Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I for one hope this is the beginning of the end of this cancer known as microtransactions, gambling and countless dlc. I don't mind working for something that requires work, I play games like World of Warships where after 2000 battles over 3 years I still don't have a single tier x ship (ships are divided into tiers from 1 to 10, 10 being the highest). I know about grind, dedication and how rewarding it can be.
And then there is EA with their lootboxes (gambling) and other microtransactions. EA with games that require you to buy them twice (base game + a season pass that costs the same as the base game) to fully enjoy them. And that's not all, because on top of all that money you have to spend on them, you have a painful grind in front of you.. unless you give them some more money. Oh you'd like to buy the character you're a fan of ? Well, you can't. You can buy a lootbox that has a really small chance of having that character and some credits - you can buy the character with those. But only after you convert your local currency to credits, using the crap exchange rate EA comes up with, by buying more loot boxes.
I get it with free2play games like the mentioned WoWs that the grind can be long and painful. Thing is, these games are free to play. They have to make their money somehow. You don't pay for them initially, but you pay for speeding up this painful grind. And it's ok.
Here? Pay us, pay us again and then keep paying us again and again. You don't get the "free" part of f2p, but on the other hand, unless you spend a lot of money on top of what you spent already, you'll get the long grind.
As for Vader being p2w.. well, I'm not sure. Initially having a powerful characters when everybody else is an ewok with a stick or whatnot might be bad for game balance, but eventually the issue would keep getting smaller, as more people played the game and unlocked more powerful characters.
Generally though, the game seems to be a victim of marketing. Core gameplay seems solid, graphics looks great.. but some decisions that were made, I believe, not by the developers but by the publishers, drag it down significantly. Too bad a solid game will be hurt because of it, but maybe it will show EA there's a better way of going after your customers than milking them until they die.
This is one of my new favorite comments. Well done.
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one sick of EA's abuse. At one point I loved the Battlefield series, but they've been sliding downhill since number 3. BF4 is still somewhat enjoyable, but BF1 is a waste of good money. In fairness, EA has been greedy about expansions since early in the series, but early on you got some pretty cool new toys to mess around with. I mean, Spec Ops for BF2 added grappling hooks and ziplines that changed mechanics - for the time period, that was revolutionary. Now it seems to be a couple of maps and maybe some new cosmetics - a new weapon or vehicle if you're lucky.
This is one of my new favorite comments. Well done.
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one sick of EA's abuse. At one point I loved the Battlefield series, but they've been sliding downhill since number 3. BF4 is still somewhat enjoyable, but BF1 is a waste of good money. In fairness, EA has been greedy about expansions since early in the series, but early on you got some pretty cool new toys to mess around with. I mean, Spec Ops for BF2 added grappling hooks and ziplines that changed mechanics - for the time period, that was revolutionary. Now it seems to be a couple of maps and maybe some new cosmetics - a new weapon or vehicle if you're lucky.
I think of all publishers EA has some stinkers to be sure, but for overall levels of nickel and diming it's a close run race. Bungie made more off micro transactions than DLC/season passes, with Eververse in Destiny 1 and 2, that's not on EA, the horrible kludge in Deus Ex: Mankind Divided of Praxis kits (augmentations), microtransactions, and companion app (with its own microtransactions), and seemingly unfinished storyline wasn't EA either, and of course GTA online has microtransactions up the Whazzoo.
Now before we all curse the name Electronic Arts, consider what gaming is today vs. 10 years ago. I recently picked up GR:Wildlands and The Division combo on sale, cost me $15, played em liked them so I sprang the $10 season passes ($35 for two AAA/AA Titles), they're both completely different animals than when first released and both interesting and fun (and Wildlands supports 4k HDR on console, Division coming soon). This wasn't an option 10 years ago. 10 years ago I'd probably at best found them in a bargain bin tried them found multiplayer devoid and dumped them.
Now microtransactions aren't cool, but, if you have vanity items or early unlocks, I don't see an issue. I mean you can hire a South Korean to level up and collect epic items for your game of choice, so you can't stop people with the cash getting good loot, or accelerating their progress. Further if that income is reinvested in the game ecology then it helps everyone playing, not just those paying the transaction charges. Meaning games like The Division and Wildlands and Destiny have vibrant game communities who are receiving more content and challenges than from a flat fire and forget game. It's a different model and sure it's different pricing, but, we're all kind of conditioned to not want to pay more than $60 for a standard edition, which is the same cost as a PS2 game at the time of its release (adjusting for inflation), is that a fair price given the exponential increase in actual content we now have (and multiplayer)?
It's a different model and sure it's different pricing, but, we're all kind of conditioned to not want to pay more than $60 for a standard edition, which is the same cost as a PS2 game at the time of its release (adjusting for inflation), is that a fair price given the exponential increase in actual content we now have (and multiplayer)?
To be fair, we got more game for our $60 10 years ago than we do now. Now they give us barebones games(there are a few exceptions) and charge extra for every little thing. We used to get full expansions for another $30, now we get DLC which is usually just a few new maps.
Then they design the system to practically force you into microtransactions. Which is what happened with BF2.
To be fair, we got more game for our $60 10 years ago than we do now. Now they give us barebones games(there are a few exceptions) and charge extra for every little thing. We used to get full expansions for another $30, now we get DLC which is usually just a few new maps.
Then they design the system to practically force you into microtransactions. Which is what happened with BF2.
Erm not really. I know it may seem like that, but in general you get a LOT more content (and remember just the base game needs more content to support 1080p 60fps, or 4k). Nostalgia is not an accurate measure of what was (I know I just blew $15 on Crackdown it's 4k Enhanced and I'm very disappointed in what is a very good game, but nostalgia...). Think about it, CoD my first 1000 gamerscore game 10 chapters, no online multiplayer, and considered one of the best CoD titles, compare that to BLOpsII, online multiplayer, branching storyline, yada, yada.
Look at Warframe, PUBG, Fortnite, Fallout 4, AC:Origins, Overwatch even though I hate the nickel and diming GTAV. Sure there are bad examples too CoD, BF, to name but two. It's not just DLC, but new game modes, increased level caps (or alternative experience gains), new items, community challenges, I'll bet you've probably loaded up something you own and seen a bunch of new stuff and just thought you'd missed it first time around because it came in a update patch without much fanfare. 10 years ago you were lucky to get day 1 bugs fixed in a 12 month old game update on a console, and you'd have to be completely out of your mind to think you'd get something like Co-op multiplayer in the base game. Now it's happening right under your nose.
Now sure you may not play PvE or Pvp or Co-op. That doesn't mean it's not content available to you. Seriously go back and look at typical games 10 years ago, not the Oblivion or FO3s, but typical, or look at comparisons, I already mentioned AC:Origins compare that to AC (The Original), ok AC wander around ride a horse struggle to climb, find flags across the Levant. Now Origins, wander around, ride a horse chariot or camel, race chariots, fight in the arena, select and use multiple weapons, fight with and against triremes, find around a dozen different collectibles, explore dungeons and tombs, fight gods still struggle to climb occasionally . You telling me AC has more content than AC:Origins, Farcry 2 has more content than Farcry 4 (soon to be FC5), or is nostalgia just doing what it does which is tell us how good the good old days were, but they just weren't really that good when you look objectively.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. You telling me AC has more content than AC:Origins, Farcry 2 has more content than Farcry 4 (soon to be FC5), or is nostalgia just doing what it does which is tell us how good the good old days were, but they just weren't really that good when you look objectively.
