32 minutes ago, spacelion said:

Thank God it's not FFG, I was afraid I'd have to spend multiple hours and credits to unlock something that might be nerfed sometime in the future.

I just hope ffg isn't following suit.......

I can see it now, xwing 2.0 where the generics come with the mini but the aces and upgrades are random from the full pool available at release.

34 minutes ago, Ralgon said:

I just hope ffg isn't following suit.......

I can see it now, xwing 2.0 where the generics come with the mini but the aces and upgrades are random from the full pool available at release.

Funny because they’ve expressed solid no’s to both of those in the past. Well card packs are a definite no. Any game will need a 2.0 eventually.

Also the fundamental difference between EA which holds a monopoly on packs and content and something like XWM is the secondary market. I don’t have to support FFG if I don’t want to. I can buy all my stuff off eBay or second hand through my FLGS or something. I choose to support FFG, but I don’t have to in order to play the game.

In fact, I can pretty much 3-D print my own game on thingverse and cut out FFG entirely if I wanted to. But I’d never get to play in anything other than a store event (maybe).

this is far from FFGs problem. You could make the case for palp and C-3P0 but no one forced you to buy them from ffg. There’s always the secondary market for those guys. I’m not saying the devs are perfect and don’t have their own set of problems (adequate FAQ support) , but the resemblance to EA business practices are far away.

Is the campaign the only thing available in single player? I so want a game with skirmishes like the original Battlefront, which is why I was so disappointed that the 2015 version only had that in multiplayer.

I was seriously considering to buy Battlefront EA 2, then came the lootbox issue. It's not that I would play tons and tons of multiplayer, since the campaign interests me more, but out of principle, I'm not supporting this game. Regardless of how pretty it looks or how much content it has.

Freemium mobile game lootbox cryptocurrency pay-2-win economy has nothing to do in a AAA premium game with a $60 $80 entry fee. It's inexcusable walletraping, and if people allow it, it will become the new industry standard soon.

23 minutes ago, Captain Pellaeon said:

I was seriously considering to buy Battlefront EA 2, then came the lootbox issue. It's not that I would play tons and tons of multiplayer, since the campaign interests me more, but out of principle, I'm not supporting this game. Regardless of how pretty it looks or how much content it has.

Freemium mobile game lootbox cryptocurrency pay-2-win economy has nothing to do in a AAA premium game with a $60 $80 entry fee. It's inexcusable walletraping, and if people allow it, it will become the new industry standard soon.

I agree with this. As much as I want to play this game, the loot crate issue has made me decide to stay away from it altogether.

As mentioned elsewhere, I don't see any issue with the lootbox issue. The complaints are both trivial and laughable to me, when you're talking about simply having the option to pay to unlock something that's already in the game and acheivable by you know, actually playing the game.

Would people really prefer to have to fork out money for a season pass? For paid multiplayer DLC (which their friends would also have to purchase if they wanted to play with them)? Would people really prefer to buy individual character or weapon upgrade packs, which aren't available through playing the game normally? Because those are all worse alternatives regularly employed by other studios who haven't been getting anywhere near the hate EA have for the totally optional microtransactions in Battlefront II.

The system employed by EA here is really no different from the system employed by EA in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer mode. Free multiplayer DLC (including maps, characters, enemies, weapons, abilities etc), that can be unlocked by purchasing RNG crates with credits earned in game OR by paying actual money to speed up the process. That game was actually praised at the time for it's approach to multiplayer, for not splitting the player base by hiding maps and characters behind a paywall (like so many other companies did and still do).

The multiplayer is free to play. The DLC (when it arrives) will be free to play (and thus not divide the player base). There's no Season Pass. The multiplayer rewards - characters, upgrades and abilities - are all available to everyone, whether they pay or not. The only difference being those who decide they can afford to pay extra can unlock them faster .

If you don't want to pay, don't pay. It's really as simple as that.

If FFG made Battlefront you'd get the Stormtrooper armour in Battlefront but you'd need to buy Madden'18 to get the blaster rifle, and ammunition for the blaster rifle would be in Sims 4. Meanwhile you could only get the Jedi Master title to upgrade tatooine Luke from the epic Need For Speed Deluxe Edition box.

Nothing like a nice bit of hyperbole to really set you up for the rest of the day, eh Two Accounts?

'Two accounts'. It's such an odd thing to latch onto. So many people have multiple accounts on here and I was the most transparent about it of anyone. Stay On The Leader, and then when that one got suspended for running my mouth I had SOTL for a short period, then moved back to Stay On The Leader when the suspension ran out and I figured out how to clear my cookies and log out of SOTL on various devices.

Go ahead and keeping hitting it, though. Makes no difference to me!

No need to get defensive, Two Accounts. You don't need to explain yourself to me.

1 hour ago, FTS Gecko said:

The system employed by EA here is really no different from the system employed by EA in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer mode. Free multiplayer DLC (including maps, characters, enemies, weapons, abilities etc), that can be unlocked by purchasing RNG crates with credits earned in game OR by paying actual money to speed up the process. That game was actually praised at the time for it's approach to multiplayer, for not splitting the player base by hiding maps and characters behind a paywall (like so many other companies did and still do).

The multiplayer is free to play. The DLC (when it arrives) will be free to play (and thus not divide the player base). There's no Season Pass. The multiplayer rewards - characters, upgrades and abilities - are all available to everyone, whether they pay or not. The only difference being those who decide they can afford to pay extra can unlock them faster .

The difference is that ME3 is PvE so someone who buys ****-Me-In-The-***-EA-Oh-Yeah-I-Love-It-Harder-Harder-Daddy Edition and then drops extra 300 euros for lootboxes doesn't have an advantage over those who don't pay extra because they don't compete with each other.

Free to play multiplayer for 60 euros, good one

This game is an epithomy of everything wrong with games today. You play for 40 hours to unlock one of the basic heroes like Luke ******* Skywalker, and at the same time you can't buy lootboxes because it also costs credits, so you will be at a disadvantage not having good cards, and yes, 20% to firepower or 40% to health is a huge advantage.

Then comes the community outrage and EA pretends to reduce the prices, while at the same time they stealthy reduce all the rewards. That's beyond messed up.

And then the scummy combo x9000 ends with them removing the refund button so that everyone who doesn't want to be responsible for the downfall of gaming by supporting this **** has to go extra mile to get their money back. But maybe they deserved it for supporting another cancer, preorders.

Look at Overwatch, or even better Titanfall 2 for games which have free DLCs and cosmetic lootboxes/cosmetic non-lootbox microtransactions.

It's outrageous that Disney gave exclusive rights to ******* literally-Hitler of videogames. With all their manpower, all those internal studios and all this money they could use to pay the external ones, after four years since that deal they've released 2 games: A Blatant Cash Grab, and A Blatant Cash Grab 2: Even Worse. And we've just learned that the next one has been trashed because it was a story-focused single player experience, and this genre can't be milked with lootboxes... which means another few years of delays, so probably the next Star Wars game will be A Blatant Cash Grab 3: You Thought It Can't Get Worse in two years.

10 minutes ago, eMeM said:

The difference is that ME3 is PvE so someone who buys ****-Me-In-The-***-EA-Oh-Yeah-I-Love-It-Harder-Harder-Daddy Edition and then drops extra 300 euros for lootboxes doesn't have an advantage over those who don't pay extra because they don't compete with each other.

Free to play multiplayer for 60 euros, good one

This game is an epithomy of everything wrong with games today. You play for 40 hours to unlock one of the basic heroes like Luke ******* Skywalker, and at the same time you can't buy lootboxes because it also costs credits, so you will be at a disadvantage not having good cards, and yes, 20% to firepower or 40% to health is a huge advantage.

Then comes the community outrage and EA pretends to reduce the prices, while at the same time they stealthy reduce all the rewards. That's beyond messed up.

And then the scummy combo x9000 ends with them removing the refund button so that everyone who doesn't want to be responsible for the downfall of gaming by supporting this **** has to go extra mile to get their money back. But maybe they deserved it for supporting another cancer, preorders.

Look at Overwatch, or even better Titanfall 2 for games which have free DLCs and cosmetic lootboxes/cosmetic non-lootbox microtransactions.

It's outrageous that Disney gave exclusive rights to ******* literally-Hitler of videogames. With all their manpower, all those internal studios and all this money they could use to pay the external ones, after four years since that deal they've released 2 games: A Blatant Cash Grab, and A Blatant Cash Grab 2: Even Worse. And we've just learned that the next one has been trashed because it was a story-focused single player experience, and this genre can't be milked with lootboxes... which means another few years of delays, so probably the next Star Wars game will be A Blatant Cash Grab 3: You Thought It Can't Get Worse in two years.

It's a sad day when a glorified team fortress 2 by blizzard for 40 dollars is the example of a good business modell.

How is the single player campaign in this game? and do you have to go online and play with others or is it stand alone? I thought the previous one was all flash and no substance and got boring fast! really wish they would make a KOTOR 3!!

Just now, Swedge said:

How is the single player campaign in this game? and do you have to go online and play with others or is it stand alone? I thought the previous one was all flash and no substance and got boring fast! really wish they would make a KOTOR 3!!

stand alone, but it's terribly short from reviews.

I read yesterday they EA backed down on the 40 hours per character. The backlash was huge and the thread on Reddit discussing it is the highest down rated thread of all time on Reddit. So, they changed it to 6 hours of game play per character. That's reasonable to me.

I don't get the issues with the game. I enjoyed the last game and will enjoy this game. DLC was a failure due to splitting the player base. I liked having different formats to switch between. The new one looks better.

All first person shooters have unlock systems. Most of the time it's nothing game breaking you can unlock. If it is, it gets nerfed. It adds something to work towards. Keeps the game from getting stale.

I pre ordered and am looking forward to it.

They reduced the price but at the same time secretly lowered the rewards.

Heroes are just the icing on a cake. It's unacceptable to have lootboxes with items affecting the gameplay in a 60 euro game.

I used to play APB Reloaded, and even that game (which many would call p2w but at least it was free) had enough decency to give its equivalent of cards bonuses and penalties , and higher the bonus, higher the penalty (for example card lvl 1 a small bonus to healthy, small speed penalty, lvl 3 significant health bonus, significant speed reduction). ****, EA's Battlefields have something similar with weapon mods, e.g. heavy barrel increases accuracy but also recoil

In BFront the more expensive/rarer c ard is always better, and having one equipped is always better than not. And you can gamble for them with real money.

I have yet to actually get the game, I played the campaign on a friend's system.

I played through the campaign yesterday and had a blast. I thought of it more as a fan service type of story and enjoyed every minute of it. The game played well and looked great on a Scorpio.

Unacceptable? What a joke. It's a freakin video game. You get random rewards. The upgrades aren't game breaking. You can still play the game fine without the upgrades. If these random upgrades made the game broken, then it would be an issue. They aren't, though.

I swear that it seems everyone wants to get outraged by something these days. I buy maybe one video game a year and play the heck out of it. I pre ordered this one and don't expect another game till end if 2018.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the new officer class

1 minute ago, heychadwick said:

Unacceptable? What a joke. It's a freakin video game. You get random rewards. The upgrades aren't game breaking. You can still play the game fine without the upgrades. If these random upgrades made the game broken, then it would be an issue. They aren't, though.

I swear that it seems everyone wants to get outraged by something these days. I buy maybe one video game a year and play the heck out of it. I pre ordered this one and don't expect another game till end if 2018.

And this is why I abandoned video games for XWM.

17 minutes ago, heychadwick said:

I read yesterday they EA backed down on the 40 hours per character. The backlash was huge and the thread on Reddit discussing it is the highest down rated thread of all time on Reddit. So, they changed it to 6 hours of game play per character. That's reasonable to me.

I don't get the issues with the game. I enjoyed the last game and will enjoy this game. DLC was a failure due to splitting the player base. I liked having different formats to switch between. The new one looks better.

All first person shooters have unlock systems . Most of the time it's nothing game breaking you can unlock. If it is, it gets nerfed. It adds something to work towards. Keeps the game from getting stale.

I pre ordered and am looking forward to it.

They don't and it is just a convention blindly copied from CoD. None of the classics have it, there you have to pick up weapons from the map rather than beforehand. Overwatch doesn't have it. CS:GO doesn't have it. Both games benefit a lot from always offering a level playing fields.

In my opinion unlock systems in general are trash. The only factor in winning a game should be your skill. Not for how long you have played it, only how good you have gotten at it. Certainly not how much you payed extra. And unlocks will always provide you with an advantage, since you will be able to adapt to situations better. Worse, what is locked and what isn't is completely arbitrary, so maybe you need to grind for a long time to be able to enjoy the game the way you'd like to. A simple example for this is scopes in CoD. They barely make a difference if any, but most players have a certain preference or may dislike other choices. What if you have to play with the scopes you hate for 10 hours, just to be able to enjoy the game? What if you unlock one that you won't ever use, is that rewarding? It just isn't a good system.

The psychology behind why they are liked anyways is pretty well known, but also vanishes pretty quickly of you have been on the wrong side of the grind a few times and understand it. It honestly is shocking that so many games still rely on it to fake over their not enjoyable enough core gameplay loop.

Now back to Battlefront, here the whole deal is attached to randomization, making it even less reliable in getting what you want and since there is monetization attached, EA has a motivation to make it even more frustrating and less player friendly. This game has a worse free to play economy than a number of actual free to play games (DOTA2, TF2, Blacklight...) and that should not be acceptable. I was very excited when I heard they cut the nonsense from last game, but this, while it may not seem so in the beginning, is far worse.

11 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Preface: I am aware of and do not support the lootbox systems in the game. I think it's pretty scuzzy, but I wasn't about to miss this campaign and honestly, the MP feels just fine. I'm feeling no major advantage from my pre-order content nor am I witnessing any one or several people utterly dominate without a suitable rebuttal. I'm no apologist for EA- screw them. But I do think the game is fun. Now...

I think the story is really good. I'm quite severely disappointed that we are JUST NOT ALLOWED to have proper Imperials but at the same time, at the same time... Iden and Del defected for VERY good reason. Nobody acted out of character, the pacing was excellent , just. I really loved this Campaign. As for my multiplayer experiences... Well. I gained MVP as Kylo Ren with 5000+ score in his TIE Silencer.

I showed them the power of the Dark Side.

SPOILER MUCH.... ****.

It was pretty obvious they would but come on man.

Also, OP we have a thread for BF2 and in the proper forum -

EDIT- Wow that worked, got it moved.

1 hour ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

They don't and it is just a convention blindly copied from CoD. None of the classics have it, there you have to pick up weapons from the map rather than beforehand. Overwatch doesn't have it. CS:GO doesn't have it. Both games benefit a lot from always offering a level playing fields.

OK....maybe not EVERY game, but enough of them that it's pretty industry standard. Or...not shocking when it is introduced. It is in Battlefield games that EA also makes, which I play a lot of.

Now, let me talk about EA's Battlefield 1. They have unlocked weapons and config boosts based on playing the game more. I can tell you that all the weapons trade pros and cons. Some are pretty good, but many people still use the basic weapons you start with. EA also did the last SWBF that had unlockable weapons. They all had pros and cons and I felt the base weapons were usually my facorite. Did some have pros that helped in certain situations? Sure, but they also had cons that made them bad in others.

I don't know where you are getting this idea that these bonus weapons will be so amazing.

While I think it's all being blown out of proportion I did like this...

https://i.imgur.com/5lKYfh6.gifv

13 hours ago, Zucch10 said:

Not buying, won’t support predatory practices at all.

It’s not just the price. It’s the hours and hours required to unlock stuff. I have no desire to do that. Frankly I want a dogfighting game that I can play here and there for smaller chunks of time that looks amazing and has all the ships with both multiplayer and campaign mode.

FPS games are pretty boring actually.