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


I think this is important context. People can talk about unlocking “all the content in the game”, which seem to largely mean equipment and enhancements rather than actual characters/vehicles, but it is only a very hardcore minority who are going to want to from the outset max out everything for all modes.

We saw this with Evolve too, some people seem to think you should just “get stuff” (which I am pretty sure you do for completing challenges in this game? I’m going on what I’m reading so far so welcome being corrected), while others would definitely complain if they were given something when they’d rather spend their worth somewhere else. For me personally I can’t see any negative to offering an Iden’s worth of credits as it gives complete choice to the consumer!

People would almost certainly just accept it, but it wouldn’t be the most fair way. The current implementation within the confines of characters being locked is absolutely the fairest.

My understanding, again could be wrong, is that the rates of credits rewards for MP games haven’t changed. The campaign rewards were lowered to keep parity, but the overall effect is that heroes are now going to be significantly easier to attain through normal online play.

Yep, regardless of any other discussion about the best or worst way to do things within the system that this game has adopted, the whole loot crate thing is a horrible method and direct purchase of what you actually want should be the only way that games operate for any locked content (regardless of if it’s base content or not, that’s a different issue…)

I mean, since the dawn of time really? :stuck_out_tongue: There have been games where you can’t do “insane” mode until you complete hard going back to the dawn of PC games. You can go back to some of the original fighter games which were the first “MP titles” which didn’t let you play all the characters until you’d played enough. I am with you in that I’d personally much rather that “base” content is just unlocked, but I think that the term “base content” is loaded and potentially ignores the realities of how games are budgeted for anyway. I feel that in the case of this game the true base content is everything about the game that isn’t the heroes (considering that you essentially get one Iden level hero for free for completing the base content of the campaign)

I guess games originally locked things because of all those people that think that progression is either important for continued play, or perhaps as an alternate view think that more complex or hard to master characters need to only be available after you’ve got the grasyp of the basics.

With this game, I think as I said elsewhere I’m a little torn. Sure, the content in the “base game” is physically there at launch, and the argument is that it’s been created so it should be available. I understand that argument, it initially makes sense…

But what if content is created knowing that the budget only works if some portion of people then pay for it? We get in to thise weird situation of no winning answer where you either do this packing the game with content for launch but lock it up because the business model relies on it being treated as pre-created DLC, or you launch a game with a true level of “This was part of the launch budget” content and risk facing the accusation that you’ve cut content from the game to sell as DLC, or that your game is too thin on content to be played.

I actually think that if what’s happening here is that the business model is saying that we’ve invested a bunch of development time here on the pretence that we’re going to get in game sales to pay for it, as opposed to DLC packages later piece by piece that people have to pay to play with, then that’s much better for the game and for participation in the game.

I think that as gamers its easy to still think of content in terms of the console days, but it’s clear that we’re moving in to a world where developers are offering content with the intent that people will enjoy it and buy more in to their ongoing support and development. F2P proved the model, and I honestly think that games like this are showing that for AAA games the model is essentially going to have to be the same, but with an upfront cost to cover the sheer size of the budget that goes with creating such a game. Maybe the upfront cost will disappear in the future, but I am not so sure given how much more that would require gamers to buy in to the content provided to turn a profit.



(click to expand)



Blizzard taking jabs at EA’s Battlefront II


This is a good article:



Well, once the media has spoken, that’s it…I think the publisher’s already cut their own throats with this title and there can be no going back. Their only hope will be to try and salvage what they can, and sadly the devs will probably be the ones to get spanked for it.

Hmm, where have we seen that before?


Very good article, definitely.

Unfortunately there is a bit of an impossible task to both allow people to just hone in on specific content they want, and to also let people who are completionists do so without absolutely rinsing them. I feel companies almost need to introduce a form of “loyalty points” when it comes to purchasing or earning in game currency, something that helps to smooth off the curve.

Right now if I want to just buy enough stuff to max out one hero I care about, and one class, I probably would need to do enough to gain what… 10% of all possible unlockables? And for that I’ll spend something around 5-7% of the total unlock cost thanks to initial challenges and easy gains. If someone wants to go nearer to 100% then they’ll need to spend nearer to 95% of the unlock cost. It seems like this would be fair and the same, but the reality is that someone who has dedicated a lot of time or money is going to actually spend more per content gained than someone that specialises in a niche.

If each unlock gifted a loyalty point quota then you would basically not be rewarding those who don’t wish to unlock much, you’d be giving a little boost to long time players, and you’d be reducing the overall cost of the content for those who are already committing a lot of time and/or money into the game.

If these loyalty points were equivalent to like 10% of the cost of an unlock (this is a really simplistic term, but whatever), and perhaps tiered so that the more loyalty points you’ve earned in the past the more you get per unlock, then you could have a situation where completionists, collectors, could knock 10%+ off of the cost of gaining their content.

Which… when you think about it, feels good, surely? Those who only play 30-40 hours might be able to unlock an extra hero for “free”, but those who are really going for everything could…especially under an exponential style tiered increment scheme to the loyalty reward given… end up saving a third of the total cost of all the initial content and be grabbing further released content at half price or so for the rest of the games life. Given the time and/or money this would require it seems more than fair and in line with typical consumer practices.


Was this already posted?


And Overwatch’s :open_mouth:


I think it was a UK MP that was referenced in a different thread calling for them to be looked in to. I won’t be surprised if the end result is in a couple of years governments determining it to be gambling and requiring them to be regulated in the same manner. I strongly feel we’ll see the end of loot crate style mechanics in the not too distant future for this reason, at least in their current form of contents not being able to be fairly recycled in to in-game currency and there being no other direct route to buy what you want.



For the record, Belgium already has some good gambling laws in regards to online gambling and stuff like tele-puzzles/quizzes (those TV shows where, if you know the answer, you call and if it’s right you win a money prize).

Happy to see that they’re looking into this too.


So I’ve watched the VTM news (the Dutch news channel):

The reason why the game is under investigation is mostly because of the influence the game might offer on kids, especially those below the age of 18 years.

For example, it’s just 60 Euros to buy the game, but the fact that kids can talk each other over into spending more money in the game - for otherwise they can’t make their character stronger from the loot box content - it’s looking if it can be determined as a “game of chance”.

Also mentioned in the news, is that EA has yet to respond about the investigation.


I think the only thing that games companies may argue is that they have payment processes in place that require an adults input, so the onus would be on the parents to monitor and restrict their child’s ability to use in-game purchase options. That said, I think that everyone knows the difference between the letter of the law and the morals of the law have a massive grey area in the middle of them and it is the kids that are neglected in this regard by their parents (or parents that are duped by their kids) that need protections that don’t currently exist.


I don’t think it’s only about the safeblocks, but that it shouldn’t be allowed for kids or teenagers at that age to already come in contact with gambling (even indirectly).

Especially since kids and teenagers are not yet aware of boundaries, it can be the start of an addiction -an obsession to get X character or Y skin - which is morally incorrect for kids to be already tormented by that.


But then it could be argued that most of these games (CoD, Battlefront, etc.) are rated for mature audiences, so there shouldn’t be any players that are children or teenagers.
But there can’t be anything done about that unless we start punishing parents for buying M rated games for children.


Jeez and I thought it was confusing when there was just one form of currency and multiple forms of unlocking stuff . . .



I’m thinking about something, but the new star wars seems to have the same story of Evolve (even if they are completely differents, and BF2 seems to be in a worst state than Evolve, but not that terrible).
People just see a lot of complains about microtransactions => proceed to hate the game => low sells => not enough player to make the game alive
While a lot of peoples complains about grinding while everything is based on assumptions.
And people don’t even think, they see EA and just hate the game without thinking before.
Just like Evolve.

I just saw 2 people (I know that’s not a lot, but on a website where everything is about bashing EA it’s great) that played the game and explained they enjoyed it, that the grinding wasn’t that much of a problem.

That’s why I won’t be trapped like some people were with Evolve. I will buy the game when it will have the content that interest me the most. I played the beta and it was fun.


ftfy. There are plenty of commercial success with games that involve microtransactions. Again, it’s not really that there are microtransactions, just that some microtransactions show that the publisher doesn’t give two squats to the consumer. Cosemtic stuff, sure. There is a world of difference between day 1 cosmetic microtransactions and you have to pay more money to unlock iconic and basic functions of a full priced title.

Tell this to Andromeda that still sold decently despite ALL evidence that it was going to be a poopy release.

And thats the shame. It’s a decent game caked with poop on the outside. The consumers just finally called the Publisher’s bluff and no I don’t think Evolve’s microtransactions or DLC was the main reason it failed. Sure, lots of misinformation, but misinformation about games can still lead them back after poor sales. The problem with Evolve is mostly how the gameplay felt for most people as the game had a really high skill floor for the most part.