• 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.

Ristifer

Member
thats-good.gif
To be fair, I just piggybacked on yours hah.
 
this is absolutely NOT a gray area at all. Loot box systems are designed to make people spend more money on the game, in a gambling/RNG way.

i don't think any loot boxes are put in a game just for the *fun* of it, or for making the game a better experience.

The problem with this mentality is that no form of additional monetization seems fine with people other than straight up DLC. Loot boxes just like anything else when implemented correctly are totally fine. Just because Battlefront 2 is pay to win doesn't mean Overwatch should be raked over the coals.
 
I actually hope the F2P mechanics get worse in the final build, so that this cancer gets coverage from the mainstream press. Nobody outside of gaming forums and the usual youtube pundits seems to know about this new breed of gambling.
 

Rival

Gold Member
I was t too interested in this game to begin with but now I’ll only pick it up on the cheap just to try out the single player part.
 

Klocker

Member
cancelled my preorder this evening, screw this shit.

I might try it on EA Access for release and see if it improved
 
Right, so they added a single step to buying loot boxes.

"The mafia doesn't extort, businesses willingly pay their protection fees."
Loot boxes are bought with in-game currency.

There is no way to buy in-game currency with real money.

AC:O simply doesn't have paid loot boxes. I hate these stuff as well, and I would be the first to condemn Ubi if they add it to the game later on, but right now, they are saying that those boxes can only be purchased by playing the game and earning the in-game currency.
 
My guess would be that this happened because of the class system. The player should be able to recognize whether they're fighting an assault class or a sniper so Dice gave them a unified look instead of letting the players go wild with customization.

We should still be able to pick race and gender for certain factions and classes.
 
The last Battlefront dropped in price like a stone soon after release. Anybody who buys it at launch with these horrible loot boxes is the suckerest sucker of all.
 

gatti-man

Member
The problem with this mentality is that no form of additional monetization seems fine with people other than straight up DLC. Loot boxes just like anything else when implemented correctly are totally fine. Just because Battlefront 2 is pay to win doesn't mean Overwatch should be raked over the coals.

Overwatches loot box design is incredibly predatory. It is in no way a good design even though it’s not pay to win.
 
Overwatches loot box design is incredibly predatory. It is in no way a good design even though it’s not pay to win.

Yeah, my point is if you have an opinion like this then you're not going to really like any lootbox implementation (or probably any microtransactions period). Overwatch has the most generous implementation I've seen. You can buy everything with in-game currency overtime AND now they have an anti-duplication system in place.
 

Adam M

Member
We all knew since E3 that there is a catch....
I'm not a good player so with this basically makes no sense to buy the game, not fun if I only just die after spawn...

Can't blame DICE for it, it's not up to them, EA's business decision.
 

Dehnus

Member
Glad there's a thread about this. 150 per match = 6.5 matches for 1 box, and there's direct gameplay enhancing stuff in there. Not good.

Well, now people know how others felt that also played for cosmetics and were under the opinion that unlocking cosmetics should be part of the game. When that stuff disappeared behind paywalls and lootboxes they were told "It doesn't affect the gameplay." and they were called whiners.

Now I do hope we can all finally agree that this is gambling and start lobbying to place this stuff under the same regulations as other gambling?

Yeah no.

Just because someone is too much of a man-child to resist cosmetics doesn't make the system bad.

YES IT DOES! Some people like cosmetics and unlocking that through gameplay. Why are they supposed to pay for your gameplay features and new maps while your features can just as well disappear behind a few crates? In a way one can argue that your new maps should be behind paywalls too. And you can cry all you like about :"but it'll split the player base!", but why should the people that like dressing up their characters pay for your new maps? Also DLC and expansion packs are okay. Especially if the game is complete on release and it's just something like the Hotwheels expansion for Forza Horizon 3. Then I don't mind paying a bit extra as well. It's that DLC on Disk stuff and that stuff goes behind microtransactions with fake currency (so they can manipulate prices by making the prices just a bit higher than one of the "currency packs" (499 for your new hat, 100, 200, 400 and 800 for the fake currency amounts). ) and if they really want to fuck you over it gets put in a lootbox too!

They are "manchildren" due to wishing to play and unlock cosmetic items? They bloody paid 60 bucks too! JUST LIKE YOU!

Ah, forget it, while we have people like you we will never be able to do anything about it. They'll just take one step back, and give you your "gameplay buffs" while fucking over the others. Then in a few years they'll try again.
 

ViviOggi

Member
Yeah, my point is if you have an opinion like this then you're not going to really like any lootbox implementation (or probably any microtransactions period). Overwatch has the most generous implementation I've seen. You can buy everything with in-game currency overtime AND now they have an anti-duplication system in place.
... which reduces currency income. When event skins, the only type of content update Blizzard can be bothered to put out on a regular basis, cost triple.
 

Dehnus

Member
I was t too interested in this game to begin with but now I’ll only pick it up on the cheap just to try out the single player part.

Then they'll start putting parts of the singleplayer behind expansions passes. So you can't finish the game properly until you buy a season pass or pay to unlock the on disk DLC :D. Which they install anyway, you just don't get it unlocked until you pay.

Again, I'm not talking about expansions or later DLC that comes during the game's life. I'm not talking about bundling DLC later with a "Gold" or "GOTY" version of the game later in the game's life (As in NOT ON BLOODY LAUNCH! seriously people attack Jim Sterling over it, but he has a valid point with that there are like 5 versions of each "Triple A" game".).

Gold or "GOTY" editions should be during the game's life like 1 year in or later, which is a nice price that includes everything. Like Blizzard's battleboxes were, before they too wend "LOOTBOX + MICROTRANSACTION! You too can own this Mini Garosh mount for only...."
 

VariantX

Member
I don't mind loot boxes in concept. I mind it when non cosmetics and other progression related items get put in loot boxes.
 

GenericUser

Member
My friend is super into battlefront, I've got to tell him that. This kind of business practice feels like an unwanted, dry, buttfuck. Just go away with this lootbox crap. Raise the base price of the game to 80 or 100 bucks if you want, but go away with that SHIT.
 

Saty

Member
Just because someone is too much of a man-child to resist cosmetics doesn't make the system bad.

Are you going to sit there and argue that random blind boxes as the ONLY way to get items is a positive system? A system that isn't informed by wanting player spend money again and again? What people fail to understand is that the type of content is irrelevant to the bottom line. As long as blind microtransactions are the only way to get items and as long as those boxes are purchase-able with real money = bad implementation that compromises game design for predatory greed. There are no two ways about it. For god's sake, Overwatch doesn't even allow you to purchase the in-game currency with real money because *gasp* you would be able to specifically buy the thing you want. Can't have that!

CS:GO and PUBG have crates but they also have trading and direct-purchase of items.

But oh, i sure hope the next Dragon Age has no voice acting out of the box but that you can only buy blind loot crates that might have VO per character. Voice work doesn't affect gameplay right, just read the text bubbles right? Awesome!
 

Steroyd

Member
The problem with this mentality is that no form of additional monetization seems fine with people other than straight up DLC. Loot boxes just like anything else when implemented correctly are totally fine. Just because Battlefront 2 is pay to win doesn't mean Overwatch should be raked over the coals.

Yes they should, if I want to get a new skin for a character I main and I want to "support" the game with additional money, I don't want to spend £100 on the chance that I may get the cosmetic I want.

There is no right way to implement lootboxes, cosmetic only is the lesser of two evils because it doesn't impact the gameplay itself but it's still a game of chance to get the cosmetic you want if you want it.
 

Rodelero

Member
What about actual children?

Presumably they don't have access to credit cards?

Personally I think there is a case to be put that loot crates are essentially gambling and should be regulated as such both to protect children and to protect addicts. However I'm not sure it's practical to be blaming gaming companies from following this trend whether or not they should regulate themselves because they're simply not going to. Regulation is going to have to come from governments when you consider how far gone most developers/publishers are down this path. It is basically impossible to name a major online game that doesn't feature blind boxes.

Gamers need to pick their battles over this. This thread (and others on similar issues) tend to come across as petulant and out of touch when it comes to how the industry works. There are a significant number that seem to feel we should expect bigger and bigger games that are supported for longer and longer in more and more extravagant ways for less and less money (in real terms). Let's attack the right problems, let's not single out random developers (as is somewhat happening here in a thread where a lot of people are very conveniently ignoring that almost all of the big multiplayer shooters are doing this to some extent), and let's push for change on blind boxes at the only level that matters - government lead regulation. It is hilariously obvious nothing else is going to work.
 
The "It's just cosmetics" argument was fine when we were talking about directly purchasable micro-transactions.

Lootboxes are never fine, not even if they're only cosmetic. There's no way to support a dev AND get what you want without grossly overpaying because of luck of the draw. It's exploitative and should be stopped.
 
I know Gaf hates TB but he made a great video on this. It's complete bullshit and because of it I'll be skipping this game which is sad..
 

HariKari

Member
It's just depressing when you grind out a crate, pick a starfighter one, and then get zero starfighter cards. A Han Solo emote and 2 pieces of scrap, yay. Really not going to help me catch up to the other Startfighter players that have juiced up damage and defense.
 
The "It's just cosmetics" argument was fine when we were talking about directly purchasable micro-transactions.

Lootboxes are never fine, not even if they're only cosmetic. There's no way to support a dev AND get what you want without grossly overpaying because of luck of the draw. It's exploitative and should be stopped.
Yep. I have no problem with direct purchases, but this gamble to maybe get something is just pure greed.

It's gambling and should be legally regulated like the predatory whale hunting shit it is.
 
Top Bottom