It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EA shuts off micro transactions for Battlefront 2.

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   
I have said for some time that the gaming industry's push for multiplayer, micro-transactions, loot boxes and trying to phase out single player games, would have a detrimental impact. Now it seems it has all come to a feverish head. Gamers, from all walks of life have said, "enough is enough."

In response to the hellstrom, EA has announced TEMPORARILY shutting down all micro-transactions for BattleFront 2.

Here are a couple videos discussing the issue.

EA loot

Gamers have had enough

Judging by EA's reputation, this probably is only a ploy to get people to buy the game only for micro-transactions to be re-entered at a later date. The only consolation we, as gamers, can take from this is that we do have an impact on the industry.

To me, the only way to keep this industry from crashing is to get rid of micro-transactions and save the single player experience. Otherwise, I see another gaming crash in the not too distant future. Keep pushing gamers. Now is not the time to relax.




posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Microtransactions are like killing the goose that laid the golden egg.

It was one thing to entice people to pay for completely cosmetic stuff. It's another thing to make people pay for actual game enhancing loot - the pay to win model. I've never gone in for games that do that.

Might be why I actually own very few games.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
The gaming industry is in its dying throes. Indie games and endless remakes of games we've already paid for saw to that. Now it's time to shake our head sadly and watch it crash and burn. They shot themselves in the foot with greed.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: hombero

It won't die. It will likely be much like comics - go through a crash and then slowly rebuild.

Games have crashed before without dying.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: hombero

I personally think trying to make multiplayer a foundation rather than an extra is what has led to the current situation. It isn't going to work. They tried it once before and it failed; now they're more aggressively trying it. They'll learn, but it will most likely be the hard way.
edit on 18-11-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Nah, it's not likely to die, but they're certainly going to have to change direction.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   
I disagree. Multiplayer is the future.

No-one I know enjoys playing single-player games. Micron transactions are also fine, as long as they remain cosmetic.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Key word is temporarily. They'll be back in a differently vampiric but still manipulative way.

I play another EA Star Wars game, Galaxy of Heroes, and we've been getting the shaft on microtransactions for a while now. Slowly getting worse and worse. Some hope this will cause them to re-tool our system but I'm not holding my breath.

The AAA game companies think pretty lowly of their players. This is pretty well documented and needs a serious change all around. Here's to hoping this be a part of a larger paradigm shift going forward. Some other devs have recently pulled or decided not to include loot boxes in their games. So a potential is there.

I'll see your initial video and raise you one lord of the disgruntled. Thank god for Jim.

edit on 18-11-2017 by Noncents because: Change of Praise!



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: SpeakerofTruth
I have said for some time that the gaming industry's push for multiplayer, micro-transactions, loot boxes and trying to phase out single player games, would have a detrimental impact. Now it seems it has all come to a feverish head. Gamers, from all walks of life have said, "enough is enough."

In response to the hellstrom, EA has announced TEMPORARILY shutting down all micro-transactions for BattleFront 2.

Here are a couple videos discussing the issue.

EA loot

Gamers have had enough

Judging by EA's reputation, this probably is only a ploy to get people to buy the game only for micro-transactions to be re-entered at a later date. The only consolation we, as gamers, can take from this is that we do have an impact on the industry.

To me, the only way to keep this industry from crashing is to get rid of micro-transactions and save the single player experience. Otherwise, I see another gaming crash in the not too distant future. Keep pushing gamers. Now is not the time to relax.




I actually prefer multiplayer over any campaign when it comes to FPS. The campaigns aren't something I find challenging in most cases. I've pretty much stopped playing any games that arent free. Fortnite and Paladins are the ones I play, and I get more enjoyment out of those than any game I've ever paid for. Besides the old Counter-Strike, anyway.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthsSword

Stories are great though....Witcher series, Fallout series and Far Cry 2 as examples.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthsSword

I don't like multi-player. There. Now you know one person.

I prefer to play by myself and not have my enjoyment of a game dependent on whether or not I have other people I can play with.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TruthsSword

Lol, every single memorable gaming experience I have had has been from a single player game. EVERY SINGLE ONE. Single player games aren't going anywhere. It is, has been, and always will be the foundation of gaming.

Multiplayer as a side or extra is fine, but it will never work as a foundation for gaming. They're plotless and repetitive. I am sorry, but I know a lot of people who don't care for bland team based multiplayer games, without any real objective other than competition and where you constantly have someone breaking immersion by screaming, playing music, et cetera. Believe it or not, many people play games for an escape from that kind of nonsense.
edit on 18-11-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
There are a lot of phone games like Game of War: Fire Age that pretty much require players to pay to win. When I played, some players were spending more than $1000 on that game. High-level buildings can take upwards of 400 real-life days to finish building, and to speed them up, a player has to pay real money for speed-ups (such as a 30-day speed-up).

As for my opinion of the pay to win Battlefront II, check out this fan-made video of some newb rebel troopers who run into a pay-to-win Darth Vader.

VADER: "Your mom didn't buy you crates?"
Rebel Trooper: "Mom!"

Video Here
edit on 18pmSat, 18 Nov 2017 21:55:10 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

edit on 18pmSat, 18 Nov 2017 21:56:21 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Sometimes, you can tell who paid to win though because they have no clue how to handle what they buy. If you get lucky enough to know what you are doing yourself when you run into one of those, you can sometimes compensate for a skewed power level.

But that only happens if you really know what you are doing inside and out and they're a complete n00b.



posted on Nov, 18 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Here's really the thing. There's always going to be a place for single player and multiplayer games. While I don't like team and competitive multiplayer games, I find them very bland and repetitive, I do like the occasional mmoRPG. With that said, I am primarily a single player person.

There is even room for aesthetic micro-transactions. Though my money will never go towards it, if you want to spend hundreds of dollars to LOOK "fancy," hey, have at it. I have been known to drop $10 or $15 on story content dlc. That's fine. However, having micro-transactions that give you an advantage over other players or some edge over the AI in the game is bull#. What's worse is when it's designed to where there's no feasible way to earn it through gameplay. Having to grind the same # for hundreds of hours to earn something unless you want to drop actual money to buy it is a racket. It's really that simple.
edit on 18-11-2017 by SpeakerofTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

The microtransactional framework is what initially drove me away from Apple products. I didnt want to support that business practice.

Then it infected everwhere so i just stopped gaming almost entirely. Why should i pay for maps rehashed from prior iterations of the game?



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

Like you, having microtransactions for aesthetics is fine. I occasionally dished some extra money for things I wanted here and there, but I never had to have everything. It was only stuff I really wanted and knew I would use a lot. Some things I knew would never or almost never get used, so they "stayed on the shelf" as it were.

The idea of dishing out stuff that made you better is where I draw the line.

I liked it when the one MMORPG I did play started giving out useful loot to active accounts for the amount of time they'd been active, but you wouldn't believe the number of people who whined over that. You got a perk for every three months you'd kept your account active I think, so in a way you had payed for it and it marked out the real veteran players for the most part.

But I likely only liked it because I was a real veteran with an account that had been active since maybe three months after launch.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Same with me.
Can't stand waiting around for a decent group of people to finish a bloody mission.



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth

You'r preaching to the choir. Testify!

I've been gaming for 27 years and I blame one thing for the downfall of gaming...the internet.Back in the day you put in a cartridge, turned the console on and pressed start to play-that's it, now some games require the internet to play!

Many companies use the guise of the 'immersive experience" to justify micro's and always online games, and people are fed up, EA and other companies seem to think every gamer is a 13 year old with mommy's credit card, but in reality the average gamer is 28 and we aren't freaking stupid.

Thankfully there are still game developers out there who do realize that some people want to press start to play and play single player, but the others make lazy attempts to clone other online games to make money, and doing so they break two mortal sins...sloth and greed.



edit on 19-11-2017 by Thecakeisalie because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Macenroe82

Well, that comes down to a game's matching system, which is traditionally horrid in multiplayer games. You'll have a couple of players who are geared well enough to complete the task, and then you'll have 3 or 4 others who aren't even geared well enough to be doing raids, dungeons and such. It's a common problem.




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join