**The Official Star Wars Battlefront II Thread (PC)**

I don't mind getting beat by people because they are better than me, I mind getting beat by people because they grind more than me. Such a lousy bit of design.

Don't know why people keep saying this.....

The starter weapons are generally very good and if you play the right way using certain maps then you should have no problems taking people on even if they have an OP weapon i.e. take BF 4, famas OP in short range but anything past short range, it is useless, your starting gun, iirc, the ak12 will out match the famas at range.

And besides, it's not like it takes hundreds/thousands of hours to unlock something, talking about a couple of hours at most.

All they needed to do to satisfy every geek across the world is reskin BF4 with Star Wars weapons, equipment and vehicles, stick in some relevant maps, update the graphics a bit and they'd have sold millions of copies. I'd have bought that **** in an instant. Season Pass too!

Likewise :cool:

That is what makes this whole thing even more depressing as they have the game right there!!!!
 
Sorry to repost this from an earlier post who linked reddit.... But people seem to be posting the same BS thread after thread.... This seems like the most logical reason behind whats gone on.... We all know EA would not have folded because a few Youtubers had a (rightly so) melt down on their channel.... Its more likely because of this:

Honestly worth a read....

Have you ever worked a corporate job as a manager? Let me explain a couple things to you.

Government regulation is something NO business wants to deal with, especially if they deal with it in other parts of the company, and don’t have to in a particular division (say like running a theme park vs. making a video game), or if it cannot be avoided, you do absolutely EVERYTHING in your power to MINIMIZE the exposure to regulation.

Now, video games like Battlefront are lightly regulated. Fine, you deal, ya know?But gambling on the other hand is heavily regulated, not just in the US, but in most countries. Major PITA. Enormous costs involved with audits, security, and compliance.

If you’re a major division head of one of the largest business conglomerates in the world, and it comes to your attention that one of your downline CEOs of a company that is in your chain of command has implemented features in a video game that are drawing not only ire from their customers (who are ultimately your customers), but is also possibly a a feature that is heavily regulated by every country it’s sold in (even outright banned in some), and some of those governments are turning the evil eye of Sauron your way, what do you do?

Keep in mind that you have bosses. This downline guy sold this idea as a huge money maker, but neglected to consider the ramifications of entering a heavily regulated market unprepared, and without any of the approvals required (read that as oops, we’re fining you millions of dollars for that little gaff), which will likely not only wipe out any profit, but put their whole downline company in the red, possibly for years, and possibly not justtheir little company.

You quash that **** most Riki Tik. You come down on that dude with the hammer of god, you leave such a crater in his ass that nobody else is going to want to even climb the rim to look down to where his ass used to be.

THAT is what just happened with Battlefront.

When governments start talking about investigating your video game as gambling, you done ****** up, and the quickest way out of that is to shut that **** down. Read what EA said. Progression will occur through game play.

This isn’t a trick, they’re not just trying to get you to buy the game so they can turn right around and turn it back on, or pull that **** in another game. That wouldn’t solve the actual problem they are addressing with what they did today.

As much as we all want to feel like this is about right and wrong, it’s not. It’s about Money. Not the money from micro transactions. This is about the fines for the above, and the cost of complying with heavy government regulation. MONEY.

I’ve recently owned a business that was tanked by governmental over regulation and taxation, and I’m speaking from not only that experience, but from the experience of also having been a manager of global departments in two previous companies that deal with government regulation and heavy government regulation in different products.

This tiff we’re having with EA over micro transactions is a blip on the radar for Disney. That threat of government regulation and the resulting compliance costs and fines from multiple governments were a klaxon horn that got the needed attention from the right stakeholder at Disney.

Loot box progression will not be returning to Battlefront.
 
Don't know why people keep saying this.....

The starter weapons are generally very good and if you play the right way using certain maps then you should have no problems taking people on even if they have an OP weapon i.e. take BF 4, famas OP in short range but anything past short range, it is useless, your starting gun, iirc, the ak12 will out match the famas at range.

And besides, it's not like it takes hundreds/thousands of hours to unlock something, talking about a couple of hours at most.

I put a lot of hours into BF4 and I didn't get anywhere close to unlocking everything. Maybe the weapons not so much an issue but the top end vehicle perks were very good and were a mega grind to unlock.

To use an old proverb...."I ain't got time for that ****"

Grinding unlocks in multiplayer games just sucks balls full stop. Unlocking cosmetics, fine, whatever. But unlocking gameplay? Nope.
 
Wow I know EA are grubby ***** but didn't expect this. Hopefully people will start voting with their wallets rather than just YouTube and Reddit.

Shame I was looking forward to it this with a decent SP campaign.
 
I'm on my phone, so I CBA to quote your post Goon.

I've read that a few times and its kind of valid in this instance, not to mention that reports about Bob Iger CEO of Disney contacting Andrew Wilson the CEO of EA and then this occurs.

Both the post and the reports sort of fall into place for the reason why they froze microtransactions, but you can't blame gamers from being a bit skeptical as this is EA.
 
Sorry to repost this from an earlier post who linked reddit.... But people seem to be posting the same BS thread after thread.... This seems like the most logical reason behind whats gone on.... We all know EA would not have folded because a few Youtubers had a (rightly so) melt down on their channel.... Its more likely because of this:

Honestly worth a read....
Have you ever worked a corporate job as a manager? Let me explain a couple things to you.

Government regulation is something NO business wants to deal with, especially if they deal with it in other parts of the company, and don’t have to in a particular division (say like running a theme park vs. making a video game), or if it cannot be avoided, you do absolutely EVERYTHING in your power to MINIMIZE the exposure to regulation.

Now, video games like Battlefront are lightly regulated. Fine, you deal, ya know?But gambling on the other hand is heavily regulated, not just in the US, but in most countries. Major PITA. Enormous costs involved with audits, security, and compliance.

If you’re a major division head of one of the largest business conglomerates in the world, and it comes to your attention that one of your downline CEOs of a company that is in your chain of command has implemented features in a video game that are drawing not only ire from their customers (who are ultimately your customers), but is also possibly a a feature that is heavily regulated by every country it’s sold in (even outright banned in some), and some of those governments are turning the evil eye of Sauron your way, what do you do?

Keep in mind that you have bosses. This downline guy sold this idea as a huge money maker, but neglected to consider the ramifications of entering a heavily regulated market unprepared, and without any of the approvals required (read that as oops, we’re fining you millions of dollars for that little gaff), which will likely not only wipe out any profit, but put their whole downline company in the red, possibly for years, and possibly not justtheir little company.

You quash that **** most Riki Tik. You come down on that dude with the hammer of god, you leave such a crater in his ass that nobody else is going to want to even climb the rim to look down to where his ass used to be.

THAT is what just happened with Battlefront.

When governments start talking about investigating your video game as gambling, you done ****** up, and the quickest way out of that is to shut that **** down. Read what EA said. Progression will occur through game play.

This isn’t a trick, they’re not just trying to get you to buy the game so they can turn right around and turn it back on, or pull that **** in another game. That wouldn’t solve the actual problem they are addressing with what they did today.

As much as we all want to feel like this is about right and wrong, it’s not. It’s about Money. Not the money from micro transactions. This is about the fines for the above, and the cost of complying with heavy government regulation. MONEY.

I’ve recently owned a business that was tanked by governmental over regulation and taxation, and I’m speaking from not only that experience, but from the experience of also having been a manager of global departments in two previous companies that deal with government regulation and heavy government regulation in different products.

This tiff we’re having with EA over micro transactions is a blip on the radar for Disney. That threat of government regulation and the resulting compliance costs and fines from multiple governments were a klaxon horn that got the needed attention from the right stakeholder at Disney.

Loot box progression will not be returning to Battlefront.

Or maybe Disney stepped in.

Earlier today, Electronic Arts chief executive officer Andrew Wilson had a phone call with The Walt Disney Company chief executive Bob Iger about Star Wars: Battlefront II, according to sources familiar with the situation. A few hours after that call, players are finding out that they can no longer make in-game purchases with real money. EA has confirmed that it is taking that feature downto address fan concerns just as the game is about to launch worldwide tomorrow. All of this comes after multiple days of outrage from fans who are upset that EA and developer DICE have implemented an online multiplayer system that gives an advantage to people who pay money.
https://venturebeat.com/2017/11/16/...actions-go-offline-until-ea-can-make-changes/
 
I put a lot of hours into BF4 and I didn't get anywhere close to unlocking everything. Maybe the weapons not so much an issue but the top end vehicle perks were very good and were a mega grind to unlock.

To use an old proverb...."I ain't got time for that ****"

Grinding unlocks in multiplayer games just sucks balls full stop. Unlocking cosmetics, fine, whatever. But unlocking gameplay? Nope.

Totally agree with this. I don't play much online now, but when I did, it was with games like COD 1 and COD UO where everyone had the same weapons and how good you did was down to how you played the game, and not down to you having upgraded weaponry.
 
Last time I checked, you were not able to ruin somebody else's football sticker collection by having stickers that they didn't. This is not the analogy. You are comparing randomized collector items for personal competition with randomized (or purchasable) benefits for multiplayer competition.

I think you more onto it the difference being physical items that you can trade to just lines of code. I don't see how the extra % accuracy of a gun comes into it. What ever the result this is going to hit a lot of other games with loot boxes as well.
 
Because people are able to get a better experience out of the game by spending more on it, which gives them a wealth benefit straight away. The flip side of this, is encouraging people/kids to spend £££ on loot boxes trying to achieve that same bonus. The majority of people will say this is morally wrong, and is something a large portion of gamers are trying to make a stand on.

The issue is, they have made a "physical" object in the game so advantageous that it gives an unfair advantage if acquired. This is attainable by grinding the game for 4550 hours (that is 190 days of continuous gaming, likely way beyond the life span of the game itself), or by spending real currency on loot boxes. The grind is unattainable by 99% of people, therefore pushing them to buy. This makes the game Pay to Win.

This is what is driving the passionate to be up in arms about this. For me, I doubt I'll even buy the game - even before all of this came to light. I was disappointed by the first game, and the second seems more of the same with a few added features. But I can totally understand why people are so upset by it.
 
I put a lot of hours into BF4 and I didn't get anywhere close to unlocking everything. Maybe the weapons not so much an issue but the top end vehicle perks were very good and were a mega grind to unlock.

To use an old proverb...."I ain't got time for that ****"

Grinding unlocks in multiplayer games just sucks balls full stop. Unlocking cosmetics, fine, whatever. But unlocking gameplay? Nope.

Speaking as a vehicle whore, most of the perks did not take long at all to unlock (and I was shocking at jets when I first started in them, yet it still only took up to 10 hours at most to unlock everything for them) and even then, they don't provide that much of an advantage, a skilled vehicle player will still own some lesser/casual with ease, especially where aircraft play is concerned, you can't master 311/313 speed for turning/dog fighting etc. with unlocks.....

Unlocking weapons and so on is what keeps a lot of people coming back to the game too, that is one of the reasons why bf 1 isn't as addictive/good as there are only a few guns for each class and most of them are duplicates, just the same weapon but with a different scope, no customisation etc. either so the game feels a bit stale after a while....

Sorry to repost this from an earlier post who linked reddit.... But people seem to be posting the same BS thread after thread.... This seems like the most logical reason behind whats gone on.... We all know EA would not have folded because a few Youtubers had a (rightly so) melt down on their channel.... Its more likely because of this:

Honestly worth a read....

Have you ever worked a corporate job as a manager? Let me explain a couple things to you.

Government regulation is something NO business wants to deal with, especially if they deal with it in other parts of the company, and don’t have to in a particular division (say like running a theme park vs. making a video game), or if it cannot be avoided, you do absolutely EVERYTHING in your power to MINIMIZE the exposure to regulation.

Now, video games like Battlefront are lightly regulated. Fine, you deal, ya know?But gambling on the other hand is heavily regulated, not just in the US, but in most countries. Major PITA. Enormous costs involved with audits, security, and compliance.

If you’re a major division head of one of the largest business conglomerates in the world, and it comes to your attention that one of your downline CEOs of a company that is in your chain of command has implemented features in a video game that are drawing not only ire from their customers (who are ultimately your customers), but is also possibly a a feature that is heavily regulated by every country it’s sold in (even outright banned in some), and some of those governments are turning the evil eye of Sauron your way, what do you do?

Keep in mind that you have bosses. This downline guy sold this idea as a huge money maker, but neglected to consider the ramifications of entering a heavily regulated market unprepared, and without any of the approvals required (read that as oops, we’re fining you millions of dollars for that little gaff), which will likely not only wipe out any profit, but put their whole downline company in the red, possibly for years, and possibly not justtheir little company.

You quash that **** most Riki Tik. You come down on that dude with the hammer of god, you leave such a crater in his ass that nobody else is going to want to even climb the rim to look down to where his ass used to be.

THAT is what just happened with Battlefront.

When governments start talking about investigating your video game as gambling, you done ****** up, and the quickest way out of that is to shut that **** down. Read what EA said. Progression will occur through game play.

This isn’t a trick, they’re not just trying to get you to buy the game so they can turn right around and turn it back on, or pull that **** in another game. That wouldn’t solve the actual problem they are addressing with what they did today.

As much as we all want to feel like this is about right and wrong, it’s not. It’s about Money. Not the money from micro transactions. This is about the fines for the above, and the cost of complying with heavy government regulation. MONEY.

I’ve recently owned a business that was tanked by governmental over regulation and taxation, and I’m speaking from not only that experience, but from the experience of also having been a manager of global departments in two previous companies that deal with government regulation and heavy government regulation in different products.

This tiff we’re having with EA over micro transactions is a blip on the radar for Disney. That threat of government regulation and the resulting compliance costs and fines from multiple governments were a klaxon horn that got the needed attention from the right stakeholder at Disney.

Loot box progression will not be returning to Battlefront.

Yup exactly, like I said, no company will want governments and official authority figures launching an investigation into their business, especially where "gambling" accusations are being made.

Unfortunately it has very little, if anything to do with us the community speaking out about the downright greed/**** move by EA/dice in this case, unless the sales are really bad.....

Hopefully this will now send a very clear message for all future games to be careful about how they go about doing micro transactions though as if any other smaller game developer/publisher tried doing this ****, they wouldn't stand a chance unlike EA who can afford to take the heat.
 
That's great for you bud honestly. But maybe try and appreciate that gaming is some people's passions - and regardless of your view - is probably the most important thing in their life. Maybe not forever, but certainly in the now. So why can't you back off with your inflammatory comments mocking people who care about these things. If it doesn't bother you, then that's great. But stop trying to ridicule those who feel (justly) shortchanged by a corporate decision to milk a franchise many of these people love. Let people enjoy their passions.

I don't think this is has anything to do with passion. I think people don't like getting ripped off, its as simple as that. And we have reached breaking point.

Loot boxes should be strictly cosmetic only. Overwatch has the perfect system.

I disagree. If you want to have premium cosmetic that's fine, stick them in a store and charge 50p or £1 or £2 for them. loot boxes/gamble boxes are just predatory IMO.
 
Wow... That's interesting.

Am I wrong in saying it would be a good thing now for sales to jump to show support for the albeit temp removal of micro transactions.

Well. if you believe this to be true....

https://np.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7dhacr/eastarwars_on_twitter/dpxsirl/

I'm a Producer at a AAA Studio(I'm more than happy to provide proof to subreddit mods)

This is pretty clear what they're doing to anyone who works in the industry. They want to maximize their initial sales numbers to show to investors. Once the trade off is worth it(Probably 1-2 months in), they will enable the gamble boxes again because:

  1. Everyone who was on the fence will have bought the game by now
  2. You can't refund the game at this point
  3. The news will have died down, and if new articles do come out, it won't be as relevant
  4. They will already have good numbers to show investors
EA is going to royally **** over the average gamer who doesn't have a clue how the industry works on this. This is about as deceptive as it gets. I hope that clarifies things…. but please do not let this extensive clarification distract you from the fact that in 1998, The Undertaker threw Mankind off Hell In A Cell, and plummeted 16 ft through an announcer’s table.
 
No multi player game should ever have unlockables (let alone purcahasables) that give an otherwise unavailable advantage, it's madness unless you are going to segregate players based on their kit.
If you're a new player joining a game the thing that will put you off the fastest is not only coming across players who are skilled through practice, but have a material advantage through their kit.

bf4 just about got away with it as the unlock grinds weren't particularly onerous, starting weapons were up there with the best, and each attachment came in 3 different varieties, so you could just run a different version of the attachment which bestowed the same benefits.

DICE LS camo was a bit dodgy though (Rendered player invisible to FLIR/INVR). Only available to premium players who completed the EE hunt.
 
Personally the "pay to win" doesn't bother me that "much" as **** players will still get owned by good players regardless of what they have, it is more the way they have purposely made the game grindy as **** that ****** me of, you are talking about 6000+ hours to unlock everything...... Not even the most hardcore of bf 4 players had anywhere near that much time put into the game, most they had was 3k hours (there were ones with 6k+ hours but they probably just sat in servers all day to full their servers or to get into the leaderboard for time played....)


Yup, I am still very suspicious of this, honestly won't be surprised in the slightest if they pull this move, right now is an extremely important time for them, not just because the game is being worldwide launched tomorrow but also because it is black friday period + xmas time shopping so they need to try and do something to get people to buy the game in the launch window.
 
Personally the "pay to win" doesn't bother me that "much" as **** players will still get owned by good players regardless of what they have, it is more the way they have purposely made the game grindy as **** that ****** me of, you are talking about 6000+ hours to unlock everything...... Not even the most hardcore of bf 4 players had anywhere near that much time put into the game, most they had was 3k hours (there were ones with 6k+ hours but they probably just sat in servers all day to full their servers or to get into the leaderboard for time played....)



Yup, I am still very suspicious of this, honestly won't be surprised in the slightest if they pull this move, right now is an extremely important time for them, not just because the game is being worldwide launched tomorrow but also because it is black friday period + xmas time shopping so they need to try and do something to get people to buy the game in the launch window.

Just to clarify ..... I like a grind.... If its for medals... Not unlocks. I loved the Battlefield 2 system for ranks and medals! That to me was perfect! I really felt like I earned something.
 
I find grinds for the most part in games are rather pointless (what isn't in the grand scheme of things) it's usually just a way to keep people playing instead of actually making the game worth playing.
 
And besides, it's not like it takes hundreds/thousands of hours to unlock something, talking about a couple of hours at most.

Why do we even need stupid "progression" in a ******* shooter though ?

Everyone who played the original battlefronts, BF1942, COD1+2 will all unanimously agree they were superior to the games we get today.

Not one of those games had progression or unlockable weapons, they were games you could jump in at any time and be equal with everybody else where the only thing that mattered was skill (or lack thereof) and people still play them today 12 years later (granted only a few k but still) because the gameplay was what mattered, they were fun, the maps were well designed, the mechanics were fun and there was no bs of grinding for better weapons or upgrades to make you more powerful and the majority of people liked it.

But now for some reason we need a carrot in the form of better gear to keep us playing ? Doesn't that tell you there's something inherently wrong with the games when you need the allure of getting more power to keep people playing other than just for fun ?
 
Isn’t this just a progression of the ‘pay to win’ model that already exists in bf4 and BF1?

Go into origin now and you’ll be able to pay extra for unlocks to get better equipment to play witH in bf4/1. I’m not defending the battlefront model but wondered why the hate for Battlefront when it’s simply an evolution of what we’ve been ‘lapping’ up for a long time.
 
Back
Top Bottom