EA messed up - the huge backlash about SW : BF2

Sonics2k

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'd challenge this bit. My 8 year old son has seen all the ads for the new game and has asked me to buy it numerous times.

He loves Star Wars through and through. Now, he's 8 so there's not a bloody chance in hell I'd buy a game like that for him, but the marketing is absolutely pointed towards kids too.

It's a certainly a game that knows a large part of it's buying audience is adults, but also it'll largely be teenagers, 14-15 years old.

My 9 year old brother saw the trailers for Deadpool and Logan and begged to see both. He loves superhero films and goes to see all the Marvel and DC films suitable for him but there was no way he was going to see either. Just because he saw the trailers and wanted to see them does not mean that they marketed the films at kids.

jcd5971 wrote: »

Do the voices in your head count as good sources?

No but having a few friends who work in video game development and one who works for one of the largest marketing companies in the world helps.

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Can't tell if pirate or troll.

Neither pirate or troll.

gizmo

kunst nugget wrote: »

It's crazy to see that the marketing costs of COD:MW2 were 4 times the development costs.

And when you see the total cost of Witcher 3 for the quality of that game…

Deadpool cost €100 million? It really is a crock of poo considering the money pumped into it…

johnny_ultimate got to the The Witcher 3 point before me but it's also worth noting that with Deadpool, licencing costs are probably factored into this, something that's often forgotten when looking at these kinds of titles. Activision are also quite reactive to these costs which is why you often see them delisted from stores after comparatively shorter periods of times than other publishers.

Mitch Connor

I'm looking forward to this being added to the EA Vault on Xbox next summer (I guess). Want to play the single player campaign.

Just so no one confuses the point, I think Loot Crates are the worst thing to happen to gaming in a long time but at the same time game prices are cheaper than they were 20 years ago and with Loot Crates replacing Season passes the question people have to ask is, which of the lesser evils they want to see. Do we want to see higher prices for the base game coupled with paid for DLC and season passes or games remain the same but have Loot Crates.

Development, licensing and marketing costs are sky rocketing and it's getting to the stage that other streams of revenue are needed. Saying that stopping Loot Crates is to protect children and vulnerable gamblers is also nonsense, where has that heroic nature been over the past number of years when games used pack and loot crates? Why are Loot Crates in Battlefront 2 considered gambling but Loot Crates in Overwatch not gambling? It's only when gamers see that Loot Crates may give someone an edge in a game that they care if the Loot Crates in Battlefront 2 were cosmetic items only there would be no outcry or talk of protecting children.

I'm all for Loot Crates going away but don't pretend that you are fighting some noble battle to protect other people. If you were, why did you not start it when Overwatch and others were released?

Stone Deaf 4evr

Mitch Connor wrote: »

I'm looking forward to this being added to the EA Vault on Xbox next summer (I guess). Want to play the single player campaign.

the way things are going, it'll be in a lot sooner than that. I'd bet sometime around when they turn on the microtransactions again.

K.O.Kiki

Deleted User wrote: »

Just so no one confuses the point, I think Loot Crates are the worst thing to happen to gaming in a long time but at the same time game prices are cheaper than they were 20 years ago and with Loot Crates replacing Season passes the question people have to ask is, which of the lesser evils they want to see. Do we want to see higher prices for the base game coupled with paid for DLC and season passes or games remain the same but have Loot Crates.

Development, licensing and marketing costs are sky rocketing and it's getting to the stage that other streams of revenue are needed. Saying that stopping Loot Crates is to protect children and vulnerable gamblers is also nonsense, where has that heroic nature been over the past number of years when games used pack and loot crates? Why are Loot Crates in Battlefront 2 considered gambling but Loot Crates in Overwatch not gambling? It's only when gamers see that Loot Crates may give someone an edge in a game that they care if the Loot Crates in Battlefront 2 were cosmetic items only there would be no outcry or talk of protecting children.

I'm all for Loot Crates going away but don't pretend that you are fighting some noble battle to protect other people. If you were, why did you not start it when Overwatch and others were released?

Lots of people have been complaining about Overwatch's lootboxes for months (mostly due to the atrocious droprates & abundance of Legendary skins).
The Chinese government already forced Blizzard to disclose the drop rates to raise consumer awareness.
However, and these are salient points:

• Overwatch was released at a budget price (€40 on PC)
• all non-lootbox DLC is free forever
• all lootbox content is cosmetic-only (and therefore implicitly understood to fund game development without giving advantages in multiplayer).

Oh, and EA's lootboxes with all their levels & stuff can go right to hell.

Venom

Deleted User wrote: »

Just so no one confuses the point, I think Loot Crates are the worst thing to happen to gaming in a long time but at the same time game prices are cheaper than they were 20 years ago and with Loot Crates replacing Season passes the question people have to ask is, which of the lesser evils they want to see. Do we want to see higher prices for the base game coupled with paid for DLC and season passes or games remain the same but have Loot Crates.

Development, licensing and marketing costs are sky rocketing and it's getting to the stage that other streams of revenue are needed. Saying that stopping Loot Crates is to protect children and vulnerable gamblers is also nonsense, where has that heroic nature been over the past number of years when games used pack and loot crates? Why are Loot Crates in Battlefront 2 considered gambling but Loot Crates in Overwatch not gambling? It's only when gamers see that Loot Crates may give someone an edge in a game that they care if the Loot Crates in Battlefront 2 were cosmetic items only there would be no outcry or talk of protecting children.

I'm all for Loot Crates going away but don't pretend that you are fighting some noble battle to protect other people. If you were, why did you not start it when Overwatch and others were released?

Lootcrates/lootboxes are 100% gambling and very few people posting on this thread think otherwise. I play various free2play games that have lootboxes and I'v yet to come across anyone either in-game or on a forum, who think there a good thing. Most players would just prefer to buy the item they want outright like DLC.



The ISSUE most people have with BF2's lootboxes is that they majorly effect gameplay in a multiplayer PVP game unlike those in Overwatch which don't as they only offer cosmetic items.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Just so no one confuses the point, I think Loot Crates are the worst thing to happen to gaming in a long time but at the same time game prices are cheaper than they were 20 years ago and with Loot Crates replacing Season passes the question people have to ask is, which of the lesser evils they want to see. Do we want to see higher prices for the base game coupled with paid for DLC and season passes or games remain the same but have Loot Crates.

What if rather than earning lootboxes for progression, you simply earned in game credits? You buy what you want with them, and if you want to just buy items without having to earn the credits, you can buy in game credits with real money.

That would remove the gambling element of it, remove progression-tied-to-grinding, remove the RNG luck of lootboxes for items you want, and allow people to spend more money on the game if they so choose in order to buy things they want knowing they'll get them and not have to rely on the luck of the draw. Couple that with bumping games up to €80 rather than €70, and I don't think most people would have any real complaints.

I don't think most people would mind an increase in the base price of a game (within reason, obviously). Better that than the grinding mechanics or RNG-based progression systems which are starting to plague games.

Billy86

kunst nugget wrote: »

Gambling addiction really isn't about making money though, it's about what it does to your brain chemistry in terms of dopamine rewards. EA and the likes understand this perfectly and uses many tricks to exploit that.

Oh yeah I get that part and do agree that it constitutes gambling - I bet a fair bit on the NFL from Sep-Jan because I'm pretty good at getting a consistent profit off of it, but that's about it bar maybe a cumulative €50 or so a year on silly tenner bets etc (maybe add an extra €50 during a World or European Cup) so I fully agree there.

My point was more that there is very little reward which if anything might actually make it more of a focus for addicts (or rather, a higher percentage of those partaking in lootboxes could be addicts compared to people with a PP/Bet365/etc account) because that is specifically what it is there to target. Including underage kids who are not used to such a system, whose parents may have trusted them (or even just made a mistake) by leaving the card details on the console/Steam account and who generally will have a poorer understanding of money - kind of a perfect formula for them to 'buy a lootbox or two' and then a few hours later be panicking over how they're going to tell mom and dad there's €250 missing off their card.

It's completely scummy, and hopefully we see the EU follow Belgium's lead... not holding my breath but hopefully. I (and by the looks of things most if not all of us here) can avoid and ignore these things pretty easily, but a) others can't, and b) it's a slow creep that if not stopped will be purposely made to be unavoidable in big title after big title after big title a few years down the line if not kept in check. And as much as I love some indie titles out there, I don't want AAA games to be a thing that "I used to play before they made you pay €10 to unlock each new level, or €1 to get more ammo which you used to just be able to pick up from dead enemies and in the game itself."

K.O.Kiki

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Lots of people have been complaining about Overwatch's lootboxes for months (mostly due to the atrocious droprates & abundance of Legendary skins).
The Chinese government already forced Blizzard to disclose the drop rates to raise consumer awareness.
However, and these are salient points:

• Overwatch was released at a budget price (€40 on PC)
• all non-lootbox DLC is free forever
• all lootbox content is cosmetic-only (and therefore implicitly understood to fund game development without giving advantages in multiplayer).

Oh, and EA's lootboxes with all their levels & stuff can go right to hell.

All season pass content in Battlefront 2 is due to be free and while the PC price for BF2 was not budget, Overwatch was a full price title on console. There has been a small not very vocal issue made about Loot Crates in Overwatch but most people argue that it is Loot Crates done right, and they aren't wrong but it has normalized the idea. If other big publishers add % chances to Loot Crates as what already happens with FIFA packs then will people accept Loot Crates in Battlefront 2.

Venom wrote: »

Lootcrates/lootboxes are 100% gambling and very few people posting on this thread think otherwise. I play various free2play games that have lootboxes and I'v yet to come across anyone either in-game or on a forum, who think there a good thing. Most players would just prefer to buy the item they want outright like DLC.

The ISSUE most people have with BF2's lootboxes is that they majorly effect gameplay in a multiplayer PVP game unlike those in Overwatch which don't as they only offer cosmetic items.

They offered an advantage but it wasn't that much of one and anyone playing the game has been able to unlock the likes of Vader in a couple of hours. I have issues with how Loot Crates are being used but this whole "we are fighting the good fight" nonsense from certain gamers is ridiculous. I hope Loot Crates go away and while it's not ideal I would have no issue paying upwards of 90-100 euro for a game as long as it was something I wanted to play. The future is that without Loot Crates we are looking at increased base game prices and the return of paid for season passes.

If the Loot Crates in BF2 were cosmetic only would people around here and elsewhere be making such a song and dance of how they are protecting the children and vulnerable?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah so gambling is only dangerous to kids and vulnerable people if it uses real money. Having gambling mechanics in a game like Mario Odyssey is fine. Here I was thinking that people like you were up in arms to protect kids and the vulnerable and that a game like Mario Odyssey having a slot machine mini-game would normalise the idea of gambling but unless it's EA or uses real money gambling in games is perfectly acceptable. Good to know that it's ok for Nintendo to have gambling in games but not others.

Is this post serious? :pac:

gizmo

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Lots of people have been complaining about Overwatch's lootboxes for months (mostly due to the atrocious droprates & abundance of Legendary skins).
The Chinese government already forced Blizzard to disclose the drop rates to raise consumer awareness.
However, and these are salient points:

• Overwatch was released at a budget price (€40 on PC) - It also didn't include any campaign though, Battlefront II did.
• all non-lootbox DLC is free forever - same as with Battlefront II
• all lootbox content is cosmetic-only (and therefore implicitly understood to fund game development without giving advantages in multiplayer).

Oh, and EA's lootboxes with all their levels & stuff can go right to hell.

The Chinese government have gone further than that since with Overwatch having a functionally different marketplace than the rest of the world, I linked to it earlier in this thread or maybe the other one on the subject.

The other points are worth noting though, at least in the context of Battlefront. Overwatch didn't contain any campaign so I'd kind of expect it to carry a lower RRP, all future DLC for Battlefront II is also going to be free in the same manner as Titanfall 2 and the last point, well that's the crux of the issue here.

If all of the Battlefront II locked content was cosmetic, would we have seen as big an uproar as we did or was it purely because of the Pay-To-Win nature of them? If that's the case then is it fair to say people are fixating on the gambling aspect as a means to see such a practice come to an end or is it part of a wider move to get all lootboxes removed/regulated. At which point the question becomes, what happens to Overwatch?

M!Ck^

M!Ck^ wrote: »

Is this post serious? :pac:

You are arguing that one of the biggest issues with Loot Crates in BF2, a game aimed at adults is that it introduces kids and the vulnerable to gambling and as such should be removed. Does the inclusion of a slot machine in a game like Mario Odyssey, a game aimed at kids not normalise the idea of gambling? Real world purchases have been removed from BF2 and still, the moral crusade goes on about protecting children and those who need us to stop them being tempted to gamble.

As such, is the whole Loot Crate outrage about protecting children and those unable to stop themselves from gambling or is it about gamers angry that someone could have possibly gotten an advantage in the game by buying Loot Crates.

wes

Activision at it as well now:

Call of Duty: WW2 dataminers discover mention of weapon supply drops


This is what happens, when you tolerate loot boxes at any level, even if there just cosmetic. These corporations will just keep pushing and pushing, to push there gambling onto gamers.

Doubly bad that they left this until after launch, so players would have already have bought the game, and then they push these pay to win lootboxes on them.

Stone Deaf 4evr

wes wrote: »

Activision at it as well now:

Call of Duty: WW2 dataminers discover mention of weapon supply drops


This is what happens, when you tolerate loot boxes at any level, even if there just cosmetic. These corporations will just keep pushing and pushing, to push there gambling onto gamers.

Doubly bad that they left this until after launch, so players would have already have bought the game, and then they push these pay to win lootboxes on them.

thats been coming into cod ever since advanced warfare, there were slightly different guns available in the crates.

J. Marston

I emailed David Stanton about it. Outlining to him the gambling mechanics, exposure to children and their predatory nature and how Belgium is investigating them. Only got a stock response from his private secretary that "the issue will be brought to the Minister's attention" though. If more people contacted him, it might convince him to look into it.

People might think it's a bit Helen Lovejoy but I really fúcking hate lootboxes

Ri_Nollaig

J. Marston wrote: »

People might think it's a bit Helen Lovejoy but I really fúcking hate lootboxes

It might be indeed, but that is how you can get things done, sadly.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Just so no one confuses the point, I think Loot Crates are the worst thing to happen to gaming in a long time but at the same time game prices are cheaper than they were 20 years ago and with Loot Crates replacing Season passes the question people have to ask is, which of the lesser evils they want to see. Do we want to see higher prices for the base game coupled with paid for DLC and season passes or games remain the same but have Loot Crates.

Also, I meant to make the point earlier, that some AAA games have paid-for DLC. And season passes. And loot crates. And microtransactions. And still cost full price for the base game. And even when you buy a deluxe edition of the game you might only get some of the DLC and the season pass thrown in. There's still lootboxes and microtransactions.

It's gone past the stage of trying to recoup costs because games are expensive to make. It has become just pure greed.

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Also, I meant to make the point earlier, that some AAA games have paid-for DLC. And season passes. And loot crates. And microtransactions. And still cost full price for the base game. And even when you buy a deluxe edition of the game you might only get some of the DLC and the season pass thrown in. There's still lootboxes and microtransactions.

It's gone past the stage of trying to recoup costs because games are expensive to make. It has become just pure greed.

Some do but then you now have games offering free season passes in exchange for the inclusions of Loot Crates. It's not an ideal situation but there is an argument to be made that Loot Crates funding free season pass content isn't the worst. Is it the lesser of two evils, hard to know but it's better than increased prices for base games and season passes.

I think that the whole push back toward Loot Crates is a good thing, just feel that the holier than thou attitude that gamers have that they are protecting children and the vulnerable is nonsense. Personally, I have no real issues with Loot Crates, I don't support titles that use them and if everyone else did the same then we wouldn't see them everywhere. But people are quite happy to moan on the internet about it while still buying the games.

nix

Penn wrote: »

games are expensive to make

Would they be ALOT cheaper to make if they hired alot less people, took their time and didnt try pump them out yearly? :rolleyes:

Games are expensive to make, but lets not pretend these companies aren't turning millions into billions

Penn

Penn wrote: »

Also, I meant to make the point earlier, that some AAA games have paid-for DLC. And season passes. And loot crates. And microtransactions. And still cost full price for the base game. And even when you buy a deluxe edition of the game you might only get some of the DLC and the season pass thrown in. There's still lootboxes and microtransactions.

It's gone past the stage of trying to recoup costs because games are expensive to make. It has become just pure greed.

Call of Duty WWII has generated record breaking revenue.
People need to stop this waffle of publishers and games costing more. They make obscene amount of profits of the base games. Without even adding in any of the other ****e.

"A press release issued today claims that WWII has sold twice as many units as Infinite Warfare did at launch, but did not include hard numbers.

Activision said that WWII “set a record as the best-selling digital full game by units sold on its first day of availability” on the PlayStation 4. The statement goes on to claim that WWII’s opening day sales, in dollars, beat out Thor: Ragnarok and Wonder Woman’s opening weekends combined.

Note that the average price of a movie ticket in the U.S. is somewhere under $9.00, while a full-price console game is $59.99."

kunst nugget

Personally, I'd take Season Passes over lootboxes - at least you know what you're paying for instead of what you could potentially win.

kunst nugget

kunst nugget wrote: »

Personally, I'd take Season Passes over lootboxes - at least you know what you're paying for instead of what you could potentially win.

It's a sad state of affairs I know but I'd agree. DLC even if it's stripped out content is still better than lootbox ****e.

Penn

Deleted User wrote: »

Some do but then you now have games offering free season passes in exchange for the inclusions of Loot Crates. It's not an ideal situation but there is an argument to be made that Loot Crates funding free season pass content isn't the worst. Is it the lesser of two evils, hard to know but it's better than increased prices for base games and season passes.

Agreed, and it's another reason why I have no issue with Overwatch's implementation of lootboxes. The lootboxes have enabled all the additional content to be released for free, with no season pass or locked heroes etc.

But that's simply not the system and rational that many other AAA games use. Destiny 2 in particular was the main one I had in mind. There's a season pass, lootboxes and microtransactions. And while Battlefront 2 will have additional free content, its lootbox system being linked to progress in the game rather than cosmetic optional items and the original grind required for the most wanted objects to unrealistic levels were a large misstep

gizmo

Gona have to hit translate on this one but it appears the news of a decision from the Belgian court was a bit premature.

No, Belgium did not qualify Battlefront II lootboxes as a game of chance

Some further legal input from Jas Purewal in the twitter thread here.

Penn

nix wrote: »

Would they be ALOT cheaper to make if they hired alot less people, took their time and didnt try pump them out yearly? :rolleyes:

Games are expensive to make, but lets not pretend these companies aren't turning millions into billions

It's why I take such issue with how much additional revenue-generating systems Destiny 2 has. Season Pass, lootboxes and microtransactions... yet so much of the game is hugely copied from the first game. Same game engine (obviously), the vast majority of the enemies are the exact same, game maps reuse so many assets, skills and abilities are largely reused etc.

It has implemented more ways to get money, yet it obviously cost less to make than the first one.

SolvableKnave

Penn wrote: »

Agreed, and it's another reason why I have no issue with Overwatch's implementation of lootboxes. The lootboxes have enabled all the additional content to be released for free, with no season pass or locked heroes etc.

But that's simply not the system and rational that many other AAA games use. Destiny 2 in particular was the main one I had in mind. There's a season pass, lootboxes and microtransactions. And while Battlefront 2 will have additional free content, its lootbox system being linked to progress in the game rather than cosmetic optional items and the original grind required for the most wanted objects to unrealistic levels were a large misstep

Destiny's Loot boxes (Bright Engrams) and MT's are closer to Overwatche's take on loot box economics than BF2. No weapons can be obtained, and though you can get armour, it is no more or less powerful than any other armour in the game. Everything is cosmetic. No power advantages at all.

I'm not defending them, but, so far, Activision / Bungie have decided to thread the least controversial path in relation to MT's / Loot Boxes.

Penn

SolvableKnave wrote: »

Destiny's Loot boxes (Bright Engrams) and MT's are closer to Overwatche's take on loot box economics than BF2. No weapons can be obtained, and though you can get armour, it is no more or less powerful than any other armour in the game. Everything is cosmetic. No power advantages at all.

I'm not defending them, but, so far, Activision / Bungie have decided to thread the least controversial path in relation to MT's / Loot Boxes.

That's absolutely a fair point, just that unlike Overwatch they're used in combination with also having a season pass for DLC, rather than being used to essentially fund the DLC.

Stone Deaf 4evr

SolvableKnave wrote: »

Destiny's Loot boxes (Bright Engrams) and MT's are closer to Overwatche's take on loot box economics than BF2. No weapons can be obtained, and though you can get armour, it is no more or less powerful than any other armour in the game. Everything is cosmetic. No power advantages at all.

I'm not defending them, but, so far, Activision / Bungie have decided to thread the least controversial path in relation to MT's / Loot Boxes.

IIRC, its actually less powerful as you have to infuse something good into it to get up to a half decent power level.

SolvableKnave

Penn wrote: »

That's absolutely a fair point, just that unlike Overwatch they're used in combination with also having a season pass for DLC, rather than being used to essentially fund the DLC.

Very true.