I can get this game for free as my friend works for EA but won't bother now. I was only really interested in the campaign in any event which is supposed to be very short.
Gaming Star Wars Battlefront II
- Thread starter Siorac
- Start date
Had a read of the AMA on reddit and as expected just generic and vague answers. Pretty much the underlying message was "we're listening to your feedback and will continue to balance and adjust the game as we go along to make it fun for everyone".
Not worth it
You used to be able to do a lot of things but times change. I've been gaming since 98 so I've seen all the models. Who are we to tell other people who are happy to do something that they shouldn't be, just because it annoys us?Brilliant
@Zarlak you seem to forget that you used to be able to buy a full game for a price...and everything was included. Just because it gives people joy, doesn't mean they should milk people for their hard earned cash. I know the rest of the world is that way, but we should at least try and put up a fight. Rather than just bend over and say well if people want to buy it, they are free to do and happy to pay the price (I think they would also be happy not to pay the price)
Down to 74 on metacritic now. Hopefully sales are awful but I doubt it
Dice and EA reported "really saddened" by all the negative press.
Good.
They should be as sad looking at their bank accounts as those who fall for their schemes.
Quite enjoying it, only playing the EA Access trial so I haven't paid full price to big bad EA don't worry. The progression system is a mess though, paying for lootboxes, or crates as they're called in this is one thing but how they work is another. It's like if in Ultimate Team you could only use your coins to buy packs and there was another currency you needed to buy players (stay with me), but the best place to find the second currency is in the packs themselves which you need more coins to buy.
I've bought it because I like the game, the way it plays and the maps in particular are beautiful. It plays well and I haven't had a problem competing against these pay-to-win lot. It's a lot of fun but I won't be buying any loot crates or anything like that.
Robbing bastards. They deserve all the bad press they get.
Not only is it a pay to win gambling simulator, its also buggy as feckTweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
"Back at a later date."
Interesting.
You'd think EA had burned down an orphanage or something also game getting under 1.0 on metacritic or something is ridiculous.
also game getting under 1.0 on metacritic or something is ridiculous.Why do you keep constantly defending them?You'd think EA had burned down an orphanage or something
Also the micro transactions were only taken down due to the fact Disney CEO called them. I guess Disney didn’t like the negativity.
Quit being gouging bastards then.
Disney absolutely hate negative press of any kind towards them or their stuff. I saw a lot of people online saying to blame Disney, not EA/DICE cause they're the ones who'll actually give a shit and do something about it. Guess they called it right.
Why is it ridiculous?You'd think EA had burned down an orphanage or something
A step in the right direction.
The scores aren't representative of the whole game (much like Mass Effect: Andromeda) and are just reflecting the backlash to the progression mechanics.
Keep on fighting?
Just don't buy the fecking game.
Just don't buy the fecking game.
The Metacritic user scores are totally worthless in general.
I wouldn't say they were worthless but there are other scoring systems I prefer.
They are worthless precisely because of shit like this. Many games are review bombed for various reasons. Bots have even been detected leaving countless 'reviews'.
That's before I even mention the "well, this game is a 7 but I'll give it a 10 to balance things out" crap.
The overall score, I'd mostly agree.
But there's a 150 character minimum + a like/dislike function, that forces reviews to provide context. The reviews are also dated, meaning you can eventually find some that are less influenced by the online sentiments, and see rough trends.
I just use the reviewers' score for a general idea of how good a game is. Out of interest, what other scoring systems do you tend to reference? I'm always on the lookout for fair and balanced opinion.
Last edited:
"does Ødegaard like this?" tend to be a good check for jrpgs. Shit for all shooter games though, unless you hate them.
Drugs kicking in, my mood getting weird. Sorry. Ignore me.
On OpenCritic you can customise your trusted reviewers so you get a personal score from critics/publications that your tastes align with. Their system also aggregates the scores of often more critics than Metacritic (including smaller up-and-coming critics). Also got a recommend/not recommended system if you like.
Besides that I like Steam's system too (you can control things like date/ whether the review was intended to amuse etc.) but that only covers PC games.
That's pretty cool.
Yeah, the site's pretty new though- so they are only great for current stuff.
You can’t judge how good a game is based on metastatic user scores. Instead it’s a guage of if there are any issues with the game that have made people flip out. I don’t find it ridiculous at all. It’s called sending a message
Yes very true, let just accept our fate.
Certainly that would hurt EA in their pockets (and ultimately would probably be the way to introduce the most significant changes). However perpetuating the negative press towards EA is going to be effective, even if they actually give what the gamers want.Keep on fighting?
Just don't buy the fecking game.
People want to play this game, just without the pay to win elements. I am happy this is happening and is a decent step in the right direction. If not for this backlash, who knows? Your favorite multiplayer games may have been affected to the point where multiplayer gaming is a rich mans game. All about who has the bigger wallet and nothing about skill.Keep on fighting?
Just don't buy the fecking game.
I think people underestimate just how dangerous microtransactions are to the future of gaming. It is already a joke and AAA games have only recently started to push them hard.
Of course I think EA are just going to turn this on once everyone has bought it, but at least something happened other than a collective shrug of the shoulders.
The majority have, or are simply happy with the model as evidenced by how massively successful it is and how much revenue it generates for every game that uses it. We're a vocal minority. People make out like people are uneducated or don't know how evil this practice is, which is extremely arrogant to believe. Most people actually don't care, they just won't spend the money on unlocking stuff via microtransactions, or they are actually happy to pay. Or they care a little, but they understand that companies are there to make money and this is the way that a load of them are currently making money.
By all means kick off about it, but it's arrogant and patronising for people to make out that they're the smart ones for seeing through some kind of ruse and the masses of people who either don't care, or who happily hand their hard earned money that they have the right to spend however they like, over are uneducated or stupid.
You said the same to a guy trying to teach some life lessons, doing a bit of parenting to his 14 year old kid, Christ , give it a rest.
These companies make huge amounts of money from young kids, who either are using parents money or there own pocket money. Personally don't think we should just accept that they are to happy to pay so let them be free to do so. I can't see us agreeing on this so let's leave it at that.
I replied specifically to him saying that these purchases demonstrate an unquestioning mind which simply isn't true. Many people making these purchases have a questioning mind, and they believe the purchase is fine. Just because their opinion is different to yours, doesn't mean they're idiots. That's what I posted. Don't make out that it was anything other than that.
I won't disagree that these companies make shit loads off of kids, but that's largely an issue of parental responsibility. If you give them a device, turn off all the payment methods. The company cannot possibly know whether the device is owned by an adult or a child, that is a completely unrealistic expectation. They often also include multiple safe guards whether it's a password that needs to be entered to confirm, confirmation emails sent etc and this can all be disabled by the parent. Some woman was complaining that her son ran up a £7,000 bill on Clash of Clans and that 'the industry needed to be regulated better' and it's horse shit, she's completely at fault. Before you can make a purchase you have to enter an admin password for the payment which she clearly gave to her son and then every single time you get an email from Google to confirm the transaction, which she clearly ignored. She was notified every step of the way. There is no way they could have possibly known it was a little boy and not an adult who was fully capable of making decisions and was confirming at every step that they wished to go through with it.
If the kids can afford it, and that's how they choose to spend their money then they have every right to spend their money on whatever makes them happy. If they can't afford it, then the parents can very easily remove the payment options so that it's not an issue.
Ok, so I'm kind of playing devil's advocate here, particularly as I haven't played either of the new battlefront games and I haven't fully read into exactly what is going on here, just that some people seem to be trying to fight microtransactions on the whole.
But what is exactly is so bad about them? I don't pay for microtransactions, because I am generally just pretty stingy with money anyway, but if someone wants to pay a little bit extra to skip the grind and unlock stuff, what does it matter to me?
Video games used to have loads of cheat codes, and you could use them if you wanted, or you could refuse to if you thought it spoilt the game. Now that we have online games, obviously you can't have cheat codes any more because everyone would use them. So microtransactions have taken their place.
I get that you could argue 'well if everyone else pays to unlock darth vader, then it makes it more difficult for me, but what difference is there compared to somebody who just bought the game earlier, or has more time to grind video games and so has beaten you to unlocking it? Is it better to reward someone who can spend hours on video games ahead of someone who spends their time doing a job and earning a bit extra disposable income which they use to pay for microtransactions?
And I'm not sure you can pass it off as a purely economic issue, because what about the kids who have to wait 6-12 months for the game price to drop before their parents are willing to buy the game? How do they catch up with their richer friends who have had the game since release? They don't have to pay for microtransactions if they don't want to or can't afford it, but waiting 6-12 months probably would see the price drop far enough that a few microtransactions wouldn't increase the total cost beyond the initial release price.
I understand the argument that the game minus microtransactions shouldn't be created in such a way as to make them seem like a requirement in order to properly enjoy the game (see most mobile games). I understand the distaste towards unfairly randomising the rewards you gain from them. But microtransactions as a concept aren't really all that bad.
But what is exactly is so bad about them? I don't pay for microtransactions, because I am generally just pretty stingy with money anyway, but if someone wants to pay a little bit extra to skip the grind and unlock stuff, what does it matter to me?
Video games used to have loads of cheat codes, and you could use them if you wanted, or you could refuse to if you thought it spoilt the game. Now that we have online games, obviously you can't have cheat codes any more because everyone would use them. So microtransactions have taken their place.
I get that you could argue 'well if everyone else pays to unlock darth vader, then it makes it more difficult for me, but what difference is there compared to somebody who just bought the game earlier, or has more time to grind video games and so has beaten you to unlocking it? Is it better to reward someone who can spend hours on video games ahead of someone who spends their time doing a job and earning a bit extra disposable income which they use to pay for microtransactions?
And I'm not sure you can pass it off as a purely economic issue, because what about the kids who have to wait 6-12 months for the game price to drop before their parents are willing to buy the game? How do they catch up with their richer friends who have had the game since release? They don't have to pay for microtransactions if they don't want to or can't afford it, but waiting 6-12 months probably would see the price drop far enough that a few microtransactions wouldn't increase the total cost beyond the initial release price.
I understand the argument that the game minus microtransactions shouldn't be created in such a way as to make them seem like a requirement in order to properly enjoy the game (see most mobile games). I understand the distaste towards unfairly randomising the rewards you gain from them. But microtransactions as a concept aren't really all that bad.
You're not completely wrong in theory. If people have less time to play than others and want a leg up and can afford it then they should be able to do so if they wish. The big problem is the sheer amount of time that would have to be spent playing the game to unlock these things that should come as basic. They've made it close to impossible to achieve these things just by playing the game.