Fair enough. I agree that it’s giving something trivial more attention than it deserves, certainly. My main issue though, and I REALLY hate to make slippery slope arguments, is that if people don’t strongly push back against the microtransactions, borderline gambling loot crates, etc… Then what will publishers do next to squeeze every dime and dollar out of players?
I don’t know if it’s the game that people are so angry with so much as EA and many aspects of the progression system and what not. That might sound like it’s splitting hairs, but for the most part, everything I’ve read about the graphics, the gameplay, etc has been good. Well, except from Jim Sterling, but he more or less seems to make a comedy show out of trashing games, which is why I called him biased in my original post.
True, but let’s say we have two people with similar skill levels. If one person spends $100 and another person spends zero, is it safe to say that the person spending money might wind up with some advantages? I’m not saying they’ll win 10 times out of 10. But is it possible that the thumb is being put on the scale enough to where the person not spending money wonders if things aren’t stacked against them? To me, that’s still garbage. But if we’re defining our terms, I suppose it’s “pay for competitive advantage” instead of “pay to win.”
Well yeah, that’s the internet for ya. I’m not excusing it, obviously, but that part’s not surprising. For whatever it’s worth, I looked in to this thoroughly before I made my first post. I will say that a lot of the rage and hysteria is unwarranted. I’m frustrated and annoyed that they decided to make some of these decisions, but truthfully, I think many others are on this level as well.
I think there are a lot of people that are more… “that looks slimy, ■■■■ this game” and then moving on. It’s more likely a population within the population of hardcore fans and gamers that are whipping each other up in to a frenzy and what not. While I don’t particularly share their level of anger, I do think that a message needs to be sent to EA that some of their business practices are a bit predatory and that they should switch course toward something a bit more consumer friendly. Unfortunately, I think it sometimes takes the loud screamers along with the quiet dissenters to make them see that message.
Ah, again with the whataboutism! lol. I don’t think you’ll see a huge groundswell of animosity from the general gaming public about the progression system of a 4 year old game in a niche genre. But a big company like EA doing free to play type stuff with their big, $60 triple A Star Wars game? Yeah, there’s going to be more eyes on that, and some of those eyes will belong to people that are, let’s say… More than hardcore. 
Honestly, I don’t think most people are diving that deep. I think it’s really more of “this game costs $60, yet there are microtransactions at every turn AND I can pay to win.” Now, I know that we can deconstruct that sentiment and find every erroneous aspect or misconception, but I do think that the general idea around it has at least enough merit to warrant backlash against EA.
I think this has been building for a while now, with games such as Injustice 2, Shadow of War, Need For Speed: Paybackand a few others. Some people grumbled about the intrusion of this kind of crap in to the $60 AAA retail space. But then EA came along with a game that was high profile enough, and pushed the F2P / P2W stuff just enough to create a tipping point and really get the conversation started or get the ball rolling down the hill, however you want to look at it.
In that sense, it doesn’t really matter how grindy other games are or how much they steer you toward microtransactions when we’re talking about Battlefront 2. It’s not even a matter of how fun it is or how much you can avoid microtransactions. Honestly, I think it was just the right game, at the right time, and most definitely by the right publisher to really kickstart the blow back against some of the practices that have begun to slowly encroach on larger, full priced games. That’s just my guess though.
Yeah, that’s a likely downside, and I don’t mean that in an abstract, detached way. People losing their livelihoods in their dream line of work sucks. Hell, it sucks when it’s not your dream line of work. If Battlefront 2 sells less than expected, either the suits that pushed for the microtransactions will get axed or several developers that worked on the game will be shown the door.
Now, is that too much of a price to pay for resisting some of these publisher practices? I don’t think there’s a good answer. Does the consumer win if it forces other publishers to rethink their in-game payment models? Does having to rethink those models effect their budget not just for the current game, but funding for future projects? Will publishers just keep finding more ways to squeeze customers?
I think that with development costs continuing to rise and publishers wanting to make more and more, especially given what they’re seeing in the mobile space, this push and pull, give and take between publishers and consumers will continue for quite some time, and I don’t think anyone will necessarily come out on top or ahead or feel like some sort of mutually beneficial compromise works out for everyone; not when profits are involved and not when people are worried about their wallets.
Honestly, this is the impression that I’m getting as well. I think a lot of people are just fed up with having multiple currencies in games and grinds being abnormally punishing for less rewards as the we’ve learned that many games are actively steering us toward paying more money. It feels oily and the longer you have that feeling about more and more games, the more likely people are to start being vocal about their displeasure.
Agreed. Though I don’t know how concerned many are with the industry collapsing under its own weight again, I do think that people are becoming increasingly concerned that these trends are turning in to industry standards and while I can’t speak for everyone (or shouldn’t), it makes me concerned for the future of gaming. I don’t personally want every game to be a “service” that slowly siphons my money over time.
Yeah, I HATED the idea of DLC for a long time. But honestly? After a while, I came around to it. The idea of getting more characters in a fighting game instead of having to wait two or three years (or longer) for the sequel actually appealed to me and made me wonder why I was so resistant in the first place.
Sure, I still hated that the game didn’t just let me earn everything, but if it’s something that I liked and something I wanted more of, I also had to reconcile the fact that they eventually had to stop working on the core game and put out a product, but that didn’t mean that they should just stop working on it altogether.
I mean, I can think of several games where I would’ve loved to have had another place to go visit with plenty of things to do or characters I’d like to see in a fighter that didn’t make the intial cut, etc.
Now, I could absolutely be wrong here and time could very well show this to be the case, but if games are going to stretch out their grind just to make me either play longer or pay money to bypass that grind, or if a game is actively incorporating a gambling mechanic to give me that artificial thrill of “what’s in the box” or “will I win!?” then I don’t know how much that would be something I’d look at 10 years from now and say “wow, I can’t believe I reisisted that. Games are so much better with that stuff in them.”
This is a great point. It’s weird to think that a different game’s day one season pass might’ve contributed to killing Lionhead. Honestly though, if you’re going to try something that pushes the envelope a little further, I think that there are times when there will be push back and sometimes it’ll be really freaking strong. People don’t want to be taken advantage of and regardless of whether that was the case here or not (and I don’t think it was).
No I don’t think that there was a consumer revolt against Atari. I think it was much more passive, but no less effective. As far as Battlefront 2 goes, I’ll be curious to see what the numbers look like after the first month. I’m sure this blow up will cost them a bit in sales, but it’s also Star Wars; a name that transcends the hardcore demographic by a substantial amount. It’s also coming out near a Star Wars film.
Now I do think that people trying to campaign against the game are a bit off on that, but whatever. People will buy or not buy regardless of what anyone on the internet says, but maybe I’m wrong.
Yeah but I think that relationship between consumer and producer CAN become more antagonistic at times, especially when the producer is trying to do things that the consumer perceives as negatively effecting them. I don’t think that EA is anti-consumer by nature. I just think that some of the things they try to do can go a bit too far and the consumer can be negatively impacted. I guess this being “anti-consumer” or not as a term is all a matter of perspective, but I don’t know that it’s an overall indicator or summary of the full relationship.
That’s understandable, and I try to do this as well, especially with sports games. But can you really blame people for not wanting to silently abstain from spending money in hopes that a dev or publisher will make changes? Some prefer to do that and communicate to the developer why they’re not spending their money in hopes that their voice might join with many others to force the developer’s hand and some want to both communicate and buy the game because they want new rosters or they’re a fan or they buy out of habit or whatever other reason they might have.
I’m not sure there’s really a right way to go about this.
What kind of negative consequences? Just curious. I mean, if the industry is as healthy as you say, then a dev closure here and there won’t have any real effect, especially since a lot of those people will likely find work at other devs or parts of the industry. So what’s the real downside to consumer advocacy in this situation?
Well yeah, some people love making themselves miserable. Still, I think there might be others that aren’t quite as angry or quite as miserable as you’d think. Much like you’re not tying yourself in knots to defend DLC or developers, I think a lot of people are just posting a few comments on twitter, which takes minimal time or effort. Now, if people actually drive to EA and start picketing outside their offices? Okay THEN we might think they’re really overextending themselves on something that’s really not the end of the world.
It used to be very realistic though. So possible that it was the industry standard for several generations. Or every generation really until this one or perhaps the last one. So yeah, I think there’s a lot of people that don’t realize that things are changing or that they need to change.
But there are some that do. Some that say “just raise the price to $80 and be done with it.” Truth is though, I don’t think that would be enough. However, I don’t know if the solution to that is creating games that are constant revenue streams. Sure, it might work for WOW or a few other games here and there, but if every AAA game tries to do this?
I think we’re at a very strange point in gaming. Development costs for AAA games are rising and I don’t know that publishers really know how to offset those costs yet in a way that’s both fair to consumer and viable for them. Similarly, consumers aren’t in a place yet where they’re willing or interested in accepting changes from what they’ve always known, such as affordable AAA games that are a singular experience that’s not designed to slowly drain your wallet over time.
I’ll be curious to see where this goes and if a happy medium is found, or if it’s just this continual push and pull.
I don’t think it’s that simple though. If people ignore this, who’s to say that more and more publishers won’t do what EA’s doing, and before long, it’s industry standard to such an extent that turning a blind eye and buying something else isn’t the relatively easy option that it is today?
Hmm… Not sure where you’re getting this. You think people are angry because they want the game but can’t afford it? Where do you get that idea from? Just curious.
You don’t think that Bioware would’ve been scooped up by another publisher?
I think the online outrage is part of that give and take though. It’s not just quietly deciding not to purchase a game, though that can certainly be the case sometimes. I honestly think that a franchise like Star Wars (or other big names like Call of Duty or Madden) are resistant to such silent protest or preference.
So if people have issues and know that the game will sell regardless, I don’t see a problem with voicing concerns in a constructive manner. Obviously it’s the internet and it’s gamers, so some of it’s constructive, some of it’s noise, and some of it is far worse, but still.
Eh, this isn’t always the case. Sometimes it helps fund other games. I don’t think microtransactions are inherently evil, but I do think that there’s a very delicate balance and I think that EA got it wrong enough to warrant a greater than proportional response from fans. That’s just my guess though.
Agreed.
True, but wasn’t part of the reason why they weren’t making us pay for a season pass the response to how bare bones BF1 was? Maybe I’m mistaken, but I thought the free post-launch content was a make good attempt by EA for issues with the first game.
If that’s the case, and I’m not 100% sure on that, but if we now have to pay for something a different way just so they can make good on something they screwed up in the last game then that’s… Well… Yeah that’s not good.
Dear god… Longest post ever. SO SORRY! This is what I get for not checking the site for the weekend and trying to respond to an entire thread in one post. My bad. Please feel free to ignore me!
I tend to be a bit too conversational and just talk a bunch. I really need to learn to be more concise. I’ll try a bit harder on that in the future. I’m sure there aren’t many people that want to read that much text on a forum. My bad!
