• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

EA is keeping the progression systems for those who want an "accelerated experience"

Toadthemushroom

Toadthemushroom

Member
Right now then it seems game is on a similar timeline to games like Forza 7 and CoD: WWII, which launch with progression systems designed to encourage players to pay for items (not necessarily stat-boosting) but have the ability to pay for the virtual currencies switched off.

The move to prevent players from being able to buy currency doesn't really change anything right now. The game still has an excessive and convoluted sounding progression system. Its grind is mandatory for everyone, which I get is fairer on principle, but the system itself is still the kind that's set up to keep players playing many hours longer than they would have if it weren't in place.

Since it's also built around random reward stat boosts Battlefront II is now just a game where it doesn't matter how good you are from your time spent playing single player or the previous game, someone who has been playing the game for longer than you now has an advantage.

Right now this is probability the best thing EA could have done right now: It's a move that would show EA is listening to feedback, it sounds great on paper (some are already taking it to mean they've stripped out the random rewards entirely) and because it happened before launch they get usage data on new players out of the gate so they can rebalance the economy for the return of paid currency.
 
Blam

Blam

Member
Toadthemushroom said:
Right now then it seems game is on a similar timeline to games like Forza 7 and CoD: WWII, which launch with progression systems designed to encourage players to pay for items (not necessarily stat-boosting) but have the ability to pay for the virtual currencies switched off.

The move to prevent players from being able to buy currency doesn't really change anything right now. The game still has an excessive and convoluted sounding progression system. Its grind is mandatory for everyone, which I get is fairer on principle, but the system itself is still the kind that's set up to keep players playing many hours longer than they would have if it weren't in place.

Since it's also built around random reward stat boosts Battlefront II is now just a game where it doesn't matter how good you are from your time spent playing single player or the previous game, someone who has been playing the game for longer than you now has an advantage.

Right now this is probability the best thing EA could have done right now: It's a move that would show EA is listening to feedback, it sounds great on paper (some are already taking it to mean they've stripped out the random rewards entirely) and because it happened before launch they get usage data on new players out of the gate so they can rebalance the economy for the return of paid currency.
Click to expand...

Yeah this isn't the first time we've seen it but it's been the most aggressive implementation of it, and frankly the best option would be delaying the game at this point.
 
sublimit

sublimit

Banned
Can't wait to see how much they will fuck up Anthem with a mandatory grind fest that will try to force players to buy their (inevitable) loot boxes.
 
Bolivar687

Bolivar687

Banned
The longer it takes them to relinquish the ego and admit they've fucked up, the geater the potential becomes for irreparable damage. They need to be agile like how Valve handled the Skyrim paid mods debacle, not proud like Microsoft, who only ditched their DRM polcies well past the point that it was already too late, to the detriment of an entire generation of gaming.
 
phil_t98

phil_t98

#SonyToo
just double the rewards points from now on and that makes everything achievable to get. win for both sides. if they want to keep loot boxes in this gives better chance of getting rewarded easier and can still have a pay system.
just big reward credits for playing the game easy solved
 
Petrae

Petrae

Member
Taker666 said:
An "accelerated experience" used to be called "easy mode"...and it was free.
Click to expand...

Those were the days, before internet connectivity enabled the extreme greed in publishers to milk every red cent from people who buy their games. It’s why internet-connected consoles were one of the best worst ideas ever devised. It created a metric ton of ways to fleece the consumer base.
 
wvnative

wvnative

Member
Why didn't they just copy battlefield's progression? Battlefield has had shortcut packs since at least Battlefield 3, but it didn't really impact how normal progression worked.
 
Croatoan

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
Levelcap claims that the CEO of Disney called the CEO of EA and that after that call EA released their press release.

Apparently there is evidence that Disney forced EA to make this move.
 
Fbh

Fbh

Member
Honestly... I don't even care.
Want to give paying people an accelerated experience? Fine.

But could you make the core experience for those "only" paying $60 not be a fucking grindfest ?
 
BibiMaghoo

BibiMaghoo

Member
That is in essence no different from introducing shortcut packs later in a games life. I have no problem with that.
 
V

vocab

Member
wvnative said:
Why didn't they just copy battlefield's progression? Battlefield has had shortcut packs since at least Battlefield 3, but it didn't really impact how normal progression worked.
Click to expand...

It honestly feels like they are reinventing the wheel just so battlefront can distinguish it self as something besides "a star wars mod for battlefield". The funny thing is that's fine in it self, but they took like 12-20 steps backwards on almost everything. The squad system in particular sucks.
 
D

dragonyeuw

Member
vocab said:
It honestly feels like they are reinventing the wheel just so battlefront can distinguish it self as something besides "a star wars mod for battlefield". The funny thing is that's fine in it self, but they took like 12-20 steps backwards on almost everything. The squad system in particular sucks.
Click to expand...

I think its moreso that EA knows that Star Wars has a voracious fanbase and hedged their bets on being able to get this system past (begrudging) players. I can imagine the board meetings discussing how they were going to monetize this game along the lines of "Its Star Wars. They'll bitch, complain and like it!"
 
gioGAF

gioGAF

Member
Everything that has come out of EA's mouth about this has been nothing but corporate talk. When they were called out for the microtransactions, they talked about giving players options and other nonsense, now they talk about an "accelerated experience", which is more bullshit.

Microtransactions wouldn't be so toxic if they weren't built into the game on a base level. If they were just and easy mode, that wouldn't be a problem, but the entire experience is centered around you buying their crap.

Loot boxes are straight up gambling as far as I'm concerned, so there is no way to reconcile their existence.

Everyone should keep in mind that this change is just to quiet down the backlash against their shit system. Much like the whole "death threat" smokescreen they threw up earlier to try and discredit their critics. They aren't choosing a better path, they just want the coverage to go away before they pull out the sandpaper dildo again.

A funny parallel to this whole thing was the Microsoft Xbox 1 reveal, this is exactly what happened there, lol and smh.

These companies should not be supported, but it is easier said than done since they own so much of the market. Thank god for Sony and Nintendo (and Jim Sterling)!
 
B

BT-727

Neo Member
Eh. Won't be surprised to see MTs come back right after The Last Jedi is out. Max sales for SWBF1 happened around Force Awakens. They want some good will till then and to ensure their share price doesn't go into free fall (because investors are worried). Doesn't help matter that Disney is being dragged through the mud as well. Fun times ahead.
 
Crazyorloco

Crazyorloco

Member
"It's a trap"

I don't believe a word from them.

I think they're really on damage control right now. I bet sales weren't as big as expected.
 
Treeforce

Treeforce

Neo Member
To me it is actually shocking to see how many people are downplaying the whole situation with arguments that are completely besides the point. (Just had a look at social media comments)

Either way, the only thing to do here is not to buy the game and hope that someday in the future a less greedy publisher gets to pick up the license.
 
D

dragonyeuw

Member
Treeforce said:
To me it is actually shocking to see how many people are downplaying the whole situation with arguments that are completely besides the point. (Just had a look at social media comments)

Either way, the only thing to do here is not to buy the game and hope that someday in the future a less greedy publisher gets to pick up the license.
Click to expand...

How many other publishers can actually afford the license? Activision? Ubisoft? Those names don't inspire much confidence either. It seems EA is content to put out fewer games using the IP and just monetize the hell out of each one, instead of giving us a variety of games( shooter, third person action title, RPG, etc).
 
Trogdor1123

Trogdor1123

Gold Member
gioGAF said:
Everything that has come out of EA's mouth about this has been nothing but corporate talk. When they were called out for the microtransactions, they talked about giving players options and other nonsense, now they talk about an "accelerated experience", which is more bullshit.

Microtransactions wouldn't be so toxic if they weren't built into the game on a base level. If they were just and easy mode, that wouldn't be a problem, but the entire experience is centered around you buying their crap.

Loot boxes are straight up gambling as far as I'm concerned, so there is no way to reconcile their existence.

Everyone should keep in mind that this change is just to quiet down the backlash against their shit system. Much like the whole "death threat" smokescreen they threw up earlier to try and discredit their critics. They aren't choosing a better path, they just want the coverage to go away before they pull out the sandpaper dildo again.

A funny parallel to this whole thing was the Microsoft Xbox 1 reveal, this is exactly what happened there, lol and smh.

These companies should not be supported, but it is easier said than done since they own so much of the market. Thank god for Sony and Nintendo (and Jim Sterling)!
Click to expand...
Come on, you know Sony would do it too in a second...
 
partime

partime

Member
Everyone keeps on talking about grinding, but isn't that just playing the game?


$60 is to grind
$$$ to grind LESS

The failure rate of getting adequate leveled Star Cards is another ordeal entirely, and one I wouldn't spend a nickel, and luckily can't.
 
Trogdor1123

Trogdor1123

Gold Member
partime said:
Everyone keeps on talking about grinding, but isn't that just playing the game?


$60 is to grind
$$$ to grind LESS

The failure rate of getting adequate leveled Star Cards is another ordeal entirely, and one I wouldn't spend a nickel, and luckily can't.
Click to expand...
The grind is way worse than f2p games though.
 
partime

partime

Member
Trogdor1123 said:
The grind is way worse than f2p games though.
Click to expand...

I put a few hours into multiplayer and feel content with the $60 purchase. It's a massive universe and has top-tier everything from design to gameplay for a mass shooter.

Why would I consider having the fun I have 'grinding'? It's just a blast being out there in awe. Would I want to be Yoda or Ray? It's enough fun being besides them than forking out $$$ to be them (OMG Yoda's on my team, YES!).


Pro Tip: If you seriously want the advantage, turn up the controller sensitivity. Same as other shooters. That costed me $0.
 
Hoya Destroyer

Hoya Destroyer

Member
I dont see the point of having a leveling system at all.
The devs should balance their game as best they can, and then players should all use those same tools and their own personal skill to compete. Thats all.
One player having some kind of advantage over another because of the amount of time or money he has invested into leveling, is a bad idea.
If they split the player base, due to these game-given advantages, then it makes the situation even worse for people who live in areas with small communities (like Australia).
 
Fbh

Fbh

Member
Hoya Destroyer said:
I dont see the point of having a leveling system at all.
The devs should balance their game as best they can, and then players should all use those same tools and their own personal skill to compete. Thats all.
One player having some kind of advantage over another because of the amount of time or money he has invested into leveling, is a bad idea.
If they split the player base, due to these game-given advantages, then it makes the situation even worse for people who live in areas with small communities (like Australia).
Click to expand...

I think the idea behind it is to keep players engaged for longer.
You can argue that if the game is fun people will remain engaged either way. I personally agree with that but I do think that having stuff to unlock and specially ranks to gain keeps a lot of people playing for longer. Look at the prestige system in COD, it's basically asking to unlock everything again but since it gives you a higher rank a lot of people are into it .

I think the core difference with something like Battlefront 2 is that most (popular) games have built their progression systems in a way that's rewarding. I actually think the prestige system is pretty good since those who just want to have all the unlocks can get them in a reasonable amount of time (like 30 hours) and those who want to continue unlocking ranks also get the option. Rather than being enjoyable, the progression in battlefront 2 seems designed to be grindy and time consuming because the main focus is selling microtransactions.
 
N

NicknameMy

Neo Member
dragonyeuw said:
How many other publishers can actually afford the license? Activision? Ubisoft? Those names don't inspire much confidence either. It seems EA is content to put out fewer games using the IP and just monetize the hell out of each one, instead of giving us a variety of games( shooter, third person action title, RPG, etc).
Click to expand...

I would like Nintendo aquiring the license, as they work together with Disney already anyway. This would lead to a bright future for Star Wars, because lets face it, Nintendo still develops the best games.
 
Valonquar

Valonquar

Member
So...when they say they are turning microtransactions off... are they leaving the caps on arcade mode credit grinding, etc? If so L O L
 
B

Bloodporne

Member
"accelerated experience"

smug-gif-22.gif
 
BANGS

BANGS

Banned
I see no problem with this. People seem to under the impression that we can make all these shitty elements that you've let happen for the last decade come to a complete halt. EA made a huge decision to make thier game better, and if we don't support that, we are basically saying to EA that making good decisions will only bite them in the ass. This is something that will have to be gradual, it won't end over night.

Support them now, show them we appreciate them taking the P2W completely out. This will support non-P2W games moving forward...
 
D

dragonyeuw

Member
NicknameMy said:
I would like Nintendo aquiring the license, as they work together with Disney already anyway. This would lead to a bright future for Star Wars, because lets face it, Nintendo still develops the best games.
Click to expand...

The Rogue leader franchise needs to be revitalized like yesterday.
 
Lionel Richie

Lionel Richie

Member
BANGS said:
I see no problem with this. People seem to under the impression that we can make all these shitty elements that you've let happen for the last decade come to a complete halt. EA made a huge decision to make thier game better, and if we don't support that, we are basically saying to EA that making good decisions will only bite them in the ass. This is something that will have to be gradual, it won't end over night.

Support them now, show them we appreciate them taking the P2W completely out. This will support non-P2W games moving forward...
Click to expand...

esw.gif


Sure thing my friend.
 
A

Air Zombie Meat

Member
In a way this is worse. At least before this you knew what you were buying into. Now they're asking you to give them the money before you know what it's going to be like. The plan was to generate long term profits from microtransactions. That hasn't changed just because they're sacrificing some short term profits.
 
geordiemp

geordiemp

Member
BANGS said:
I see no problem with this. People seem to under the impression that we can make all these shitty elements that you've let happen for the last decade come to a complete halt. EA made a huge decision to make thier game better, and if we don't support that, we are basically saying to EA that making good decisions will only bite them in the ass. This is something that will have to be gradual, it won't end over night.

Support them now, show them we appreciate them taking the P2W completely out. This will support non-P2W games moving forward...
Click to expand...

Its delayed, hoping the fuss will die down after a month then back to same shit, but you already bought it.

If EA say they are taking P2w out, then let them say so clearly.
 
gioGAF

gioGAF

Member
Trogdor1123 said:
Come on, you know Sony would do it too in a second...
Click to expand...
Sony too!(TM)

Do what? Neither Sony or Nintendo had or have had the nerve to come out with that always online bullshit. Most of the scummy console practices are either Microsoft initiated or Microsoft supported. The Xbox 1 launch titles were riddled with microtransactions, that is where they were going. Where we are now is where MS was going from the get go.

It is true that Sony has implemented some of the same tactics, but it is hard not to when your competitor is using them to fleece morons.

There hasn't been any goodwill on Microsoft's part, just as there is no goodwill on EA's part. They are just doing damage control when their wildly anti-consumer shit backfired on them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How in game economies are designed and maintained
13
694
simpatico replied
[GVMERS] The Rise and Fall of Star Wars Battlefront
14
1K
Tal Shiar Agent replied
EA Sports WRC | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2
58
4K
Bry0 replied
Report: Disney’s CEO Deputies Wanted Company to Turn Into a Gaming Giant, Through Possibly Aquiring EA
News Business 2
96
5K
Dr. Samuel Hayden replied
Colossal Order's CEO about the state of Cities Skylines 2: If you dislike the simulation, this game just might not be for you.
Game Dev
6
713
U n i o n 0015 replied
Top Bottom