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
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3006
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 21, '17, 8:22pm

https://youtu.be/h03EY02y2WE

I'm very cautious about governments trying to regulate videogames. But as long as it starts and stops with lootboxes I'm itching to see how this pans out. And let's not forget that Jim Sterling has been calling lootboxes gambing for a long long time.

https://youtu.be/NLDid1UNyg8

https://youtu.be/_OyhTKX7i4I
Image

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

User avatar
BetoJR
Baller
Posts: 1220
Joined: Dec 30, '16, 6:55am
Location: Fortaleza-CE, Brazil
PSN: BetoJR_FOR
Contact: Twitter

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 3:23am

Raging Light wrote:And let's not forget that Jim Sterling has been calling lootboxes gambing for a long long time.

I honestly don't care what someone like Jim Sterling says, myself.
Well, he's not a psychiatrist or a lawmaker, is he? That means he's not, necessarily, the be all, end all authority on the definition of terms like this, is he?
Therefore, that also means, he can be wrong, can't he?

Loot boxes and the likes of those things aren't inherently evil, IMHO. They're just a monetization scheme, for certain costly - or F2P - games.
Their implementation in said games and whatnot, however, can very well be a necessary evil, eventually.

EA just fucked up REALLY BAD, this time. And got royally owned, justifiably.

Good. For. Us.

portilloIndeed
Image

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3006
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 4:39am

BetoJR wrote:
Raging Light wrote:And let's not forget that Jim Sterling has been calling lootboxes gambing for a long long time.

I honestly don't care what someone like Jim Sterling says, myself.


Nobody asked you to care. We don't talk about Jim because he's an authority on any particular subject. We talk about him because he says things people agree with and articulates those opinions in an entertaining way. This should be obvious.
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

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 5:16am

Raging Light wrote:
BetoJR wrote:
Raging Light wrote:And let's not forget that Jim Sterling has been calling lootboxes gambing for a long long time.

I honestly don't care what someone like Jim Sterling says, myself.


Nobody asked you to care. We don't talk about Jim because he's an authority on any particular subject. We talk about him because he says things people agree with and articulates those opinions in an entertaining way. This should be obvious.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHjronXyeqI
Put that flag down and lift up your neighbour instead

User avatar
II GTA FREEK II
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 2402
Joined: Nov 06, '15, 8:31am
Location: New York
XBL: II GTA FREEK II
PSN: II_GTA_FREEK_II
Contact: Twitter YouTube

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 5:27am

BetoJR wrote:I honestly don't care what someone like Jim Sterling says, myself.
Well, he's not a psychiatrist or a lawmaker, is he? That means he's not, necessarily, the be all, end all authority on the definition of terms like this, is he?
Therefore, that also means, he can be wrong, can't he?

Loot boxes and the likes of those things aren't inherently evil, IMHO. They're just a monetization scheme, for certain costly - or F2P - games.
Their implementation in said games and whatnot, however, can very well be a necessary evil, eventually.

In an ideal world lootboxes and such wouldn't be a bad thing. But at this point there aren't enough games that supply us with enough quality, content, and a well made path to obtaining the content to justify any of their microtransactions. They exist, but they're outnumbered by games like Battlefront 2. So at this point it's almost pointless to even keep making the "lootboxes and micro transactions aren't inherently evil" argument. They've lost the benefit of the doubt, and from this point on it's better to just keep them gone as much as possible.

Think of it like texting while driving. That's not a bad thing. Simply doing it doesn't guarantee that you'll crash or hurt someone, but it happens. And as soon as someone is killed because of it, texting and driving becomes illegal. And from that point on it's staying that way because you can no longer take the chance or trust in people to do the right thing/not wreck or kill someone.

I'm sure you can pick apart that analogy but you get my point. It's lost all of its goodwill. And even though we'll still excuse certain companies when they do a better job at it, it's something that needs to be shamed all around. A few bad apples spoils the bunch. And we shouldn't even be planting apple trees anymore.

And I understand your point about Jim. I even watch his videos and agree with everything he says, but I'm not going to hold him up as the voice of god.

Raging Light wrote:Nobody asked you to care. We don't talk about Jim because he's an authority on any particular subject. We talk about him because he says things people agree with and articulates those opinions in an entertaining way. This should be obvious.


I think he might just be annoyed by the constant posting of his videos. As if he is, as I already put it, the voice of god.

And I honestly don't blame him, and I like and agree with Jim.
Not in cruelty, not in wrath, The Reaper came today, An angel visited this gray path, And took the cube away.
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 22, '17, 5:46am

BetoJR wrote:Loot boxes and the likes of those things aren't inherently evil, IMHO. They're just a monetization scheme, for certain costly - or F2P - games.
Their implementation in said games and whatnot, however, can very well be a necessary evil, eventually.

EA just fucked up REALLY BAD, this time. And got royally owned, justifiably.


Why are they a necessary evil for AAA games, that ask for; a price up front for the product (with multiple editions often in excess of $100), a season pass, DLC on top of season passes, and tie in's with food and drink corporations? If you can't make a profit from that the problem isn't micro-transactions. The problem is you didn't make a good enough product.

I have no problem with a company wanting to make a profit. I do have a problem with greed for the sake of greed alone, as a game does this

► Show Spoiler


after I've already spent $60-100+ just play the game.

Micro-transactions can be done well. But I've yet to see a AAA game do them well this year. And when they're subtly woven in to core parts of them game in order to pry on people who can't resist temptation every time they play that's pretty damn shitty to me.
Image

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

Nov 22, '17, 6:11am

They just said that turning MTs off won't hurt earnings
maybe now we can stop believing that MTs are needed to make a STAR WARS game profitable and call it for what it is?
Image

User avatar
Frostilyte
Greg's Ego
Posts: 4021
Joined: Jun 03, '15, 2:24pm
Location: London ON, Canada
Steam: Frostilyte
Contact: Twitter Twitch

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 6:21am

Raging Light wrote:I'm very cautious about governments trying to regulate videogames. But as long as it starts and stops with lootboxes I'm itching to see how this pans out.

It probably won't. You can call me a pessimist, but I have even less faith in the American government than I have in my own.

II GTA FREEK II wrote:In an ideal world lootboxes and such wouldn't be a bad thing. But at this point there aren't enough games that supply us with enough quality, content, and a well made path to obtaining the content to justify any of their microtransactions. They exist, but they're outnumbered by games like Battlefront 2. So at this point it's almost pointless to even keep making the "lootboxes and micro transactions aren't inherently evil" argument. They've lost the benefit of the doubt, and from this point on it's better to just keep them gone as much as possible.

Think of it like texting while driving. That's not a bad thing. Simply doing it doesn't guarantee that you'll crash or hurt someone, but it happens. And as soon as someone is killed because of it, texting and driving becomes illegal. And from that point on it's staying that way because you can no longer take the chance or trust in people to do the right thing/not wreck or kill someone.

I'm sure you can pick apart that analogy but you get my point. It's lost all of its goodwill. And even though we'll still excuse certain companies when they do a better job at it, it's something that needs to be shamed all around. A few bad apples spoils the bunch. And we shouldn't even be planting apple trees anymore.

So you, as a broad statement, believe microtransactions should be completely removed from all games including ones that are free to play? You don't make a distinction, hence my asking.

I can, and do support your argument when it relates to AAA games. I have, and will continue to believe that the inclusion of microtransactions into a game you've already paid money for is horseshit. It was horseshit in Rise of the Tomb Raider. It was horseshit in Shadow of War. It was horseshit in Uncharted 4. It was horseshit in Halo 5. It was horseshit in Destiny 2. It is horseshit in Star Wars Battlefront 2 and every other game I've not listed.

Where I will take issue with "microtransactions are bad and need to go away" is when the game has no price of admission. I do think that the overwhelming majority of games that are free to play should have some kind of regulation, so that they aren't able to psychologically manipulate people into forking over cash. My hope is that with the spotlight finally (FINALLY!) being brought on the video game industry it will introduce this kind of regulation. I don't think microtransactions should be abolished complete because without them there are a number of good free games that wouldn't have been able to support themselves (League of Legends, DotA, HearthStone, Fallout Shelter, and Warframe as a few popular examples).

Didn't want to pull your argument apart with nitpicking, but I feel like I kinda did. FeelsBadMan
In summary, I'm in agreement with you regarding microtransactions in the paid space, disagree with you about them in regard to the free space, and I would like to see regulation put in place across all implementations so exploiting customers is less possible and frequent.

KindaMatt wrote:They just said that turning MTs off won't hurt earnings
maybe now we can stop believing that MTs are needed to make a STAR WARS game profitable and call it for what it is?

Paid games never needed microtransactions to be profitable. It just removes financial risk from the company, so they don't have a quarter with low(er) profits.
Linked a video that delves into that a bit if you've the time and interest to watch it.
Frost-Tea-Light
My Review Blog
Steam: Frostilyte
BattleNet: Frostilyte#1183

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

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 6:33am

Frostilyte wrote:
KindaMatt wrote:They just said that turning MTs off won't hurt earnings
maybe now we can stop believing that MTs are needed to make a STAR WARS game profitable and call it for what it is?

Paid games never needed microtransactions to be profitable. It just removes financial risk from the company, so they don't have a quarter with low(er) profits.
Linked a video that delves into that a bit if you've the time and interest to watch it.


already watched it. I think you posted it in another topic ? or maybe I saw it somewhere else.
anyway, yes, great video.

There are still people out there thinking that a star wars game NEEDS MTs. a sequel to a game that sold 15 million copies

not some obscure game, Star Wars.
it drives me nuts.
Image

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3006
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 6:47am

II GTA FREEK II wrote:I think he might just be annoyed by the constant posting of his videos. As if he is, as I already put it, the voice of god.

And I honestly don't blame him, and I like and agree with Jim.


He IS the voice of god. And if you actually deny that then you're a heretic as well!

Fair enough. I'd post more BDobbinsFTW videos to shake things up if he uploaded as often as Jim.

Frostilyte wrote:
Raging Light wrote:I'm very cautious about governments trying to regulate videogames. But as long as it starts and stops with lootboxes I'm itching to see how this pans out.

It probably won't. You can call me a pessimist, but I have even less faith in the American government than I have in my own.


I agree but even the threat of government intervention could sway EA to ditch the dishonest loot boxes for the foreseeable future. But let's hope that Belgium follows through just in case.
Image

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

User avatar
II GTA FREEK II
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 2402
Joined: Nov 06, '15, 8:31am
Location: New York
XBL: II GTA FREEK II
PSN: II_GTA_FREEK_II
Contact: Twitter YouTube

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 7:18am

Frostilyte wrote:POST

Yes that is a good point. I wasn't including free to play games since those are never even on my radar. I don't play them, and they generally don't make much noise to get into my sight. Plus consoles don't have very many of them like mobile and PC does.

So that's a good distinction. I'm focused on only the AAA games market here.
Not in cruelty, not in wrath, The Reaper came today, An angel visited this gray path, And took the cube away.
Image

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

Nov 22, '17, 7:38am

KindaMatt wrote:They just said that turning MTs off won't hurt earnings
maybe now we can stop believing that MTs are needed to make a STAR WARS game profitable and call it for what it is?


It is however silly to think that anyone would leave money on table, yes they don't need MTs to be profitable. But if they want to be even more profitable, then MTs are a great way to do so, and something we should keep around.
Image

User avatar
BetoJR
Baller
Posts: 1220
Joined: Dec 30, '16, 6:55am
Location: Fortaleza-CE, Brazil
PSN: BetoJR_FOR
Contact: Twitter

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 7:39am

Raging Light wrote:Nobody asked you to care. We don't talk about Jim because he's an authority on any particular subject. We talk about him because he says things people agree with and articulates those opinions in an entertaining way. This should be obvious.

Sorry for disagreeing, then. I didn't know I would strike such a sore nerve, mate. portilloTrueLove

Vane wrote:a price up front for the product (with multiple editions often in excess of $100), a season pass, DLC on top of season passes, and tie in's with food and drink corporations? If you can't make a profit from that the problem isn't micro-transactions. The problem is you didn't make a good enough product.


Let it be noted that I don't disagree with you in the slightest, here. portilloDismissed

KindaMatt wrote:They just said that turning MTs off won't hurt earnings


Well... The thing is: that statement, taken in and off itself isn't really telling much, is it? It won't "hurt" EA's earnings because the gains they would accrue from the added micro-transaction-fueled economy won't be actually felt; that's the only thing they're actually saying, if you read between the lines, there. That's actually quite smart, really. It eases the shareholders and stokes the fire, all at the same time.

Oh, well.
Image

User avatar
Frostilyte
Greg's Ego
Posts: 4021
Joined: Jun 03, '15, 2:24pm
Location: London ON, Canada
Steam: Frostilyte
Contact: Twitter Twitch

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 8:17am

KindaMatt wrote:already watched it. I think you posted it in another topic ? or maybe I saw it somewhere else.
anyway, yes, great video.

There are still people out there thinking that a star wars game NEEDS MTs. a sequel to a game that sold 15 million copies

not some obscure game, Star Wars.
it drives me nuts.

Oh, shit. That sounds like something I would have done haha. Sorry about that.

Raging Light wrote:I agree but even the threat of government intervention could sway EA to ditch the dishonest loot boxes for the foreseeable future. But let's hope that Belgium follows through just in case.

If they're going to do something I'd prefer if they did it instead of threatening to do it. A threat without anything to back it is meaningless after all.

II GTA FREEK II wrote:Yes that is a good point. I wasn't including free to play games since those are never even on my radar. I don't play them, and they generally don't make much noise to get into my sight. Plus consoles don't have very many of them like mobile and PC does.

So that's a good distinction. I'm focused on only the AAA games market here.

Glad I made the distinction, and tried to avoid putting words in your mouth. That said, most of what I said isn't really pertinent to the discussion here if we're only focusing on AAA paid games. SeemsGood
Frost-Tea-Light
My Review Blog
Steam: Frostilyte
BattleNet: Frostilyte#1183

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3006
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 8:38am

BetoJR wrote:Sorry for disagreeing, then. I didn't know I would strike such a sore nerve, mate. portilloTrueLove


You don't have to apologize for disagreeing with me and you didn't strike a nerve. If I ever come off as hostile it's merely a failure in communication. ThisIsFine
Image

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

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

Nov 22, '17, 9:18am

Valomek wrote:
KindaMatt wrote:They just said that turning MTs off won't hurt earnings
maybe now we can stop believing that MTs are needed to make a STAR WARS game profitable and call it for what it is?


It is however silly to think that anyone would leave money on table, yes they don't need MTs to be profitable. But if they want to be even more profitable, then MTs are a great way to do so, and something we should keep around.


of course I agree with the first sentence. Strongly disagree with the last one

no we shouldn't keep them around. Because we don't need them.
We can have them, but we shouldn't . sorry. nobody will convince me that MTs are a good thing.
Who needs to pay for bright engrams in Destiny for example?
If Witcher 3 had MTs would it be a better game?

of course they want to make money. I know exactly what Activision goal is. and no it's not to give players an awesome piece of art.
but last time I checked they were not giving me their games for free.
so no I don't need to pay more than $60 + possible DLCs. I really don't.

I know they won't go away. But there has to be a way to find a good way to use them. there are examples out there.
and it still doesn't mean we need them.


BetoJR wrote:
KindaMatt wrote:They just said that turning MTs off won't hurt earnings


Well... The thing is: that statement, taken in and off itself isn't really telling much, is it? It won't "hurt" EA's earnings because the gains they would accrue from the added micro-transaction-fueled economy won't be actually felt; that's the only thing they're actually saying, if you read between the lines, there. That's actually quite smart, really. It eases the shareholders and stokes the fire, all at the same time.

Oh, well.

well, they are saying it's just a way to squeeze even more milk from the cow.
we have more enough. we won't be able to get even more, but we'll be fine portilloSeducer .
that's how I read it.

Frostilyte wrote:Oh, shit. That sounds like something I would have done haha. Sorry about that.


oh sorry I didn't mean it that way. I was just saying I saw it before, I was not annoyed portilloKevin
Image

User avatar
Raging Light
Pride of the Forums
Posts: 3006
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 3:25pm
Location: HEAVEN, Rengkok
PSN: XDaimyo
Contact: Website

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 9:23am

Image

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

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

Nov 22, '17, 10:26am

KindaMatt wrote:of course I agree with the first sentence. Strongly disagree with the last one

no we shouldn't keep them around. Because we don't need them.
We can have them, but we shouldn't . sorry. nobody will convince me that MTs are a good thing.
Who needs to pay for bright engrams in Destiny for example?
If Witcher 3 had MTs would it be a better game?


MTs have never made a game better, at the same time I can't think of when they would have made a game worse either.

Just like you can't be convinced that they are a good thing, I don't see anyone that can convince me that they are bad. Bright engrams in Destiny is a perfect case of MTs not being worth the money, yet some people like to buy them, while others like me find them to be worthless ... So I agree no one needs to buy them, but you are free to do so.

KindaMatt wrote:of course they want to make money. I know exactly what Activision goal is. and no it's not to give players an awesome piece of art.
but last time I checked they were not giving me their games for free.
so no I don't need to pay more than $60 + possible DLCs. I really don't.


Then don't use the money on it, and yes it is that easy to not buy them.

KindaMatt wrote:I know they won't go away. But there has to be a way to find a good way to use them. there are examples out there.
and it still doesn't mean we need them.


No one every said we needed them, I said its better to keep them as a way to make some easy extra cash and make the game even more profitable.

I want EA and others to make as much money they can, while and this is me putting words into your mouth, want them to not make all the money, but settle with some of the money.
Image

User avatar
Me
Producer
Posts: 262
Joined: Jan 14, '16, 9:43pm
Location: Detroit, MI
XBL: MrADay
PSN: ADay000
NNID: MrADay
Steam: ADayOOO

Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 10:37am

Vane wrote:
Why are they a necessary evil for AAA games


They aren't.

I find it interesting to see speculation as to why companies are pushing to maximize their returns on a product through things like lootboxes, micro-transations, DLC, etc. The truth of the matter has nothing to do with how much video games cost to make, it has everything to do with how management approaches the concept of maximizing the value of their firm in the short-run.

Game publishers have toyed around with the idea of releasing games at a higher retail price for years now. Special Editions and Gold Editions (with the season pass) may be ways to pull in more revenue from the most loyal of customers, but it also provides the company with valuable data regarding the price elasticity of the boxed product you find on shelves.

It's pretty obvious that data shows the optimal price is around $60 (or $40 depending on marketing and customer expectations) for something that comes in a box, on a disc or cartridge. With video games being in an oligopoly market, trying to alter this is incredibly difficult.

So how does a firm increase value if it can't raise prices or optimize output? You get creative. Lootboxes still offer the optimal retail price as an entry for most consumers and any additional transactions within the game are reserved for the most dedicated (and consequently the most vulnerable). Selling one product as a multitude allows publishers to have their cake and eat it to.

Now is this the best course of action? There are other avenues to achieve higher returns on a product without being predatory. EA isn't a stupid company, but they continually mis-judge their market. Gamers are generally fickle and any verbal outcry it drowned out by millions in sales. With that said, it is obvious that EA's reputation is catching up with them. People in general tend to band together in a far stronger manner these days and as a result it actually is affecting their bottom line, and even worse, it might hurt potential business partnerships with companies like Disney. EA is going to have a tough time pulling anymore business practices that come off as "abusive" and I'm curious to see how the industry reacts.

User avatar
Frostilyte
Greg's Ego
Posts: 4021
Joined: Jun 03, '15, 2:24pm
Location: London ON, Canada
Steam: Frostilyte
Contact: Twitter Twitch

Re: Star Wars Battlefront II | GT | Discussion

Nov 22, '17, 10:38am

One thing I noticed within the first video that RL posted on this page: the focus is on Star Wars as a brand rather than the companies responsible for producing the game. I'm curious to see if this will stand as a major sour note against the brand of Star Wars, in the long run, if the focus remains on Star Wars instead of focusing on EA (or any of the other companies doing the same thing).
Frost-Tea-Light
My Review Blog
Steam: Frostilyte
BattleNet: Frostilyte#1183

Return to “General Gaming Discussion”