Jump to content
Blakey

Battlefield V

Recommended Posts

@Sambobthe problem with your argument is you're saying that we should all buy the games whatever they pull, which you obviously don't actually believe

 

Enough people didn't buy Star Wars, I'm sure it still sold well, but not as well as EA wanted. Enough people didn't buy Xboxes etc and so on 

 

 

fwiw I'd like to think I've been fairly consistent about this sort of thing, but it probably helps that it mainly happens in games I'm not likely to rush out and buy anyway 😅

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destiny's Eververse is nothing like what BF2 tried to pull. It's such a limp arsed effort at loot boxes I really forget it's there. Not that I'm condoning it. I'm firmly in the camp loot boxes have no place in a premium priced game. Also anything bought that can be advantageous in PvP gameplay has no place in any game - paid or not. 

 

Destiny has its own demons. A premium priced game, with loot boxes and has paid DLC expansions. Eververse was supposed to support 'free' events, much like Overwatch, but they've been a bit thin on the ground. 

 

Idon't mind paid DLC. That's what I'd prefer. I find loot box system exploitative - feeding off of people's inability to say no, or at worst a 'gambling' type of  addiction. IMO if you enjoy a game you'd have no issues with paying for appropriately priced extra content. The key is appropriately priced. You rarely get that - so people don't bother.

 

Right I'm now about to go try n get some exploitative content in Overwatch. Wish me luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that bf2 was deplorable, in fact I think I keep on saying it. I'm saying that its being punished fairly for things it attempted to do but ultimately didn't, when popular games have worse things in them and almost certainly had even worse things planned that didn't see the light of day. My point about destiny was that by merely having the option to spend real life money on loot boxes, its worse than what you can currently do in bf2. I know that bf2 would add a pay system in if it thought it could get away with it but I don't think any other big developer is different. 

 

I'm not defending bf2 at all it got the shoeing it deserved and in fact probably deserved far worse, I hope EA lose the franchise deal, I'm saying the level of hypocrisy around is crazy.

 

Specifically @Sly Reflex said I'm being a hypocrite but I'm not, I've always said I don't like the idea of what's slowly crept into gaming but I've never said I'm above it or better than it or never pretended like I wouldn't play a game because of it if I liked the look of the game. I wouldn't buy Fifa again not because the pay to win lootboxyness of that is against my morals and I must 'vote with my wallet' (whatever the fuck that actually means) but because the way it made the game feel wasn't enjoyable to me, that's what decides whether I buy a game or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking bollocks @Sambob. Just playing SWBFII online means you're pitting against people that could, if they had not been blocked for the duration, have paid to get a leg up on you. The people that pay out for cards are getting power fantasy against the players that have not, in this case people like you that bought into the game saying it's no harm done because you won't buy the MTX. You might not be buying the MTX, but you are helping sell the MTX. When you look at it, you paid in to be the whipping boy for others that are willing to pay more in those situations, and that's bad. The game's rigged, you wouldn't play craps with someone if you knew the dice were weighted in their favour, nor should you be doing it SWBFII, CoD, FIFA, NBA or the upcoming UFC3.

 

I don't think anyone minds paid for DLC @ThreeFour, the issue is that there's a difference between crafting something worth buying and filleting a game so it can be sold back as morsels. If you're going to gut your game and sell it back £1 a shot for a random set of items back, or even do what Destiny 2 has done and half arse a bit of story and gate a lot of content that should have been there from day 1 for everyone, not including putting all the Bright Engram. And that's the thing. If you make a DLC like Witches Blood and Wine you might only make 30% back on it. Quality DLC costs a lot to make. Making a skin or a palette swap, or even just a cards referencing a football player can be marked up 1000's of percent. A bit of graphic design and a link to a player walking out is a lot easier than crafting something like Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep in Borderlands 2. It's all about seeing how they can make the most money with the least effort, and until now they've sort of gotten away with it. There's nothing wrong with offering a product that has some worth behind it, but putting recurrent charges in a game is just greedy as fuck and there's no need for it at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sly Reflex but again, its not in the game is it? People can't pay money to get a leg up and even in the cases where people have got the cards for whatever power or benefit, nobody is really a whipping boy because the improvements in and of themselves aren't game breaking, no more than if you bought the collectors edition of battlefield 3 and got this that and the other unlock.

 

I think it's a case that you want me to be talking bollocks because its a really convenient point to make a stand and pretend that all the bad stuff before wasn't really bad stuff and this bad stuff is much badder than any other bad stuff that had ever happened.

 

In reality if something's bad its bad, and if you are going to set yourself up as some sort of moral compass then its either all bad or it isn't and to define your own shades of grey therein is cherry picking. You can't be okay with Overwatch with its real money purchasable random loot boxes or Destiny 2 with its altered progression systems and paid for cosmetics and one use only cosmetics because its just an area of the game but then boycott bf2 and be a hero, its hypocritical to do so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in the game and it could potentially be back. Again, you don't know that. They were in before you bought it and they could return now they have you as a player. And because they were in before you bought it people could buy them, it's just you've not personally seen that. Those advantages exist. Which before you bought in could be paid for, ergo P2W. I've seen the difference between people playing a base Vader and souped up one and it's ridiculous. I don't agree with the whatever unlocks from past games if they happened to be better than what was in the game. Usually they're early unlocks superseded by other early gear unlocks, unlike (surprise surprise) the last SWBF game which had a blaster that came with the special edition of the game, sure it could be unlocked to play with yourself, but the cunt was hours and hours into the game, most people would never have gotten to use it if it wasn't for purchasing it. If something is sold and it's OP, then that's P2W. There's no sugarcoating that.

 

And yes, I do think you're talking bollocks trying to argue against what I'm saying. The whole thing isn't convenient if it's true. It's all been bad stuff that's merely been tolerated, but I can't do it anymore, the industry is taking the piss. You mentioned a while back that you had friends that were sceptical of anything EA put out because they'd been burned before. It's true. I was talking to @Jimbo Xiii over a round of Everybody's Golf (another game laden with MTX <_<) about how the  last Tiger Woods game I played had an option to max out your character for 400MSP. I didn't realise it at the time because it was all so new, but that was the very definition of P2W. Not only was the online full of people that were unbeatable unless you ponied up, but the game also had a mad as fuck difficulty spike in it that made it practically impossible to beat. It was the last time I'd buy a PGA game because of that, and any game series that tries that shit with me again will be never bought again.

 

I never said I was alright with Overwatch's lootboxes, you can go listen to the podcast I do on Youtube where I rail against skins, or you can ask the people I played Overwatch with when I said I think most of the skins are complete fucking rubbish. They're not even worth looking at, never mind playing or paying for them. I don't see the fascination in them, I dabbled for sure when we played regularly, but I honestly couldn't give a fuck about them

 

Neither am I alright with Bright Engrams or XP throttling, again talked about in the podcasts. I'm not overly fussed with that shit, I'd be quite happy if they weren't in the games at all. They've basically made 'gameplay' out of opening boxes to see if you got lucky this time and gotten something nice. All that stuff should be behind the activities in the game, not behind a desk where you can throw even more cash at it to try and get the nice thing you've had your eye on. Worryingly I think Bungie are looking to make the mods a bit more buffed if I remember reading correctly, so that's an whole other shitstorm coming their way if you can pay for buffs.

 

The thing is people want to feel rewarded. When CoD came out they started putting numbers on the screen. It spread to every single game, numbers popping up each time you got a kill, which filled an XP bar which spread to all games too. When that was no longer enough they started putting the boxes in. It's not enough for people to have interesting games that are rewarding to play, they have to be constantly dishing shit out because people have the attention spans about the length of a funsize Mars Bar. The hook of a good game is next to none existent now, everything has you working towards a fucking box you break open. It's a skinner box where they want you to get involved in the opening of boxes so you'll hopefully drop some money on doing so because you feel like you're not earning them fast enough.

 

I'll boycott more than just SWBFII. I'm fucking tired of this shit. They're not satisfied with having a bit of profit from their games, they want all the profit, and they want it for as little effort as possible. So I miss out on some games I want to play, but I'll discover new games that aren't as brazenly out for more cash. Being greedy gets a big fat fuck off from me. I hope more people come around to that thinking and really give these big publishers something to think over that they're losing sales because of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Battlefield: Bad Company 3 then lads..

 

I love deep tactical shooters like anyone else but i hope, if they do make this they're looking at things like Overwatch/1943 etc and make something with more humour and character than the last few BF games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sly Reflex said:

I don't think anyone minds paid for DLC @ThreeFour, the issue is that there's a difference between crafting something worth buying and filleting a game so it can be sold back as morsels. If you're going to gut your game and sell it back £1 a shot for a random set of items back, or even do what Destiny 2 has done and half arse a bit of story and gate a lot of content that should have been there from day 1 for everyone, not including putting all the Bright Engram. 

I think you're going off at bit if a tangent. One thing debating loot boxes in a premium game but it's entirely different arguing the 'worth' of content. Been down that road to know what one person gets enjoyment from another doesn't. You decide if DLC is worth it, but you get no choice in loot boxes  insidious integration into a games rewards mechanic. I personally think the £15/17 for what people got in the expansion wasn't all that bad, or that the skins in Overwatch and PvE events are fun. But that's a different discussion for elsewhere. The problem is you start reeling off DLC and you start to go into personal preference. That was ok, this was rubbish. Loot boxes, and specifically anything P2W, are bad for the gamer and the future of gaming full stop.

 

The Mods aren't a worry - they're exactly what Destiny needs. Thats largely where the frustration lies. The Meta, the  loot to hunt for. No one really cares about the story.  If, that's If, they're in loot boxes, which I doubt, then yes I agree once again time to fight back. 

 

I think we agree on loot boxes. You've got to pay for extra content somehow. That's the argument for loot boxes by some; it's in place of DLC or subscription. Whether you accept it and how far you'll let it push is the focus here.

 

@Sambob  You don't see a difference between Destiny/Overwatch and What Battlefront was trying? Totally different in my eyes. Yes it's not in the game but they did say loot boxes were coming back later. You're taking it on faith they won't be as bad. But that is the difference for me. The fact they tried it. I love Destiny but the moment they try to implement weapons into loot boxes or something I'll be done. If Battlefront 3 is different I might look into it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is sort of relevant to both the conversation and to Battlefield as well. Google must be spying on me because it put it in my recommended despite not watching them for months.

 

 

Also ties into the Hot Topic thread this week for me. Lots of things I'm wary of now that do megabusters at retail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ThreeFour I think really the difference lies in how much we are aware of and only really that to be honest. Theres a few things that randomly came out of this review of the DLC I was watching the other day, will post it below but not embed it if you want to watch it. Basically they were hiring for a dev to effectively suppress progression behind loot boxes, the advert itself required among other things "Proven track record of designing and implementing monetization systems in AAA games". Unsurprisingly this advert was taken down fairly sharpish. Add to that the fact that now as part of Eververse you can actually buy items that will give you a gameplay advantage (also mentioned in the video), in the form of a ghost that gives you an experience boost. The DLC, which is not free, removes content (the video says 15%) from the game if you dont have it (although I think I had read that thisis due to be changed?) Its not game breaking but as I said, the differences are not many and mainly lie in what has actually come to light. Its worth again pointing out that BF2 did not launch with an ability to spend real life money and wont have a season pass and so far, has had free DLC released for it in terms of multiplayer, and single player content.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oaJ_2buafY

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly I didn't pay much attention to Battlefield because it's really not my sort of thing, but I thought you could spend real money there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@SambobI know they turned it off, but it wasn't reviewers complaining about it, so they must have been selling currency or something at release? 

 

Edit: what are you counting as release? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefront had paid currency and was turned off and will be back. Battlefield, I don’t think so, though I’m not 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sambob

 

I agree to be more vigilant in practices that go on but you also need to have context and perspective. The XP boost ghost provides no gameplay advantage for instance. Those guys should know that if they've played it. Power level which determines your 'level' (not a factor in PvP I might add) is gained from your weapons and armour. Your XP gives you Bright Engrams on level up; so in effect they're giving you 1 free loot box every 10. Not something to complain about to me.

 

The DLC gating content wasn't clever, but again I said elsewhere I think that's an unintentional side effect to how they're progressing with DLC this time. Last time raids were left behind but this time they progress with the new Power level in a DLC. Of course this then means your locked out. In D1 they didn't have this issue. They're 'fixing' it though. Which means the Raid will be back to 300. Boo for people wanting choice in which raid they want to do to level up. A stupid situation, don't know why they don't have tiered levels where those without DLC can't access the higher levels, but still have access to what they had 😕

 

None of these issues compare to what was proposed in BF2 tho and the fact they explicitly said they'll be coming back in is a no-no for me.

 

I'm still going to keep an eye on Bad Company 3 though. I loved 2. If this is just cosmetic boxes, if any 😉, I'll likely bite. That's my line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Wars Battlefront II had purchases in which were turned off shortly after release. EA Access users got an extra week of that or something.

 

Battlefield is a real clusterfuck of purchases.

 

Bad  Company 2 was the first one to introduce it. Day 1 was a VIP pass, which if you didn't buy the game new you had to buy to get the maps, which were all free if you bought the game new. If you got the collector's edition you got a few weapons early, but since everything was balanced it was a personal preference thing. Those guns could be unlocked in a sessions play as well going off memory. There was another mode that came out that costs something like 400MSP that was a PvE clear the stages as you would a PvP map, but with some extra stuff going on. Vietnam was a full blown DLC that cost about 1200MSP and included a whole host of levels, vehicles, new objectives to chase, weapons and licensed music. There were the SPECTAT kits that brought a retuned gun for each class and an alt camo for each class. The kit shortcuts showed up as well in the game, not really sure why because you could have everything you wanted unlocked in a short time of playing. Returning players got a Garand M1, but it was statistically another gun reskinned with unique sound effects.

 

Battlefield 3 went all out. Season pass, kit shortcuts, online pass for players buying used and a plethora of preorder shite that was broken up between retailers. DLC was also sold separately if you didn't want the season pass. On top of that you could rent servers, which were super expensive.

 

Battlefield 4 did all of the above (minus an online pass) and added battlepacks. I think here we start to see the whole pushing of kit shortcuts, since getting levelled up to get the stuff for each class took forever. Compare getting the ammo crate to getting it in Bad Company 2, it was 1 game in one and multiple nights in the other. Battlepacks offered alternatives to stuff you unlocked, but where statistically the same as the things you got by using the guns. There was one sight that was way better than anything else you could unlock though, which is super shitty.

 

Hardline. Didn't play it. I bought it in a sale for quids, but I've never even booted it up. Someone will have to fill in the blanks, although I'm guessing it's the same as above.

 

Battlefield 1. Same as above, but they changed battlepacks to crates. Also because there's no attachments on WWI guns they had some sort for game going on that was so obtuse I never figured it out in my limited time with the game.

 

Unless there's a big change of heart, I think BC3 will have lootboxes of some sort in, as well as maybe paid maps. When you're one of the big two you don't need to change shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ain't no brexiteer! 😱

 

The nature of rumours I'm afraid, they don't always turn out 😢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VentureBeat Rumour: Battlefield 2 (2018) follows Call of Duty back to World War II this year

 

This follows YouTuber rumours earlier this year that DICE is making Battlefield World War 2 for 2018, followed by Battlefield: Bad Company 3 for 20XX.

 

Quote

 

Just like World War I got a sequel, Battlefield 1 is getting Battlefield 2 later this year. And as you might expect from that name, Battlefield 2 will return the series to World War II in a main entry for the first time since 2009’s Battlefield 1943, GamesBeat has learned from sources familiar with EA’s plans. These sources wish to remain anonymous.

I reached out to EA to offer a chance to comment. I’ll update this story if it provides a statement.

 

EA and Battlefield developer DICE decided on this strategy several years ago. They knew they wanted to get away from the modern and near-future settings for a while, but it also didn’t want to burn the WWII setting right away. This led the studio to start with WWI knowing that it could always still go to WWII with the next game if Battlefield 1 didn’t work out. Of course, that wasn’t the case — Battlefield I finished 2016 as the No. 2 best-selling game in the United States, according to the industry-tracking firm The NPD Group.

 

Battlefield I is a huge success for EA. It sold faster than Battlefield 4, and it has surpassed 25 million players as of December.

 

 

4FCA4223-A562-4FA6-BCFB-EAE71869159B.jpeg

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...