Shame, overwatch should be considered in the same breath. B just because the content doesn’t affect game play doesn’t mean it doesn’t illicit the same gambling urge
I mean . . . I don’t know. This is a discussion that depends on what the interested party wants to spend more money. Skill boost or looks ? And then you have to take the game in mind and then you have the age of said party to consider etc.
In this case, the urge depends more on the person, maybe ? Again, I don’t know. What I do know is that for OW, progression, cosmetically speaking, is handled better and it’s a lot smoother.
The urge does depend on the person, and if someone feels compelled to get a skin that’s only available during an event, they will feel the need to spend on loot boxes. It’s wrong to differentiate loot boxes based on content of the box, because it is the loot box mechanic that illicits the gambling effect.
It’s still a step in the right direction, though. Little victories, man. Little victories.
We got governments to take action. I call that a victory however small.
"The sweet, sweet irony of all this is that EA has essentially gotten itself stuck back in the stone ages, where you sold a game for $60, and that was it. "
“I feel bad for DICE, but it is almost too delicious to see EA get its just desserts here, forced to try and move copies of a $60 title with no extra bells and whistles, and nearly no way to re-introduce an ongoing revenue stream without throwing fuel on a still-burning fire. Get out your popcorn, because the next few weeks sure are going to be interesting.”
Muhahahaha… grabs popcorn
Poor DICE. They don’t deserve this. They like, literally can’t re-monetize the game without massive public backlash. It’s sad, really.
The ridiculous thing is that gamers will somehow be happier paying this 2-3 year $60 per game cycle than having the choice to pay effectively the same amount at most under MTX. Gamers are dumb.
I’m not following. Doesn’t sound any different than how games used to be sold 10 years ago. Take games like Cuphead or Shenua’s Sacrifice, who spend long years in development and thought it would take more than a half a year to even out (while still putting the price tag at 20-30$ for their game).
Instead, just by advertising a good, new original game by simply showcasing the gameplay, they managed to outdo their expectations and even make revenue.
Gamers don’t look that dumb to me, rather they reward hard work when they see. EA has gotten too greedy, and finally the whole lootbox system is coming under investigation as it deserves.
If nothing had happened but a minor boycott of MTX until the credit rates were fairer and/or the loot boxes were changed so that you could purchase progression more directly (for example) then what we’d have is the following…
- Buy SW:BF2 for $60.
- Probably buy maybe $10-$20 of stuff to quick-step your way to the items and bits you want
- Regardless of whether you spend more at 2, now grind and enjoy the game
- More content gets released, everyone enjoys new maps, new modes and twists on modes, new challenges and arcade scenarios.
If this gamer in this scenario paid like above then they would be paying $80 for one year of play, or $40 per year for two years, or $20 per year for three years, or (skipping for maths simplicity) $10 per year for six years of play.
So right now, assuming that the crazy hadn’t happened, a gamer could enjoy 6 years of development (hypothetically, not saying EA would have gone that route but I believe they would have if the MTX provided them with the ongoing stability of finances they are looking for) and for that 6 years only have paid somewhere in the region of $80 on the game. Hell, they could have waited for a sale and got the game for $30 and never bought an MTX and just do the grind for all that time, absolute bargain.
Now, while gamers are hailing victory, for EA to make their money on an expensive license they’ll need to release SW:BF3, probably in 3 years time. The dev team will go from one that is excitedly working with a community on new content to one being put under crunch after crunch to deliver a new title that is just different enough to warrant buying it. The game will come out again at $60, and so after 6 years of play (3 years on each game) the gamer pays $120.
The gamer has lost out on multiple levels, the dev teams are worked in a more negative way, the support for the game moves from a guaranteed ongoing practice to one that doesn’t matter because the focus is on the next release (roll on SW:BF4 after that, after all) and gamers that were enjoying SW:BF2 get left behind as everyone migrates to a new game instead of everyone pooling and growing a community on one.
The dumbest. Ever.
Also wanted to just come to this too, seperately. These games were both published by the developer. Much more freedom, much more return directly to themselves as part of the process of selling the game.
And, of course, they’re not MP focused games, so naturally it makes sense that their business model stays true to methods that have worked and will continue to work for single player experiences going forward.
I still advocate that multiplayer games without microtransactions can work. And even if MTX need to be implemented, it could have been in a way that is just more acceptable for people like cosmetic items in a store.
How do you explain games then like CoD Modern Warfare 2 or 3, where the only MTX came from additional map packs they sold (but hardly anyone bought them - because you could only play with people who bought the pack as well). Those games sold well. But look at games now. Virtual currency in football games like FIFA? What the hell.
I despise EA loot box system because it introduces a grind that was unneccesary. The game could have worked without star cards and revenue could’ve been made through different kind of MTX but the publisher decided differently. THAT is why gamers are angry.
Think however you feel Nia. In the end, you’ll have to come to terms that there is no stopping this rage train and that Battlefront II is not going to be able to rack in more players AND make the investors happy.
Do gamers just want games that sell well, and not ones that are supported and developed? I mean, gamers are even dumber than I already credit them for if that’s the case.
Edit: I think it’s also constantly annoying to hear these comparisons to games of the past where clearly the marriage of business plan and gamer satisfaction was not working. I’m not at all claiming EA have it right here at all, but gamers sitting around saying anything that makes them think they have “won” here is silly. If the “win” is to go back to antiquated pricing structures then we all lose, and the publishers still win.
The answer was, and always will have been, to focus purely on criticising and boycotting the microtransactions and not the whole game. Gamers haven’t forced anything other than to ruin the experience of those who wanted to give the game a go, and to mean that gaming in the star wars universe now is less satisfying and more expensive for gamers as a result. If gamers can’t learn that they have to work towards something, not just against something, then gamers are the only people that’ll lose out.
I already have come to terms with it, just as I’ve come to terms with the fact Trump is the president, that Brexit is “happening”, and that a tragic record breaking terrorist incident in Egypt is less reported than a false alarm incident in my own country. I’ve very much come to terms with the fact that morons are ruling the planet and guiding it’s way down illogical, harmful and ridiculous paths. (this isn’t an invitation to comment or debate any of these)
Real mature. Just because people think differently or have different opinions than yours doesn’t mean that they’re dumb. Like…does this make me dumb for thinking the way I think?
Proof. Show me proof that the business model of before does not work in today’s standard. Or perhaps it does, but it just doesn’t earn enough in the publisher’s eye.
Although the arguement that MTX would allow more content in a game for the same pricetag, I don’t see it as a bad thing for publishers to now warrant to charge for it. In the end, that becomes consumer’s choice. Much like people didn’t need to pay for the extra Hunters/Monsters in Evolve, and they didn’t need them either to enjoy the game. In that regard, Evolve felt better compared to BFII. Imagine if Evolve put lootboxes with charge upgrades but made earning credits more difficult. I wouldn’t be happy with that, at all.
Yes it’s sad that this is how it will lead to in the end. But also shows why people now just want a different publisher to take care of the IP rather than EA. Not to mention that a good game can come out, even with lesser bells and whistles, just by exciting gameplay alone. Quality over quantity.
If anyone thinks that forcing publishers to the regular old CoD cycle of making their money on game releases is a win, then they are not thinking logically. I gave the reasons above why it hurts gamers and game development compared to a model that provides reliable and ongoing income.
It’s the same reason that Netflix is better for people who like to watch movies than having to rent from a video store on an ad hoc basis. Except it isn’t even as much of a commitment because in gaming large paying supporters of a game subsidize those who don’t wish to pay much, if anything.
Also, yet again, multiplayer focused AAA games are a new thing. CoD was primarily a single player game. It is a false equivalence to look at these older games and say that they were profitable so these modern MP only games must be able to be profitable (and engaging/successful in a non monetary sense) too. The oldest multiplayer focused games that could even be described as close to AAA are mmorpgs and they started out from the get go as subscription based games because the $60 up front model wouldn’t have worked for them.
Hey there SW B 2 players … quick Q and A…
Does this game suffer from the same player drop that the first one did?
It was profitable enough that newer titles were released. And although the first CoD titles were indeed primarily played just for the story, that was not the case for the later titles.
I remember this article two years ago from PCGamer: http://www.pcgamer.com/steam-popular-unplayed/
My favorite stat is the total of played hours divided by game mode, more specifically the separate multiplayer clients of the Steam versions of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Black Ops. The single-player campaigns for each respective title sits modestly within the mid-20-hour range, but the multiplayer side balloons well into the hundreds of hours. It’s a pretty obvious indicator of where the biggest chunk of popularity resides in FPS gaming.
Let’s look at best selling CoD titles by units: https://www.statista.com/statistics/321374/global-all-time-unit-sales-call-of-duty-games/
In the graph it shows that Modern Warfare and Black Ops were among the best selling titles for CoD. But why is Infinite and Advanced Warfare so low despite being more recent?
The series has had microtransactions since 2012’s Black Ops II, allowing players to purchase funky weapon camos for their guns, or unlock more weapon loadouts. But these were all cosmetic upgrades—that is, nothing provided players with an extra advantage.
That’s not the case in the latest game Infinite Warfare, though. It seems like the entire game is designed to push players towards spending more money just to level the playing field.
I still find servers instantly on PC. They’re horribly laggy right now, but EA is looking into it.