Star Wars Battlefront 2 Update - Nothing changes with the changes!


I feel we’re discussing two slightly different things here. I’m not denying that older games weren’t profitable enough for their own business model at the time, however that does not mean that they were a) reliable revenue streams or b) comparable in their development or overarching business model and strategy to something like Evolve or SWBF2.

So what if CoD was profitable? That doesn’t mean that they knew that the next game wouldn’t somehow be a flop for some reason. Their fiscal cycles are rooted in the past performance of the games they’ve created, combined with any budgets that may or may not be inflated to create the next in the series, and then balance on performance at release.

What you’ve posted above doesn’t necessarily show companies getting greedy, it shows companies trying to take the chance out of the equation. It doesn’t necessarily show them doing it well, but if they’re sitting on data that says that people play and engage with MP vastly more than single player, then of course the natural route to try and create a more sustainable income is to tap that resource.

You then get in to the mess that is gamer perception vs whatever business reality may or may not exist with a need for an upfront cost as well as the MTX model that goes with it. I also don’t think that, given what we’ve seen with SWBF2 and Evolve, you can say there is any evidence that MTX models couldn’t be more profitable if it weren’t for the very vocal campaigns carried out by a minority of gamers with a lot of time on their hands. I remember the outcries about the CoD games as they added more MTX, I remember the efforts made to try and get the games boycotted. These games, as with SW and Evolve, get review bombed, even without the controversy this seeds doubt in the product in an unfair manner to people that may not have any qualms with the business model.

It does not matter, at the end of the day, if the old way was profitable AS GAMERS because AS GAMERS that old way is actually a terrible consumer situation to be in. The old way could be more or less profitable, but as gamers we should be encouraging publishers to come up with the right way to make their games a) fiscally sound over multiple years so that b) they can be supported and nurtured for multiple years.

As a gamer I do not want to be in a situation where I have to pay $60 every few years to continue to enjoy a game series, because if I don’t the playerbase will die off as it moves without me. I don’t want to be in the situation where the conventional gamer thing to do is to leave a game after a year or two “because it’ll be dead soon anyway”. I don’t want to be in the position as an ethical gamer where my purchasing practices are encouraging developers to be worked to the bone on crazy deadlines, possibly to be laid off afterwards, as part of a revolving door industry of trying to get the big titles produced for less and less money as time goes on.

Take Evolve, I wanted that game to last and last, I wanted it to have a 5-10 year lifespan where the developers were excited to explore their own universe and keep creating content for it, where I knew that my money was going to sustaining the product I love (directly and indirectly in terms of what it means to the publisher) rather than just ensuring that shareholders can breathe a sigh of relief, draw down their dividend and then pressure the publisher for their next big windfall. I didn’t want to be looking over my shoulder for an “Evolve 2” that forced other players to doubt it’s longevity and consider other games after a while, I wanted it to be a game where the community lived and thrived over those years because there was a solid foundation for supporting it that wasn’t in doubt.

But here we are, living under conditions that are set by a set of gamers that are incapable of changing their perspective to deal with a new way of having to develop games, because they’re hung up on concepts like the base price of a game and the “day 1” value of said game, and have a complete us vs them mentality with publishers (and developers by extension) that limits what should be a symbiotic relationship between the two that means high profits are the result of a good game and shouldn’t be frowned upon.

I’m tired of hearing “money grabbing” and such nonsense in regards to this stuff because at the end of the day if what the publisher is selling isn’t good enough the relationship between gamer and community should be one that finds a path. Credit drop too low, system too much like gambling, progression feels bogged down? There should be an easy way to resolve these problems. This blame doesn’t lie all at the feet of the reddit-esque gaming community of course, publishers are idiots for not testing their desired plans out with more amenable (but able to be objective) gaming groups, something like loot crates shouldn’t have made it past some focus groups before any public beta. But I will say the blame lies mostly with gamers because it is they that are creating this atmosphere of distrust within the development community that any kind of engagement or conversation won’t be treated in a childish manner.

The bottom line is that all of this talk about profitability and success is only made to obfuscate a seriously vitally needed conversation about the future of how games are developed and supported. I don’t care for those people who want their game to be a $60 drop and then no other cost, because those people are going to kill the possibility of ever having a community focused high-end MP only game produced that fulfills the “live service” dream that currently only the MOBA (and arguably MMORPG) community are enjoying.

The choice being made here isn’t about ethics, or about what is acceptable business practice. It happens to coincide with a genuine issue on loot boxes which I’m more than happy to see getting progress, but I think it is naive to believe that the majority of gamers getting riled up about this genuinely care about whether some person with a gambling problem living on their own in Estonia gets into huge financial trouble because of over-buying loot boxes, I 100% guarantee the same community would hang any such person out to dry as an idiot that should “know better” because gamers seem to be especially blind to mental health issues.

No the choice actually being made here, whether or not the pitchfork of gamers can see it or not, is about whether or not games should be produced as if they are going to die in 2 years or not, and currently… somehow… in this fucking crazy upside down time we’re living in, the gamers are winning in making that 2 year death cycle happen.



I was just reading this. First week sales being 61% lower than the first EA Battlefront, underwhelming Black Friday sales numbers, 8.5% drop in EA’s stock value, and still no real answer to how they will add microtransactions back in.

This is hitting them fairly hard.


My guess on this is that they didn’t plan on the backlash to be this huge. By the way the game is presented, it looks like it was built for longevity but not in a correct way. For example, the fundamental flaw of the game for me is that if the reddits are to be believed, people have started using rubber bands to farm credits. They simply tie them around the analog sticks and let their character walk around so as not to get kicked.

Makes sense since the game doesn’t dispense rewards according to skill. Why should I be getting the same credits as someone on the bottom of the leaderboard ? Not only that, the ones of the bottom lack incentive to get better.

Imagine if something like this happened in Titanfall 2’s Frontier Defense or Attrition modes. There is no clear winner at the end of a match if everyone is rewarded the same. I busted my ass getting 3 titans and protecting the harvester, why should the worst player be rewarded the same as me ? I fail to see logic here, since does progression mean the same thing for a good player and a worse than average player ?

I am not saying that the newbies won’t have to be rewarded for their time. They absolutely have to be. They need that validation that they contributed to the overall result reflected as something they can see and use later on in the game. And I am not suggesting that progression should be tied to things like killstreaks (awesome as they are, they tend to power the already powerful ones) but . . . I killed close to 30 people in a match. Not because of loot boxes, not because of killstreaks but because I am good at the game. Why should I get the same XP as someone who killed 5 ?

If longevity is not built around a skill ceiling like Battlefield or Rocket League or Titanfall 2 but rather around economic advantages, then the game won’t get my money and that’s it.

I do agree that the message of the majority might as well be what you detailed in the last paragraph though and that truly is a pity. I am hopeful though that the correct message will get through to devs not run by shareholders cause that’s the root of the problem as far as I am concerned.


Oh well who cares.EA got screwed.Thats enough reason to be happy.


Yes it does. Time is just more important.


At first, when reading ‘EA blames canon for mtx’ I thought ‘wait, a company called Canon was responsible for the loot boxes ? Who are they ?’

Nope. They are actually blaming Star Wars’ canon.




I appreciate you taking the time to voice your opinion and I respect it, but

images (1)

The original set the standard. No dlc, no grinding, just hours of fun. From clone wars era to the Empire this game had it all.


images (1)

THIS set the standard. I went with the dlc plan of evolve because it was a new concept, a new beast of its own that was shut down hard because of hard pings from YouTube reviewers like angryjoe. That being said, the devs took the time to listen to the community and dud their best to sculpt Evolve into a game that would appease everybody, there was actual tangible effort. I ended up buying five copies of evolve, and guess what, I was GIVEN the hunting season 2 pass by a moderator here. Evolve made me feel appreciated for my time and effort, but EA went way too far and I will agree that their microtransaction plan was indeed, predatory. I don’t want to pay for stupid lootboxes that might yield repetitive results or in game currency. DLC/microtransactions should be aesthetics, campaign expansion packs, heck I don’t even mind it for unlocking characters, but you start off the game and the most basic of heroes are already locked behind a broken grind system.
When it comes to heroes, make them unique characters, the star wars universe is rich with heroes and villains, for example have an old republic dlc hero and villain pack, THAT I would put my money into. It would be fresh content, and something never seen before even on the original star wars battle front game so it would attract a lot of fans to see that.

I believe EA took a well deserved hit. This isn’t about being profitable, the game already cost a ton to buy initially, limit the microtransactions to either a complete edition or standard with the option to buy an expansion later. Too easy in my opinion. The game might look graphically sexy, and the gunplay might be fun, but the way the microtransactions and grinding system was handled was indeed predatory, and we can see that in that nice stock market crash for EA that the world agrees with that analysis


Time to chime in finally on the stock market thing, since it is constantly shared. Stock prices have nothing to do with what is right or wrong, or what the public sees as unacceptable. The stock price only changed initially because EA canceled the only way for people to pay, and this worried investors that are there to make money from EA’s profits. The stock price has further slid because of this situation and the now uncertain status of previously forecast profitability.

If EA turn back on the ability to buy crystals, with a new MTX plan, and financial analysis that settles (and for EA ideally excites) shareholders and investors, their stock price will rise again.


Well, here is one thing I’ll add, if they fix the system properly, I will definitely check out playing this game simply because I love star wars. But dang their stocks tanked hard ( might be a good time to buy a couple?)

Thank you for clarifying the relation between stock prices and what’s right and wrong by the way. :slight_smile:


I bought the game because I don’t think that the idea of the game, nor the developers of the game, deserve failure. It should be more than clear now that I don’t think that what would only ever be the destruction of an otherwise good game developer is the way we should be pushing this (EA will continue with the license, they’ll make more games, the only ones to suffer will be the gamers that want to play the brand and the developers).

But I also decided I wasn’t going to buy any lootboxes, just as I refuse to buy them in Overwatch or any other game.

People need to do what they feel comfortable with, but ironically the existence of a base price and a MTX model means that gamers have a real opportunity to send a message with clear boundaries… yes to the game, no to the looboxes. Right now the only message being sent for sure is “No to the game”, and that will unfortunately, I feel, let EA weasel out of things somewhat, even if the prominent message(s) are hard to ignore.


Okay but this is the real question that need be asked.


Interesting tidbit/question. BF cost EA 3 billion. How much did Disney buy Lucasfilm for ?


4.05 billion, half cash and half stock value, according to Google.


It’s a paper loss. It looks bad to shareholders, they won’t be happy about it, but it’s not like $3 billion just left their bank account. Only really matters if you sell your shares to someone else. Then your loss is realized.


Too bad I didn’t buy a lot of put options on their stock before this :stuck_out_tongue:


Merge topic time @TRS


I dunno, I personally would like to keep the non general gameplay and specifically the actions of EA out of the general Starwars 2 Battlefront topic.


The best part of the game was Galactic Conquest. Which is a mode they didn’t bring back in neither of the newer games, which is such a shame.

That mode alone would have made the game worth buying, heck I spend nothing but my time playing that mode against bots and enjoyed the heck of it.

The best part was the space battles. I would often take a spaceship, go to the opposing battleship, jump out of my ship and proceed to destroy the power generators from the inside.

This is what I mean:

I think I’m gonna buy the old battlefront from steam when it is on sale. Nostalgia.