Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Items (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Star Wars Battlefront 2 Reviews "why you don't tie gameplay to microtransactions" (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=249793)

Emabulator 11-14-2017 01:54 PM

Star Wars Battlefront 2 Reviews "why you don't tie gameplay to microtransactions"
 

Eurogamer - No Score Given

Quote:

Star Wars Battlefront 2, for all its faults, remains a game that can get to the kernel of what makes the series so beloved. It's just a shame that, for now, it's also inherited some of its uglier excesses too.
USgamer - 3.5/5

Quote:

Star Wars Battlefront 2 is one of the most enjoyable multiplayer games of 2017, especially if you like Star Wars. It's also more flawed than it should be. Battlefront 2 doesn't deserve to be wholly defined by loot boxes, but it's inescapable given the impact they have on some of the core modes. This is why you don't tie gameplay to microtransactions.
Game Informer - 6.5/10

Quote:

The dark side courses through Star Wars Battlefront II, playing mind tricks on gamers to spend more money to become stronger. By the time you read this review, thereís a chance EA may change how the Star Cards or loot crates work, but at this point in time, this predatory microtransaction model Force-chokes Battlefront IIís experience. Itís a shame to see a game with such clear greatness get pulled down to these depths. Star Wars deserves better. We deserve better.
Shacknews - 6/10

Quote:

Star Wars: Battlefront II is a pretty good game and youíre going to get it if youíre a fan of Star Wars, no matter what anyone says. Iím just thankful that the game is an improvement over the first attempt and is incredibly fun solo, or with friends online. The loot crates diminish its value greatly, and itís a shame EA forces them down your throat as part of the core gameplay, but the game looks gorgeous and is enjoyable to play.
The Telegraph - 3/5

Quote:

A mostly good adventure, then, but not without some major foibles. Thereís no doubt Battlefront 2 is better than its predecessor but we do miss some the latterís purity Ė guns, for example, still feel excellent to fire, but thereís so many of them now that you feel like youíre in Call of Duty shooter territory. Amidst a forcible loot system it creates a slight sense of soullessness that could see DICEís latest effort risks fading into the background as another decent shooter that misses its mark.
Trusted Reviews - 3/5

Quote:

Star Wars Battlefront 2 is a great game spoiled by a terrible business model. DICE and EA are going to be under a huge amount of pressure not just to tweak, but completely overhaul the metagame or face an even bigger fan backlash than they have already.

Underneath the terrible progression system, cheap payouts and more-than-gentle hand in the back towards paying for loot crates is the same excellent core, now across so much more content with the promise of more free maps and heroes to come.

Emabulator 11-14-2017 01:54 PM


IGN (Review in Progress) - 7.0/10

Quote:

I find my opinion of Battlefront 2 shifts depending on what I choose to expect from it. If Iím looking for a rich Star Wars story alongside a deep competitive shooter, this definitely isnít it. But in terms of delivering on that Star Wars fantasy, jumping from corner to corner of the galaxy to see as much as it has to offer, Battlefront 2 succeeds in a very fun way. Iím just not sure thereís enough here to keep me interested for very long.
GameSpot (Review in Progress) - 6/10

Quote:

While its main narrative feels unresolved, and the general loop of the multiplayer carries a number of issues, Battlefront II still manages to evoke that same sense of joy and excitement found in the core of what the series is all about. But as it stands, the biggest hurdle that Battlefront II will need to overcome--for its simultaneous attempts to balance microtransactions with genuine feeling of accomplishments--is deciding on what type of game it wants to be.

brandonjclark 11-14-2017 04:05 PM

This was a conscious decision. I hope someone pays for it because a LOT of money was spent on making this, a lot of TIME, and a lot of money LOST on that decision.

JazGalaxy 11-14-2017 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandonjclark (Post 2498681)
This was a conscious decision. I hope someone pays for it because a LOT of money was spent on making this, a lot of TIME, and a lot of money LOST on that decision.

TO a large extent, they don't care what the reviews are. They care how much money it makes. It's like a burger place raising the prices on their combo meals. They KNOW the suggestion box is going to be full of people complaining about the new prices and suggesting they lower the price. But in the end, they want to know if, despite all the blowback, they wind up making more money. If they do, then who cares about the customers they upset? Those people were arguably only holding them back.

BillyWilliamton 11-14-2017 04:10 PM

Also the decision to double down on it. Wonder how much they had to pay to get 6s across the board because the general sentiment I've seen is 4 or less.

Exodus 11-14-2017 04:16 PM

It's starwars. It'll make money on name alone.

dirtbag 11-14-2017 05:22 PM

I'm surprised the lickspittle games 'journalists' had the temerity to give out these wrist-slap scores. I would have expected them to lap it up like normal with 9s or 10s.

ElektroDragon 11-14-2017 06:10 PM

I wonder how bad this pay to win thing really is if you pony up the money up front for the ultra elite bonus whateverthehell edition like I did? I guess I will find out tonight! I just buy the most expensive editions up front now because I refuse to pay later for DLC and microtransactions as it just encourages their shitty model. I'd rather they just make the games more expensive and leave the content in there.

Because the problem is this: AAA games were $59.99 TWELVE YEARS AGO PEOPLE. And before that, they were $49.99 for oh, I don't know.... TWENTY YEARS??? I am not even exaggerating.

Arguably with this last gen, the price should have been raised to $69.99 and all this DLC microtranscation crap dialed down.

Because in 1987 I could walk into a Software Etc and pay $50 for Ultima IV, coded by like what.... 2 dudes? Now I am paying $60 for a freaking blockbuster Hollywood production.

Yes, fancy AAA games are too cheap, accounting for inflation, production values, team sizes, investor demands, etc, so either they have to cost $100 each or be milked like this.

ElektroDragon 11-14-2017 06:20 PM

I think I just convinced myself (and maybe you guys) that I'd make a great evil CEO of EA in an alternate life.

MavenACTG 11-14-2017 07:07 PM

All you have to do is kill your love of video games as an artistic medium and get an MBA to see what they are doing and why it makes sense if your in the business of making money off video games.

These complaints are like the interactive medium equivalent of movie snobs and their opinion on Michael Bay. But gamers aren't snobs, they're the addicts who watch pornography on loop because they want an uninterrupted stream of dopamine in their systems. Sweet, sweet core gameplay loop.

Well that sounded better in my head. But there's a reason the word "addiction" is taken differently when referring to video games than in any other context.

Evil Avatar 11-14-2017 07:15 PM

I have to wonder if this will impact their sales at all. Sometimes a huge backlash like this hits a game hard and it just dies, but if you look at CoD, they had to make like four really average games in a row before it started to hit their bottom line. (And I suspect sales of WWII will be even lower than the last game.)

If the game comes out and it rocks, gamers are wimps and will buy it and the whales will buy the loot crates. That is just the reality.

MavenACTG 11-14-2017 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Avatar (Post 2498711)
I have to wonder if this will impact their sales at all.

I don't think it will have that much of an impact; as they alienate existing customers who can see through the bullshit, new, naive customers will replace them with disposable income. I bought Destiny 2 and it is inarguably a mechanically-solid, graphically fantastic game. However, that sense of awe and wonder I got playing Halo for the first time has become recognizing their "Mythic Sci-Fantasy" setting as just so much bullshit and seeing the same enemy archetypes with different skins.

But I'm sure there is some 14 year old somewhere who is just gobbling up their intellectual property with such iconic concepts like The Light, which comes from The Traveller, who is being subsumed by The Almighty, as The Taken and The Hive are just kinda there.

I'm hoping whatever the next war or other nationwide tragedy were due for happens soon so society can get a reality check. Everything is becoming Disney.

BadIronTree 11-15-2017 12:25 AM

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/star-w...f2p-cooldowns/

Star Wars: Battlefront 2’s offline Arcade mode suffers from ridiculous “mobile F2P cooldowns”

steved 11-15-2017 04:32 AM

I wonder how much $ they could have made with loot boxes containing only cosmetic updates. People pay for skins / mounts / etc in games like Heroes of the Storm. I'd assume the audience paying for "Luke Skywalker Costume Nr 7" / Taun-taun-Mount would be even higher.

Chimpbot 11-15-2017 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElektroDragon (Post 2498704)
Yes, fancy AAA games are too cheap, accounting for inflation, production values, team sizes, investor demands, etc, so either they have to cost $100 each or be milked like this.

It could take 4,528 hours of gameplay (or $2100) to unlock all base-game content in Star Wars: Battlefront 2.

You're kinda full of shit; no game should cost over $2100. This goes well beyond "milking".

Scherge 11-15-2017 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chimpbot (Post 2498733)
It could take 4,528 hours of gameplay (or $2100) to unlock all base-game content in Star Wars: Battlefront 2.

You're kinda full of shit; no game should cost over $2100. This goes well beyond "milking".

Well, apart from the "like this" part, he's not entirely wrong. Given the size of the target audience and the production costs, non-blockbuster games can barely break even at the current prices, and the inflation comparison is actually 100% valid. Hence, games really should cost 100 dollars.

There are 3 problems with that, though:
1. There's so much competition that the market would never allow raising your game's SRP by more than, say, 10 dollars. Even then, you'll need a dedicated fan base already in place. 60 dollars on Steam are a much harder sell than 50.
2. Games are entertainment items and, as such, non-essential purchases. It's hard to argue that you should spend 100 dollars on something you play through once or twice, over the course of one or two weeks. Personally, I probably wouldn't do it (often). Most games are also not aging that well, compared to movies.
3. There will always be negative outliers that will stick to people's memories far longer than all positive examples combined. Gamers rarely speak of fair business models, but give them something like Battlefront 2, and all of a sudden, loot crates are Satan's idea of a good time. For the record: I agree with the overall sentiment, but I don't need Battlefront to tell me this.

Damn, I'm ranting again. All I wanted to say was: While no game should offer thousands of dollars' worth of DLC or random loot (see "Train Simulator" and its 400 DLC packs worth 5,500 euros, or "The Idolm@ster", which has 350 DLC packs on PS3 alone), many titles rely on "milking" some of their customers to keep the game affordable to the rest. I believe that's what Elektro wanted to say.

Chimpbot 11-15-2017 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scherge (Post 2498735)
Well, apart from the "like this" part, he's not entirely wrong. Given the size of the target audience and the production costs, non-blockbuster games can barely break even at the current prices, and the inflation comparison is actually 100% valid. Hence, games really should cost 100 dollars.

There are 3 problems with that, though:
1. There's so much competition that the market would never allow raising your game's SRP by more than, say, 10 dollars. Even then, you'll need a dedicated fan base already in place. 60 dollars on Steam are a much harder sell than 50.
2. Games are entertainment items and, as such, non-essential purchases. It's hard to argue that you should spend 100 dollars on something you play through once or twice, over the course of one or two weeks. Personally, I probably wouldn't do it (often). Most games are also not aging that well, compared to movies.
3. There will always be negative outliers that will stick to people's memories far longer than all positive examples combined. Gamers rarely speak of fair business models, but give them something like Battlefront 2, and all of a sudden, loot crates are Satan's idea of a good time. For the record: I agree with the overall sentiment, but I don't need Battlefront to tell me this.

Damn, I'm ranting again. All I wanted to say was: While no game should offer thousands of dollars' worth of DLC or random loot (see "Train Simulator" and its 400 DLC packs worth 5,500 euros, or "The Idolm@ster", which has 350 DLC packs on PS3 alone), many titles rely on "milking" some of their customers to keep the game affordable to the rest. I believe that's what Elektro wanted to say.

Inflation is certainly a factor, for sure. Games used to be all over the place in terms of pricing 20 years ago, but the "standard" pricing set back in 2001 with the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation helped.

With all of that being said, EA isn't exactly hurting for money; they're a consistently growing company who seems to be able to absorb the cost of game development quite nicely, even with an MSRP of $60 and (comparatively) reasonable DLC practices (at the time these figures were released).

There certainly is an argument to be made in support of games being more expensive...but one of the companies currently most guilty for milking their customers was getting by quite nicely prior to implementing the shit seen in Battlefront 2.

ElektroDragon 11-15-2017 10:34 AM

Thanks Scherge, yeah that's what I was trying to say. :)

Having just PLAYED the game for a few hours last night though:

I do NOT like the way Star Cards are implemented. :( They are just not compelling in any way and the layout is confusing. I think there's better and more compelling ways to monetize. Ubisoft does it better with AC Origins.

Thank goodness BF2 has a single player campaign (the main reason I bought it) that seems rather well done, because the multiplayer seems boring same old.

Shifter 11-15-2017 12:04 PM

Worldwide annual revenue across the industry have risen from roughly $40 billion in 2005 to over $100 billion today. The market is much bigger, meaning that game prices haven't really had to increase dramatically to cover rising development and marketing costs.

Scherge 11-15-2017 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shifter (Post 2498760)
Worldwide annual revenue across the industry have risen from roughly $40 billion in 2005 to over $100 billion today.

This is true (and even sounds like an understatement).

Quote:

The market is much bigger, meaning that game prices haven't really had to increase dramatically to cover rising development and marketing costs.
This is wrong, oh so wrong. It would be true if the business model was still the same and there were still the same providers (publishers/developers) around. But with literally thousands of games vying for the customer's attention where there used to be hundreds, and with certain casual and multiplayer games absorbing their whole time and money, the overall cake has not nearly grown enough for the average slice to stay the same size.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:36 PM.