Planning to buy?

Day 1
23%
8
On Sale
9%
3
Rent
9%
3
Undecided
14%
5
Pass
46%
16
 
Total votes: 35
User avatar
Valomek
Baller
Posts: 1680
Joined: May 17, '15, 3:51am
Location: Denmark
PSN: Valomek
Contact: Twitter

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 23, '17, 3:44am

Vane wrote:As one example (although there's plenty around right now). A major part of the appeal of playing Destiny (a looter-shooter) was showing off all the cool pieces of gear you'd acquired by completing specific activities. In Destiny 2 the vast majority of the cool looking gear is now behind the loot box/micro-transation shop.


Did we play the same game, because there is only one gear set behind the loot boxes and last time I checked that gear set did not look cool or have any stat advantage.

So I'm not sure how one gear set out of the 20 there is in the game, is now somehow the vast majority of cool looking gear.

Raging Light wrote:As I already said, monetizing lootboxes is the only thing potentially on the chopping block here. MTs would not be banned in any way. Lootboxes would not be banned in anyway (although poor wording in the potential legislation could ban all lootboxes by accident). And smaller devs would be working on smaller games that have smaller overhead anyway so they wouldn't need MTs to keep them going. Even if their games sold moderately well at full price that would be more than enough to make a profit.


Where would that put a games like Four Kings: Casino and Slots on PS4?

The game is rated Teen in the US and rated 12 and up in Europe, it is a game based on walking around gamble your chips in slot machine, blackjack, poker and other things like.

You don't have the loot boxes, but it has the microtransactions as the only way to earn chips is to win or buy them with real life money, that game already has the gambling label and is still rated Teen, I find it funny how no one seems to mention these games, this is a game built around gambling.

It makes people like me wonder, do you really care about gambling in games or do you mostly care because you have a harder time getting everything in your AAA games ...

A game like Four Kings: Casino and Slots would not be hurt by this, and Sony really wants you to try it out. But I don't see people call Sony the things they are ready to call EA.
Image

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3004
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 23, '17, 6:31am

https://youtu.be/-pDcNJedoZE

You go get 'em, Joe!

Valomek wrote:Where would that put a games like Four Kings: Casino and Slots on PS4?

The game is rated Teen in the US and rated 12 and up in Europe, it is a game based on walking around gamble your chips in slot machine, blackjack, poker and other things like.

You don't have the loot boxes, but it has the microtransactions as the only way to earn chips is to win or buy them with real life money, that game already has the gambling label and is still rated Teen, I find it funny how no one seems to mention these games, this is a game built around gambling.

It makes people like me wonder, do you really care about gambling in games or do you mostly care because you have a harder time getting everything in your AAA games ...

A game like Four Kings: Casino and Slots would not be hurt by this, and Sony really wants you to try it out. But I don't see people call Sony the things they are ready to call EA.


The simplest explanation is that I haven't even heard of that game until just now. Secondly, what do you even get by buying the in-game currency? If you're just buying the currency for the sake of playing a free to play game, is that really gambling? Think about it. It's true that you're playing a gambling simulator but the actual experience is notably different from gambling. Lootboxes are designed to incentivize microtransations in a carrot and stick strategy. You play the game you paid for and earn in-game rewards slowly so that you're tempted to buy them outright. But you can't buy them directly so you're manipulated into paying for the chance to get them instead. But if your goal in a free to play casino game is to simply pay for the ability to play the game then there isn't anything predatory about that. The gameplay IS the gambling. I don't know for sure if that's how this game is set up but that's my perspective based on the short let's play I just watched. I hope I explained that well enough to show that I'm not making excuses just because it's not AAA.
Image

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right..."
.

User avatar
Vane
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2081
Joined: Feb 15, '16, 7:41pm
Location: Manchester, UK
PSN: SorryWeAre0_o
Contact: Twitter Twitch

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 23, '17, 8:25am

Valomek wrote:
Vane wrote:As one example (although there's plenty around right now). A major part of the appeal of playing Destiny (a looter-shooter) was showing off all the cool pieces of gear you'd acquired by completing specific activities. In Destiny 2 the vast majority of the cool looking gear is now behind the loot box/micro-transation shop.


Did we play the same game, because there is only one gear set behind the loot boxes and last time I checked that gear set did not look cool or have any stat advantage.

So I'm not sure how one gear set out of the 20 there is in the game, is now somehow the vast majority of cool looking gear.


Yep, the most visually striking and unique looking gear sets in the game are the Eververse, raid, IB, and trials sets. Let's not pretend that most of those 20 in the entire game aren't just re-skins of the same sets. And it's not just limited to armour pieces, the vast majority of shaders, ships and sparrows are behind there (no longer is there strike specific gear or raid ships), it's also the only way to get emotes.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not purposefully been designed to stand out and be generally more appealing to the vast majority of players. And don't forget that the Eververse gear is limited time only and will change every season. So thats 4 sets per year, not to mention all the shaders, emotes, and ships etc on top of that.

In addition if you power-grind the game it slows ~95% of your XP gains to limit the amount of bright engrams you earn. Encouraging the most avid players to spend more.
Image

User avatar
Valomek
Baller
Posts: 1680
Joined: May 17, '15, 3:51am
Location: Denmark
PSN: Valomek
Contact: Twitter

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 23, '17, 9:29am

Raging Light wrote:Post


Fair enough, I for one just think the Casino game is far worse than any loot box system.

Vane wrote:Yep, the most visually striking and unique looking gear sets in the game are the Eververse, raid, IB, and trials sets. Let's not pretend that most of those 20 in the entire game aren't just re-skins of the same sets.


So you like those 4 gear sets and only one of them is locked behind Eververse ... last time I check 25% is not enough to be in the vast majority.

Vane wrote: And it's not just limited to armour pieces, the vast majority of shaders, ships and sparrows are behind there (no longer is there strike specific gear or raid ships), it's also the only way to get emotes.


You were the one talking about gear sets, and while it sucks to not have strike gear anymore, I fail to see how you can blame the Eververse for that.

Vane wrote:Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not purposefully been designed to stand out and be generally more appealing to the vast majority of players. And don't forget that the Eververse gear is limited time only and will change every season. So thats 4 sets per year, not to mention all the shaders, emotes, and ships etc on top of that.


Same thing for faction wars and Iron Banner, the two gear sets I like the most, I'm not sure they are that more appealing to the vast majority of players as I almost never see anyone wear them, were on the other hand I see a lot of raid, dead orbit and Iron banner gear sets in the wild.

Vane wrote:In addition if you power-grind the game it slows ~95% of your XP gains to limit the amount of bright engrams you earn. Encouraging the most avid players to spend more.


I rather see it as encouraging the most avid players to play less of the game, it is not a battle <i want to have with you as we both see most of the same problems in the game, we just don't agree on how big the impact is from the Eververse.
Image

User avatar
Vane
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 2081
Joined: Feb 15, '16, 7:41pm
Location: Manchester, UK
PSN: SorryWeAre0_o
Contact: Twitter Twitch

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 23, '17, 10:38am

Valomek wrote:
Vane wrote:Yep, the most visually striking and unique looking gear sets in the game are the Eververse, raid, IB, and trials sets. Let's not pretend that most of those 20 in the entire game aren't just re-skins of the same sets.


So you like those 4 gear sets and only one of them is locked behind Eververse ... last time I check 25% is not enough to be in the vast majority.


Well it's 4 p. year so that's 57% (as we're only getting 1 raid this year and iirc they only change IB and trials gear once a year with each big DLC). Even if you go off what was in the game at launch when you add all the ships sparrows etc on top I'd say it's definitely the majority of the rarer cosmetic items.

Valomek wrote:
Vane wrote: And it's not just limited to armour pieces, the vast majority of shaders, ships and sparrows are behind there (no longer is there strike specific gear or raid ships), it's also the only way to get emotes.


You were the one talking about gear sets, and while it sucks to not have strike gear anymore, I fail to see how you can blame the Eververse for that.


When I said "cool looking gear" I was referring to all the cosmetic items in the game, as Redback was talking about all cosmetic items too. Sorry if it came across as though I only meant armour pieces. As I said in my post to Redback they put most of the rarer cosmetic items behind Eververse in order to encourage people to purchase more micro-transactions, rather than reward you through gameplay. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Doesn't mean that's not what has happened. Other's have seen it.

► Show Spoiler


Valomek wrote:
Vane wrote:In addition if you power-grind the game it slows ~95% of your XP gains to limit the amount of bright engrams you earn. Encouraging the most avid players to spend more.


I rather see it as encouraging the most avid players to play less of the game.


I agree. Destiny 1 encouraged me to play it. Destiny 2 actively discourages from playing it, so that's exactly what I and everyone I know who played it have done. They lose potential customers and I found a game I like more than the one they made. Loss for them, win for me.

Valomek wrote:It is not a battle I want to have with you as we both see most of the same problems in the game, we just don't agree on how big the impact is from the Eververse.


I am sure we don't and that's okay.
Image

User avatar
Valomek
Baller
Posts: 1680
Joined: May 17, '15, 3:51am
Location: Denmark
PSN: Valomek
Contact: Twitter

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 23, '17, 11:03am

Vane wrote:
When I said "cool looking gear" I was referring to all the cosmetic items in the game, as Redback was talking about all cosmetic items too. Sorry if it came across as though I only meant armour pieces. As I said in my post to Redback they put most of the rarer cosmetic items behind Eververse in order to encourage people to purchase more micro-transactions, rather than reward you through gameplay. If you don't see it, you don't see it. Doesn't mean that's not what has happened. Other's have seen it.

► Show Spoiler



Even if all the cosmetic items behind the Eververse was part of the game, it would not encourage me to play the game more, as the main problem for me is that we don't have random perk rolls for weapons, I only care about the weapons, but that is hard when every gun is the same each time.

The problem is not that I don't see it Vane, the problem is that I don't care about the things that is part of the Eververse ... And to be honest I can't see how any would care for these things. So that is not and will not be my battle in regards to Destiny ...
Image

User avatar
MeatCake
Shadow Boxer
Posts: 665
Joined: May 05, '16, 11:51am

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 25, '17, 9:27am

Raging Light wrote:
MeatCake wrote:Don't hate the company because they are just doing what they are supposed to do.


What an asinine statement. Yes companies exist to make as much money as possible. And why do we, as free market consumers, choose to buy the products made by companies? Because we either need their products or simply desire their products. And if we don't need or desire the product, we are justified in our displeasure because the customer is always right in a free market. You can't defend a company for acting like a company and not defend the consumer for acting like a consumer.

(bold emphasis added by MeatCake)


Does acting like a consumer entail issuing death threats to the people who work at a company? Does it mean writing 5-star or 0-star reviews to subvert the aggregate results? Who are the consumer and are they allowed to think individually? Or should the consumer be condoning Russian homophobia and electing known American perverts, bigots and the grossly under-qualified into office?

Regardless whether any of us are correct, you can't speak for me like that; I do not want to be associated with consumer tribalism.
Put that flag down and lift up your neighbour instead

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3004
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 25, '17, 10:05am

MeatCake wrote:
Raging Light wrote:
MeatCake wrote:Don't hate the company because they are just doing what they are supposed to do.


What an asinine statement. Yes companies exist to make as much money as possible. And why do we, as free market consumers, choose to buy the products made by companies? Because we either need their products or simply desire their products. And if we don't need or desire the product, we are justified in our displeasure because the customer is always right in a free market. You can't defend a company for acting like a company and not defend the consumer for acting like a consumer.

(bold emphasis added by MeatCake)


Does acting like a consumer entail issuing death threats to the people who work at a company?


No, that's a crime. But the most prominent person from EA that received death threats about BF2 never even worked for the company. That doesn't excuse their behavior but I feel it's worth mentioning.

MeatCake wrote:Does it mean writing 5-star or 0-star reviews to subvert the aggregate results?


Yes, if the consumer wants to give hyperbolic reviews they are absolutely justified in doing so.

MeatCake wrote:Who are the consumer and are they allowed to think individually?


The specific consumers we're talking about is anyone that buys video games. And they are allowed to think however they want, individually or otherwise.

MeatCake wrote:Or should the consumer be condoning Russian homophobia and electing known American perverts, bigots and the grossly under-qualified into office?


Yet another baffling non-sequitor that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

MeatCake wrote:Regardless whether any of us are correct, you can't speak for me like that; I do not want to be associated with consumer tribalism.


I'm not speaking for you. Consumers are not uniform in thought and can support EA's business practices or be against it. And both positions are justifiable depending on what that consumer wants.
Image

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right..."
.

User avatar
MeatCake
Shadow Boxer
Posts: 665
Joined: May 05, '16, 11:51am

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 25, '17, 11:24am

Raging Light wrote:You can't defend a company for acting like a company and not defend the consumer for acting like a consumer.


Raging Light wrote:
MeatCake wrote:Regardless whether any of us are correct, you can't speak for me like that; I do not want to be associated with consumer tribalism.


I'm not speaking for you. Consumers are not uniform in thought and can support EA's business practices or be against it. And both positions are justifiable depending on what that consumer wants.


Either you don't mean what you say, or you don't say what you mean. In one statement you're telling me off for having the audacity to speak up about EA, and now this, where you disclaim everything and say anyone can do whatever they want. You can't have it both ways. And I won't forgive you calling me asinine earlier until you can demonstrate an ability to use a dictionary before recklessly tossing such insults. You won't respect anyone's opinions or positions unless it comes from your own keyboard.
Put that flag down and lift up your neighbour instead

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3004
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 25, '17, 12:37pm

MeatCake wrote:
Raging Light wrote:You can't defend a company for acting like a company and not defend the consumer for acting like a consumer.


Raging Light wrote:
MeatCake wrote:Regardless whether any of us are correct, you can't speak for me like that; I do not want to be associated with consumer tribalism.


I'm not speaking for you. Consumers are not uniform in thought and can support EA's business practices or be against it. And both positions are justifiable depending on what that consumer wants.


Either you don't mean what you say, or you don't say what you mean. In one statement you're telling me off for having the audacity to speak up about EA, and now this, where you disclaim everything and say anyone can do whatever they want. You can't have it both ways. And I won't forgive you calling me asinine earlier until you can demonstrate an ability to use a dictionary before recklessly tossing such insults. You won't respect anyone's opinions or positions unless it comes from your own keyboard.


I'm saying your reasoning is hypocritical. You were rejecting the opinions of people that hate EA because EA was acting like a business. And I was pointing out that justifying a business' actions because it's a business is no different than justifying a consumer's opinions because they're a consumer. You're the one that can't have it both ways, not me.

A prime example of what I'm talking about is the disagreement we're having right now. We're both consumers that have conflicting opinions. So if we justify our individual stances solely on the fact that we're consumers we'll get absolutely nowhere. You need more than that to convince someone that your opinions are valid. Keep in mind that just because your opinions can be justified doesn't mean we agree on their validity.

Furthermore I respect quite a few people on the forums that I often disagree with. And I never called you asinine, I said your statement was asinine. I'm sorry that you can't comprehend the distinction.
Image

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right..."
.

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3004
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Dec 07, '17, 5:20am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_p3T4TZwz0

Blake Jorgensen is a known liar so take this with a grain of salt.
Image

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right..."
.

User avatar
JerrodDRagon
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3510
Joined: May 18, '15, 11:24am
Location: Thousand Oaks
XBL: JerrodDragon89
PSN: JerrodDragon

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Dec 07, '17, 10:39am

Star Wars Battlefront 2 The Last Jedi Season
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0-ye4LXWts


I'm hoping the DLC story is solid

User avatar
KindaMatt
Seducer
Posts: 519
Joined: May 29, '15, 12:39pm
Location: NYC
PSN: MattKZ11
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Dec 08, '17, 12:51pm




portilloSeducer
Image

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3004
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Dec 08, '17, 1:04pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49VvGYZr98

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTBu4tigSDo

KindaMatt wrote:
portilloSeducer


Image
Image

"Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right..."
.

User avatar
BuffArms
Baller
Posts: 1804
Joined: Jan 28, '16, 12:30pm

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Dec 08, '17, 7:41pm

KindaMatt wrote: Low Sales Figures Tweet


portilloSeducer


Whats crazy about that is before the controversy all the analysts were pegging it as outselling Battlefield 1. Now they have Battlefront 2 selling 882,000 unit in the first 2 weeks. Battlefield 1 sold 3.46 Million in the first week alone.

So if you go by analysts estimated, roughly 1/4 to 1/5 of people bought the game who were expected to. Meaning 75-80% of prospective buyers did not buy it because of the Micro-transaction boycott.

#WINNING portilloIndeed
Image
*Signature Crafted by Tidal Town

User avatar
MeatCake
Shadow Boxer
Posts: 665
Joined: May 05, '16, 11:51am

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Dec 09, '17, 9:47am

BuffArms wrote:So if you go by analysts estimated, roughly 1/4 to 1/5 of people bought the game who were expected to. Meaning 75-80% of prospective buyers did not buy it because of the Micro-transaction boycott.


The first Battlefield game baited and hauled in a tremendous load of sales from consumer naiveté. Then those who felt burnt and fucked over as a Star Wars fan on the value proposition of the first game would be determined not to be fooled again.

And there are other people, such as myself, who have had their fill of one kind of game and don't want to repeat it with more of the same in a series: I got so much out of Far Cry 3 that I can't enjoy another Far Cry game (and believe me I have tried); Same thing for the Batman series, because I beat Arkham Asylum and got most of the collectibles. That's actually good consumer advice, to never buy game series collections because it is very likely that only one of the games -- if you play it to completion and beyond -- will ever really matter to you.
Put that flag down and lift up your neighbour instead

User avatar
Lord_Duncho
Producer
Posts: 243
Joined: Mar 24, '17, 2:15pm
Location: Azeroth
PSN: Lord_Duncho

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Jan 10, '18, 10:57am

So, I've avoided BF-II up till now because of all this MT dissent. I heard that the campaign, although too short, was pretty good. I rented it last night just for the campaign and am pretty pleased so far. Some of the character voice acting during battle is cheesy as fuck. Graphics, sound and environment are outstanding IMO. The few cutscenes I've seen so far are good, like the first time you meet Palatine, and let's face it...dogfighting in a TIE Fighter through the Deathstar wreckage was just fucking badass.
"...fuck it dude, let's go bowling."

User avatar
Valomek
Baller
Posts: 1680
Joined: May 17, '15, 3:51am
Location: Denmark
PSN: Valomek
Contact: Twitter

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Jan 10, '18, 12:49pm

Seems like the people that buy games on the PSN store in the EU, don't care much for going against EA and "save" gaming ...

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2018/01/10/star-wars-battlefront-2-was-the-most-downloaded-game-on-playstation-store-last-month/
Image

Return to “General Gaming Discussion”