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



Sure, but it was also a mod made out of love and with no actual intent to make money, initially.

SWBF2 has a business plan and a fiscal target to meet. I do agree I’d rather that content wasn’t locked but I also can’t morally sit here and say it should be unlocked just because of its existence if the budget model doesn’t allow for it. I also agree though that if you’ve already got a vibrant equipment and abilities system for micro-transactions, that the heroes themselves aren’t something that feel like they really have to be locked down either.

What I would really love, not that the general gaming community would accept it, is for the devs of this game… of any game… to present a version of the game (not an actually physical version, but a list of difference in features or specifications) that would be the version if nothing could be sold afterwards. I’d be genuinely very interested to see what kind of game SWBF2 would be if it were following the model of “Everything on the disc is accounted for in the budget of initial unit sales” and that any other content would have to be released as paid for DLC packs afterwards. This also means no extra content or development of any kind for free. Would it even have more than a couple of heroes? Would it have as many modes or maps?


‘There’s not much in the game that we wouldn’t revisit to improve the game for as many players as possible’.

Correct me if I am wrong because as much as I love English it isn’t my mother tongue but a double negative is still a positive, right ? I mean, they just admitted outright that the game needs adjustments and they shipped it anyway.


On the one hand, I completely understand the need and demand for paid DLC. Games have retained their $60 price tag for many years while the cost and demand for new games rapidly increases. Paid DLC allows gamers to be provided with new content and a more rewarding experience, while it also helps cover development costs and employee payments.

On the other, however, some companies have lost the soul it requires to make a great game. With greedy production companies not entirely caring about the experience of the player, prices aren’t made in a reasonable and appealing manner. That’s how things like the Battlefront 2 drama or the Evolve fiasco get started. Companies should be willing to work with and be flexible with the players.


Pretty much self-explanatory.


I think it’s more of a “We’re open to change” message, rather than saying they’re weren’t happy to ship it as it was. I think the scale of the response has blindsided them and they recognise there is a PR issue that’s needed so as not to damage the overall sales of the game too much.

Which, honestly, is what the developers are doing here. The game isn’t officially released yet and they’ve made changes to the systems and have said they’re willing to work more on it to make gamers happy. Gamers really need to respond to this in kind and act constructively with the developers. Responses that try to obfuscate that changes have been made, like focusing on the campaign reward reduction that is irrelevant to the overall improvement of access to heroes, aren’t made in good faith by gamers.


Pretty much a waste of time. Contracts have been signed and no fan petition is going to do anything.


The whole problem with this, is that people are confusing Developers with Publishers. I’m getting mad PTSD here from all that happens roughly 3 years ago. This is why I love indie games so much, because they avoid the publishing and pricing BS all together. Games like Cuphead, Binding Of Isaac and many others aren’t necessarily better than some triple A games (though this is subjective), rather they are better marketed and priced.


It would be nice. And yes, I think that more companies should forego Publishers and instead do something similar to a demo and then have project goals like Kickstarter. X amount and we can add Y & Z. It’s how I feel tv shows and movies will end up going with more streaming and less Hollywood big budget ones. Aire an episode and if people like it put more money to continue. If not, you’re only out the one episode. Episodic content, despite ‘Valve time’ is something I strongly feel is a good direction to start.


They’ll try to bring backing micro-transaction, but in a more sneaker way


One of two things will happen.
One, they just bring it back in once players buy the game and there is a playerbase, and little changes.
Or they change crates to have cosmetics, actually doing something worthwhile.


This is a good thing. I still smell something fishy, don’t get me wrong, but this shows what gamers can do! Power to the player! I’m hoping that they realize just what made it a bad idea and stay away from it and focus on release a solid game. Now, lets just hope they have good servers at launch so the hamsters don’t melt them :slight_smile:

I’m worried that they said that they are merely removing the option to buy things but not really that they are changing the card system and that things are still unlocked so it’s definitely a step in the right direction, but heres hoping that they remove some of those roadblocks to.


I don’t believe them for a second.

It’s a shame that Dice has to apologise for this and not EA management. They got the orders from them. Thing is tho, this “apology” is so half assed that they could probably take a shit standing up.

“We’re gonna lose big on sales from this bad PR! Consumers are complaining about it being pay to win, unreachable goals & grinding time, and loot box drops! What are we gonna do?”

“Well, Johnson, just take out micro transactions until we get past New Years. Then all the suckers will buy it right up thinking we’re taking them out! Then add them back in after we make bank off the holidays.”

“But sir what about the other concerns? Some gamers will still boycott if the other things aren’t changed.”

“Eh, fuck em. Send the “apology”, Johnson!”


I don’t either. And in fact I wouldn’t be surprised if the ‘initial loot boxes = gambling thing’ that Belgium is looking into didn’t force their hand even more. But. I want to believe that game companies ‘can’ be redeemed. I still feel the better solution was to just remove the locks and loot boxes = progression instead of not being able to buy them, but at least something ‘could’ come from it.


You know, seeing this entire shitstorm unfold actually makes me kind of glad that EA killed off the only two titles I was ever likely to buy from them (Dead Space and Mass Effect) as it means I’m not supporting any of their shit, which, looking at how bad it seemed to be, is a good thing.

It also makes me happy that the director of MHW has also said that they won’t be “devaluing” the experience of their game (their words) with loot boxes. it’s not all doom and gloom guys.


I’m sad they tanked both ME and Dead Space. Two of my favorite series.

However, i agree. Now EA gets almost no cash from me.

I like battlefield. Not particularly DLC or micros, but just conquest 32v32.

But the more EA screws up, the closer we get to them finally crashing and burning. The closer we get to some other publisher buying EAs IPs.

fingers crossed that if that happens, 2K gets NONE


On one hand, soooooo much fishy stuff going. EA is EA.

On the other, player progression only ? Mannah from heaven ! Hope they keep that in and switch to something more akin to Titanfall 2’s model.

Also, this:


“The ability to purchase crystals in-game will become available at a later date,”


Nah, Battlefront has it easier and only for the simple fact of it being a Star Wars game… It will sell, probably the same amount of copies as Evolve over its lifespan, but within a week… (Especially now, when they announced that there won’t be any microtransactions for the time being)

Yeah, there is something to it. The bandwagon is strong with this one, but it has its reasons. Where we were at the boiling point of microtransactions with Evolve, we are at the boiling point on loot crates with Battlefront.

I don’t want to nitpick, but could you elaborate on this a bit more?

Yeah, with EA games Battlefield was my jam! I used to play BF3, I’ve had a squad of friends and we played as a group, I’ve played over 200h on xbox360, 47 on PC, then BF4 came, and I managed to get 139 in that game. In BF1, I only have 18… I think I’m getting old… :wink:

I’m not too sure that they will. Maybe not because they don’t want to, but I’m pretty sure that there were many things that people had issues with and they won’t be able to address them all.
My biggest pet peeve is that progression system is/was tied up to lootcrates. This system has no place to be in fully priced games. I actually don’t think it should be in any game that has PvP. And being able to buy “random chance” of getting something that is meaningful in this scenario is just wrong. And let’s not kid ourselves. This game was build grounds up with this system in place, especially, knowing that they were saying that the matchmaking will look at what cards you have and try to match somebody with similar ones. How far off are we from Activision-Blizzard patent that will try to match you with/against people who have a little better/worst cards? Maybe I’m hyperbolic in here but, do you guys remember gaming 5-10 years ago? What the hell happened… God, I am old…


I don’t think we should read too much into them turning off the ability to buy in game currency with real world money. I wouldn’t be surprised if all that is doing is ensuring they don’t get hit with a wave of complaints after they do whatever it is to their in game economy model and have people saying “But I bought X with Y crystals and I could have got twice as much if I waited!”

I wouldn’t get too excited. I’m pretty sure this means everything stays the same except you now can’t buy stuff with real money. Until we see the details of what changes to the in game economy might happen, all that’s happened so far is gamers have made it so that cash-rich-time-poor gamers get stuck with worse gear because they can’t afford to put the same number of hours in.