatever it takes to get ahead. I believe the business side most certainly should factor into the scoring because these tactics turn me right off ,so they turn a game from whatever to a 0/10 for me,meaning no way am i playing their business model,not a chance in hell.
The analogy would be like ,do you want to pay 100k for a new Corvette knowing that if you want the key it is another 20k,tires,another 20k,Flex fuel +20k,a stereo +20k and so on and so on,people would be like screw that no way, your car is worth nothing with those added costs.
Devs are in essence double and triple dipping on costs to buy and play these games as intended.This is very similar to devs who were charging 15 added bucks a month ,then charging you again for an expansion pack that used the same engine,menus,formulas,sub programs and often same textures/tiles ,assets etc etc,knowing the 15 bucks a month was MORE than offsetting their server costs and was easily paying for their staff to add content to support that added 15 bucks,only now devs have found they can get more than 15 a month.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
"The objective reality is that they’ve already changed the way games are designed and released, and that’s going to impact reviews and the critical discussion around each game."
And there's the rub. You're no longer buying a game. You're buying a shell wherein you then get to buy the rest of the game. It won't destroy gaming, but it will entirely change the way we game and the games we choose to play. Studying how a game is monetized will be more important than the game itself because it will define the gameplay.
And it is also an extremely important consideration in reviewing games if the reviewer cares about keeping a connection with their audience and the credibility they live or die by.
I don't think many people come here for the reviews.
Maybe you and I don't. But I quite often go to sites that I don't visit often after clicking the "read full review" link on Metacritic for a game I'm interested in.
It's a good way to generate new traffic.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I'm waiting to see what they come back with once micro transactions are enabled again before deciding whether or not I should buy it. I definitely wasn't going to buy it before.
No more debates or opinions, the ball is in EA's court now and the whole online gaming community is watching. It's pointless talking about it and reviewing it now until we see what's next but I think if you haven't bought it yet, you should wait.
I'm just not bothering to buy the game at all. Most people seem to have been annoyed by the pay to win element of the game. Its the progression system itself that they built the game around to entice players towards the cash shop that ruins it for me. Even if the microtransactions never return that system is still going to be in place making the game feel like more of a grind and less entertaining than it could be.
I'm waiting to see what they come back with once micro transactions are enabled again before deciding whether or not I should buy it. I definitely wasn't going to buy it before.
No more debates or opinions, the ball is in EA's court now and the whole online gaming community is watching. It's pointless talking about it and reviewing it now until we see what's next but I think if you haven't bought it yet, you should wait.
I'm just not bothering to buy the game at all. Most people seem to have been annoyed by the pay to win element of the game. Its the progression system itself that they built the game around to entice players towards the cash shop that ruins it for me. Even if the microtransactions never return that system is still going to be in place making the game feel like more of a grind and less entertaining than it could be.
If they go to cosmetic loot boxes, there would no longer be a need to make the progression super grindy to drive players to the shop.
There's an article at Venturebeat that talks about how at one point in development cosmetic loot boxes was what they were planning.
So there is a way to fix it if they really want to do it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I'm waiting to see what they come back with once micro transactions are enabled again before deciding whether or not I should buy it. I definitely wasn't going to buy it before.
No more debates or opinions, the ball is in EA's court now and the whole online gaming community is watching. It's pointless talking about it and reviewing it now until we see what's next but I think if you haven't bought it yet, you should wait.
I'm just not bothering to buy the game at all. Most people seem to have been annoyed by the pay to win element of the game. Its the progression system itself that they built the game around to entice players towards the cash shop that ruins it for me. Even if the microtransactions never return that system is still going to be in place making the game feel like more of a grind and less entertaining than it could be.
It's the same for me tbh. I hate the Star Card system. They may fix it though, they may not. If there were other ways to earn Star Cards, even if 1-3 cards are just given out randomly at the end of each match, I'd consider that a positive change. More than that needs to change though.
I do think, though, that if they do a 180 and fix this whole mess then they should be rewarded for it. If they don't see a return for fixing the problem, then pleasing the community isn't worth it for them. It's like training a dog, positive reinforcement.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I'm waiting to see what they come back with once micro transactions are enabled again before deciding whether or not I should buy it. I definitely wasn't going to buy it before.
No more debates or opinions, the ball is in EA's court now and the whole online gaming community is watching. It's pointless talking about it and reviewing it now until we see what's next but I think if you haven't bought it yet, you should wait.
I'm just not bothering to buy the game at all. Most people seem to have been annoyed by the pay to win element of the game. Its the progression system itself that they built the game around to entice players towards the cash shop that ruins it for me. Even if the microtransactions never return that system is still going to be in place making the game feel like more of a grind and less entertaining than it could be.
If they go to cosmetic loot boxes, there would no longer be a need to make the progression super grindy to drive players to the shop.
There's an article at Venturebeat that talks about how at one point in development cosmetic loot boxes was what they were planning.
So there is a way to fix it if they really want to do it.
Well yes if they had gone with a loot box system similar to something like the one in Overwatch I doubt anyone would have made a peep. And I'm confident they would have made themselves a tidy sum of money in the process. Since they didn't though they've made such a bad first impression and fostered so much ill will that I doubt many of the people now disenchanted with the game will bother with it no matter what they do in the future.
Still its a game with Star Wars on it. They're going to make large sales regardless even after the internet meltdown. The sad part is though that if they hadn't gone with the moronic cash shop system they did in an attempt to push profits, they would have actually made a heck of a lot more money than they will now. I'm hoping that the people who thought up the BF2 loot box system will soon be looking for a new job.
Just recommending this game counts you are a complete hypocrite.
The microtransactions alone make it unplayable, especially since it would take close to 40,000 hours to unlock everything.
Recommending this game makes you an industry shill.
except that now everything has changed. the time it takes to unlock everything has been lowered dramatically and microtransactions are turned off until further notice.
Just recommending this game counts you are a complete hypocrite.
The microtransactions alone make it unplayable, especially since it would take close to 40,000 hours to unlock everything.
Recommending this game makes you an industry shill.
except that now everything has changed. the time it takes to unlock everything has been lowered dramatically and microtransactions are turned off until further notice.
im actually considering getting it now.
Get it if you're interested in it, the drama around it is way overblown IMO. I've been playing it since Tuesday and really enjoy it. I haven't felt the need to buy any crates as you'll earn plenty of them for free anyway. The P2W lie has snowballed into epic proportions, it simply isn't a P2W game. You can't get epic cards from boxes and even if you have enough crafting parts to upgrade your cards you need to meet the level requirements to do so. I've never felt at a disadvantage while playing and as a class based shooter if you play smart the cards won't make much of a difference anyway. Flank a sniper and you're most likely going to kill him regardless of his cards. Run into a heavy with his shield up in a tight corridor... you guessed it... you're most likely dead regardless of your cards. It's rock, paper, scissors class design dictates situations like that much more so than what cards you have.
But as i have said previously, I'm in the minority on this one. The herd has turned it's ire on it and all you'll hear is negativity about the game from most people (who most likely haven't even bothered to try it for themselves).
Comments
I play many games, and you know that from previous threads. I don't purchase games for a solely singleplayer experience, so the monetization tactics of the multiplayer side and how it affects the experience is important to me (EDIT-, I should say generally here, as I do make exceptions for some RPG experiences such as Pillars of Eternity). By all accounts, Battlefront 2 didn't need such predatory tactics to entice players to play. I played Battlefield 4 for hundreds of hours, so I know how talented DICE is. But I won't be playing Battlefront 2, because supporting such predatory tactics has shown to signal to publishers they can push the line a little further next time. It's not something I'm interested in supporting, because it destroys the integrity of the multiplayer portion.
And there's the rub. You're no longer buying a game. You're buying a shell wherein you then get to buy the rest of the game. It won't destroy gaming, but it will entirely change the way we game and the games we choose to play. Studying how a game is monetized will be more important than the game itself because it will define the gameplay.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
It's funny how the Star Wars game we have been looking for had to have Disney call EA to shut down it's loot box microtransactions...
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/No more debates or opinions, the ball is in EA's court now and the whole online gaming community is watching. It's pointless talking about it and reviewing it now until we see what's next but I think if you haven't bought it yet, you should wait.
I believe the business side most certainly should factor into the scoring because these tactics turn me right off ,so they turn a game from whatever to a 0/10 for me,meaning no way am i playing their business model,not a chance in hell.
The analogy would be like ,do you want to pay 100k for a new Corvette knowing that if you want the key it is another 20k,tires,another 20k,Flex fuel +20k,a stereo +20k and so on and so on,people would be like screw that no way, your car is worth nothing with those added costs.
Devs are in essence double and triple dipping on costs to buy and play these games as intended.This is very similar to devs who were charging 15 added bucks a month ,then charging you again for an expansion pack that used the same engine,menus,formulas,sub programs and often same textures/tiles ,assets etc etc,knowing the 15 bucks a month was MORE than offsetting their server costs and was easily paying for their staff to add content to support that added 15 bucks,only now devs have found they can get more than 15 a month.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It's a good way to generate new traffic.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
There's an article at Venturebeat that talks about how at one point in development cosmetic loot boxes was what they were planning.
So there is a way to fix it if they really want to do it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I do think, though, that if they do a 180 and fix this whole mess then they should be rewarded for it. If they don't see a return for fixing the problem, then pleasing the community isn't worth it for them. It's like training a dog, positive reinforcement.
Still its a game with Star Wars on it. They're going to make large sales regardless even after the internet meltdown. The sad part is though that if they hadn't gone with the moronic cash shop system they did in an attempt to push profits, they would have actually made a heck of a lot more money than they will now. I'm hoping that the people who thought up the BF2 loot box system will soon be looking for a new job.
The microtransactions alone make it unplayable, especially since it would take close to 40,000 hours to unlock everything.
Recommending this game makes you an industry shill.
im actually considering getting it now.
But as i have said previously, I'm in the minority on this one. The herd has turned it's ire on it and all you'll hear is negativity about the game from most people (who most likely haven't even bothered to try it for themselves).