Albino_Yeti
Member
It won't be fun when you get annihilated by a player that has 3 star cards, aka 3 advantages over you because he spent 100 bucks until he got the loot he wanted.
-
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.
Eurogamer: Star Wars Battlefront 2 has a loot crate problem.
- Thread starter Saty
- Start date
It won't be fun when you get annihilated by a player that has 3 star cards, aka 3 advantages over you because he spent 100 bucks until he got the loot he wanted.
WickedLaharl
Member
Nah cosmetic loot crates are fine. People need to stop being disingenuous by comparing them to gameplay altering crates.
Sad Affleck
Member
The games industry is pathetic. It will be the cause of its own downfall.
In Service
Member
Yeah, I understand the point you make but (i) I'm not that competitive and (ii) that's one player out of 20 on the larger maps so I just don't see it affecting me.
Of course, I don't usually Day 1 games like these so my view isn't going to translate to a sale anyway. I did like the beta though so maybe play through EA Access time.
Jangowuzhere
Banned
It really isn't.
Okay, you don't care about cosmetics, but it's obviously not the same for everyone else. Being able to play the game looking cool and just the way you want adds a lot to a game for many people.
This is really unacceptable. A movement needs to be started to get the word out to the casual masses about this before they buy in to the game without realizing. Imagine the tail-turning if word about this circulated widespread, it would be a devastating blow like the Xbox One DRM debacle. People still think that disc DRM exists on Xbox because of that E3. The damage this could do to your brand is insane and the developers should feel awful for supporting the exec's wishes for it.
Cuningas de Häme
Member
You get a free loot box every day...
And what I played the demo, you always get good loot from those.
So not a problem for me, too bad the games is shite in other ways.
And what I played the demo, you always get good loot from those.
So not a problem for me, too bad the games is shite in other ways.
Trying out the beta, I kinda enjoyed the game but the Star Cards I noticed were a massive flaw for reasons mentioned in the article. I hated their differences in effectiveness depending on rank, I hated how scarce they were to get and I hated how little a new player would have compared to a seasoned one. A seasoned player should only be able to stand up through the skill he's earned through player the game alone, not by having objectively better stuff, in a skill based shooter.
I always got the most basic of cards and sometimes those worthless emotes for hero characters. And when I say basic, I mean like the first rank of a ability card, while there are then also 4 more than goes into ridiculous power levels for that ability like shaving off a third of a cooldown (that is a lot), giving Boba Fett a 100% damage reduction during an ability where people want to try and shoot you down before you murder them all etc.
This is stuff that shouldn't be relegated to cards that are RNG, take long to earn and where a new player starts with nothing. It's like if when playing Counter Strike you can only go with pistol when you're new, you have to be rank 10 to get your first SMG, which has to be crafted from parts you get from a box ever rank, which may or may not contain the parts you need or an emote/spray.
Cuningas de Häme;251452229 said:
I always got the most basic of cards and sometimes those worthless emotes for hero characters. And when I say basic, I mean like the first rank of a ability card, while there are then also 4 more than goes into ridiculous power levels for that ability like shaving off a third of a cooldown (that is a lot), giving Boba Fett a 100% damage reduction during an ability where people want to try and shoot you down before you murder them all etc.
This is stuff that shouldn't be relegated to cards that are RNG, take long to earn and where a new player starts with nothing. It's like if when playing Counter Strike you can only go with pistol when you're new, you have to be rank 10 to get your first SMG, which has to be crafted from parts you get from a box ever rank, which may or may not contain the parts you need or an emote/spray.
Albino_Yeti
Member
Fair enough. I'm more of a competitive person so it irks me when players get unfair advantages like that.
MaverickVII
Member
I enjoyed SWBF1 despite its many flaws but this whole loot crate thing really bothers me to the point of complete disinterest in the game. I was okay with the battlepacks in the Battlefield series because I never once felt obligated to purchase any to keep up with my opponents, but I can't justify supporting this system. I'm really hoping the next Battlefield game doesn't do something similar but I think this trend is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
For once I'm glad I have such an extensive backlog of games to get through.
For once I'm glad I have such an extensive backlog of games to get through.
Not gonna happen. Last BF wasn't too good and it sold a lot,probably bc it's a SW game.
It's not the crates,it's what's in them. If it was just cosmetic stuff it wouldn't be a problem.
Nydius
Member
Although I'm blatantly repeating TotalBiscuit's sentiment on his video on the topic, this feels like we've reached the make-or-break point with games and lootboxes this year. This is the end result of developers and publishers sneaking in these types of systems and conditioning people to accept them.
First it was just packs in sports games for niche modes, then it was "it's just cosmetics", then it became "well the advantages only apply to one sub-mode" (see: Halo 5 Warzone) or "the advantages are small" (see: Destiny 2 mods) and now we've finally hit the era of F2P pay-to-win schemes in full retail multiplayer AAA games.
First it was just packs in sports games for niche modes, then it was "it's just cosmetics", then it became "well the advantages only apply to one sub-mode" (see: Halo 5 Warzone) or "the advantages are small" (see: Destiny 2 mods) and now we've finally hit the era of F2P pay-to-win schemes in full retail multiplayer AAA games.
In Service
Member
I totally see that.
However, do you think that BF2 is the type of game catering to your play style? I wonder if they are aiming for the more youthful audience on this one. I just don't see it as a competitive game compared to BF1 or OW.
How long until the entire industry morphs into one big loot box ffs?
Just glad none of the games I'm interested in have this kind of shit... at least not on this level.
P.S feel bad for Jim Sterling who just aired a jimquisition episode on the very topic. This would've been the icing on the cake
Just glad none of the games I'm interested in have this kind of shit... at least not on this level.
P.S feel bad for Jim Sterling who just aired a jimquisition episode on the very topic. This would've been the icing on the cake
superNESjoe
Member
That sucks, I'm out. If the campaign is good I'll get it for that later on sale.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I suppose whether it affects you is a function of whether you care about winning and losing...or if you're just there for the overall experience.
For me, winning and losing IS the experience and why I play multiplayer gaming, and as such the idea of someone having an unearned advantage over me is utterly and fundamentally unacceptable. Any game that by design makes me look at the match performance stats and instantly assume the guy with 40 kills is abusing his star card advantage is not a game for me. People should not be put into the position of having to question the integrity of their play or the play of those around them.
DICE/EA should pay a heavy price for this. I'll start by keeping the $90 I would have spent on this in my pocket.
KingdomHeartsFan
Member
Saw AJ video on this, this legit looks worse than some f2p games. Absolutely disgusting that they thought this was okay.
You say that as if this isn't a normal part of the experience anyway. Being beaten by someone who has better stuff than you is part of Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, Rainbow Six: Siege, Uncharted 4, and so forth. Some games allow you to earn that stuff through playing or paying, some only support earning it through playing - none of these games are truly level playing fields.
The question that needs to be asked isn't whether you can pay for an advantage (you can, but then you can in all of those other games too) but whether the advantage a paying player has over a relatively experienced non-playing one is excessive.
Lord of Castamere
Member
It sold a lot initially, but it's legs rotted off and turned into dust, resulting in the game being sold for 5$ multiple times and the season pass given out for free. Unlike Bf4, which still has legs.
In Service
Member
Totally get this and I'm not trying to say otherwise. But, as I asked others, who is the target audience for this game?
I wonder if there are enough that don't care too much (like me) about the boosts?
Oh man... It's just one game after another this year chasing this horrendous model...
Makes you feel kinda hopeless for the future of the industry with the alarming rate it's being adopted and breaking any semblance of game balance & design.
Only thing I can do is skip the game, which I will. Was quite interested in the single player campaign like so it's a damn shame.
Makes you feel kinda hopeless for the future of the industry with the alarming rate it's being adopted and breaking any semblance of game balance & design.
Only thing I can do is skip the game, which I will. Was quite interested in the single player campaign like so it's a damn shame.
Dreams-Visions
Member
No. It sure isn't.
The kind of people that spend a ton of money tend to group with other people that spend a ton of money, so what you end up with is a team stacked with more powerful mods that decimate you. There is nothing fun in instantly dying.
The Inventor
Member
Same here, huge let down.
stargateheaven
Member
games like overwatch are fine.
just greedy companies try the other way and completely ruin the game.
(i always wondered why jim sterling has a problem with overwatch, nothing wrong with it)
Dreams-Visions
Member
Lee all have Steam and PSN backlogs to get to anyway. Time to start playing some of those games we haven't gotten around to, and rewarding all the games that are free of loot box cancer by leaving positive reviews for them.
Not sure about cod battlefield or halo but in siege there's no bullshit loot box to unlock weapons that can drastically change the outcome of each engagement
If you're talking about the dlc operators is not pay to win because they're still balanced affording
I'm sure that's why you lost.
But really this is some BS and needs to be stopped.
Many times I lost because I stink ... But I also can see their load out when I get killed, so when I hit then 3 or 4 times with the same weapon (which means they're the same class) they shot me with once, but they have a bunch of damage mods, I know why it happened.
... It factually is. Each and every one of those games will see an experienced player have numerous artificial advantages over a new one (aside from their greater experience). The only partial exception is Halo 5 with its Arena modes.
Nydius
Member
Considering the levels of some of these star cards, the answer to that is evident. Someone who feels compelled to spend a wad of cash on these boxes will be able to get level 4 cards with stacking abilities to either vastly increase damage done, vastly decrease damage taken, vastly increase movement speed and other elements.
On day one there will be people spending money who will reach levels of near invulnerability compared to people who DON'T spend money.
Christ, I can't believe you're trying to defend genuine pay to win fuckery with "well other games have in game leveling structures so they're not level either" bullshit. The issue is that those unlevel playing fields are through PLAYING THE GAME. Not dropping $100 bucks, getting lucky through RNGsus and getting a combo of cards to bring your character up to god tier before even launching your first match.
darkside31337
Tomodachi wa Mahou
The company thats fully embraced DLC exclusively locked behind $15 physical toys and season passes this year and already has gacha mobile games is -NEVER- going to embrace loot boxes in their console games.
Its a shame BF2 is plagued with this. I was super excited for this game but seeing this nonsense really sucks
Yeah, I'm casual as hell so all I honestly care about here is that it's boring. It's trite and uneventful. I don't get a "gambler's rush" from anything so the box-opening nonsense is just that to me. Nonsense. I enjoy deep progression systems. BF1 doesn't have that but I feel like this may seem even less so.
Albino_Yeti
Member
Sure it's definitely a more casual game, but even casual games, in my opinion, should have a balanced playing field. Also, if they are truly targeting a youthful audience, then that makes the whole lootbox practice even scummier, as that would imply they are encouraging kids to spend tons of money to essentially gamble for good loot.
I gotta disagree. I don't know about COD, but the rest of those games are pretty balanced. Yea they have loot boxes, but players without them can easily hold their own. In Siege especially, you only unlock Operators, and they are pretty balanced.
Agreed. It's a mediocre game stuffed with shit business/design choices that will sell a brain-melting amount probably.
No, Overwatch can eat shit too. Just keep it so you can buy the skins with in-game currency gained from matches and sell the skins direct. You don't need lootboxes at all.
Mr.Deadshot
Member
Yup. Enjoy the stuff on a casual level, get some cool stuff from your loot boxes and enjoy the ride. Nothing wrong about that in my book when that means that I can get all the updates, maps, heroes and weapons in the future for free. Just inform yourself before getting a game. There are enough alternatives for hardcore, super-balances E-sportism.
Dreams-Visions
Member
Agreed. Blizzards model is just a predatory, it just doesn't actually affect in-match balance like BF2 insanely does.
Oh I know. Just giving you shit. I'm hoping they see the backlash and fix it but I doubt it.
I never said that these games used loot boxes (some do, some don't) but each has a gameplay affecting progression system. Even if Siege's DLC operators are truly well balanced (I suspect, like anything else, some are a little better and some are a little worse), having a larger range of operators is undeniably advantageous. Regardless, even in Rainbow Six you have to pay ingame currency to unlock weapon attachments.
For what it's worth, Rainbow Six: Siege is by far the best of that bunch, but it's not entirely above this kind of thing. Also, for what it's worth, I'm not against gameplay affecting progression systems, but a lot of people seem to be acting as if they don't exist in older games which is totally untrue.
You seem to have a very imprecise definition of balanced. A level one player is at a pretty spectacular disadvantage compared to a max level player in all of those games except for Siege. It doesn't break those games, but then I doubt Battlefront II's system will either.
I am playing devil's advocate here to some extent, but I do think some are being a bit hasty to lay the smackdown here when really this is just a continuation of a trend rather than some wholly new level of bullshit. Discussions around microtransactions are far too often argued in black and white terms which makes it entirely pointless. This is a very grey area and we should start treating it as such.