EA (Temporarily) Removing Microtransactions from Battlefront 2

45
Top comments
It's great that gamers have finally brought attention to the pay-to-win issue, but they really need to use this situation to highlight the problem with loot boxes. Paying real money just for a chance of getting an item you actually want is awful - this is gambling, and children shouldn't be exposed to it... Example.

I've spent money on these things, I'm an adult, I can afford it, and I was happy each time I spent the money. I was less happy when I added up all the transactions. I want to play Zelda, but decided a Switch was too expensive for one game. If I had saved my £7.56 each time instead of buying keys to open boxes in Rocket League, I'd have had enough to buy the Switch by now.

Gambling aside, it's absurd that we have become used to paying extra for customisation. Some of the wheels in Rocket League are worth hundreds of pounds just by virtue of being a different colour. I remember games letting you change things for free. Yes, I'm that old.
catbeans38 m ago

I agree with the above and also hate micro-transactions. But my question …I agree with the above and also hate micro-transactions. But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions? Game design and development has got very expensive and that is one of the reasons these have become prevalent, especially for MP games that run for years (I know it's not the only reason , profit blah blah, but that's not what I'm asking)



The whole “games are expensive to make” argument has been ripped to shreds and disproven. Microtransactions are only about more profit. Don’t believe the AAA developers playing the poor little victims.

The narrative has been repeated for years now with a different excuse every time. Piracy, trading in games, development costs have sky rocketed, games haven’t increased in cost (Complete BS as games have increased £20 since PS2) etc.

Take one look at these big AAA publisher’s financial results and you’ll see how untrue it is. They’re posting billions in profit each year and even more is stored away in offshore tax havens.

When a company like Ninja Theory can release Hellblade and succeed without a AAA price tag, then it just shows that the likes of EA are talking nonsense, or they are admitting that their business is ran extremely badly. Whichever they choose, neither is a good look.
No one's really noticed, because it isn't Star Wars, but the new 'Need for Speed' game has a terrible loot crate/P2W system too.
45 Comments
It's great that gamers have finally brought attention to the pay-to-win issue, but they really need to use this situation to highlight the problem with loot boxes. Paying real money just for a chance of getting an item you actually want is awful - this is gambling, and children shouldn't be exposed to it... Example.

I've spent money on these things, I'm an adult, I can afford it, and I was happy each time I spent the money. I was less happy when I added up all the transactions. I want to play Zelda, but decided a Switch was too expensive for one game. If I had saved my £7.56 each time instead of buying keys to open boxes in Rocket League, I'd have had enough to buy the Switch by now.

Gambling aside, it's absurd that we have become used to paying extra for customisation. Some of the wheels in Rocket League are worth hundreds of pounds just by virtue of being a different colour. I remember games letting you change things for free. Yes, I'm that old.
I agree with the above and also hate micro-transactions.

But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions? Game design and development has got very expensive and that is one of the reasons these have become prevalent, especially for MP games that run for years (I know it's not the only reason , profit blah blah, but that's not what I'm asking)
catbeans21 m ago

But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if …But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions?


I rarely buy anything full price now. I mainly play on PC, so 99% of the games I own are from bundles. The few games I do buy full price are PS4 exclusives. Generally I can sell those on right after playing, and lose £5-10. So, it'd make little difference to me if they were £20 more. I bought The Witcher 3 and Dark Souls 3 at full price on PC. I don't regret either purchase, and would have paid £20 more quite happily (shh, don't tell them).

I don't think gamers generally would be happy if the cost of games were to rise, but they'll be better off in the long run by making informed choices, rather than chucking an unspecified amount of money at games on a whim.
Edited by: "bo0td" 17th Nov 2017
catbeans38 m ago

I agree with the above and also hate micro-transactions. But my question …I agree with the above and also hate micro-transactions. But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions? Game design and development has got very expensive and that is one of the reasons these have become prevalent, especially for MP games that run for years (I know it's not the only reason , profit blah blah, but that's not what I'm asking)



The whole “games are expensive to make” argument has been ripped to shreds and disproven. Microtransactions are only about more profit. Don’t believe the AAA developers playing the poor little victims.

The narrative has been repeated for years now with a different excuse every time. Piracy, trading in games, development costs have sky rocketed, games haven’t increased in cost (Complete BS as games have increased £20 since PS2) etc.

Take one look at these big AAA publisher’s financial results and you’ll see how untrue it is. They’re posting billions in profit each year and even more is stored away in offshore tax havens.

When a company like Ninja Theory can release Hellblade and succeed without a AAA price tag, then it just shows that the likes of EA are talking nonsense, or they are admitting that their business is ran extremely badly. Whichever they choose, neither is a good look.
Biddy21 h, 5 m ago

The whole “games are expensive to make” argument has been ripped to shreds …The whole “games are expensive to make” argument has been ripped to shreds and disproven. Microtransactions are only about more profit. Don’t believe the AAA developers playing the poor little victims. The narrative has been repeated for years now with a different excuse every time. Piracy, trading in games, development costs have sky rocketed, games haven’t increased in cost (Complete BS as games have increased £20 since PS2) etc. Take one look at these big AAA publisher’s financial results and you’ll see how untrue it is. They’re posting billions in profit each year and even more is stored away in offshore tax havens.When a company like Ninja Theory can release Hellblade and succeed without a AAA price tag, then it just shows that the likes of EA are talking nonsense, or they are admitting that their business is ran extremely badly. Whichever they choose, neither is a good look.



$10 million to make Hellblade , a short , repetitive , esthetically pleasing but up close ugly game VS Battlefront where the licensing is probably more than 10mil to start isn't really a great comparison, what's that 1/15 of BF2 budget for Hellblade, has it got 1/15 of BF2's gameplay and development mmm. That's without getting into 4k, multiplayer Vs non multiplayer etc. I would argue also the scale and quality of games has increased massively since PS2 aswell and PS2 games were not cheap £30~40 (so inflation you are looking at what £45 in today's money), similarly ps one was £30~40 with platinum games being £20. Let's not even get into the £50~70 cartridges. I don't buy a game nowadays above £40, so no the prices haven't really increased, unless you pre-order digital copies, then by not much considering inflation. So no it's a very real question and issue in the games industry today.
Edited by: "catbeans" 17th Nov 2017
It's funny that as soon as mainstream media like BBC and CNN covered the story today and started asking Disney for comment they disabled them literally within a couple of hours.

The microtransaction system is so geared towards buying loot boxes that the game has a 3 hour cooldown once you hit a certain amount of credits in arcade mode. That's like if I played rainbow six siege terrorist hunt for a couple games then the game said nope no more credits for you for 3 hours, gotta grind PvP now It was calculated you'd need to play 40 hours to buy a hero and that's without using credits on anything else.

£50 to buy a game that works like a free p2w mobile game. The multiplayer should be f2p with the system they have.
Edited by: "sweeten16" 17th Nov 2017
Just a bit of PR before Christmas to sell a few units, it'll be back almost unchanged because they know once people buy the game a large enough percentage will buy in order to get their monies worth out of the game, how much is monies worth depends but i think its normally about the price again of yhe game
catbeans2 h, 44 m ago

I agree with the above and also hate micro-transactions. But my question …I agree with the above and also hate micro-transactions. But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions? Game design and development has got very expensive and that is one of the reasons these have become prevalent, especially for MP games that run for years (I know it's not the only reason , profit blah blah, but that's not what I'm asking)


If you want to complain about the costs of game design then point the finger at people like sony, Nintendo and Microsoft with their exorbitant license fees, dev tool rental and submission costs.
All upgrades (paid or earned over time) are crap for people like me who join multiplayer late (when the game is cheap). I hate multiplayer for this reason. Yet I loved Doom 1&2 link ups, level playing field and the upgrades appeared to all.
Please don’t buy this game. Let this tank. EA just want to recover their launch week sales. They will fk us again when they have enough sales.
Avatar
deleted800342
Bigspin6 m ago

Please don’t buy this game. Let this tank. EA just want to recover their l …Please don’t buy this game. Let this tank. EA just want to recover their launch week sales. They will fk us again when they have enough sales.


I'm just waiting a few months until it's in the EA Access vault
It’s a trap! This is a load of PR BS. EA are scum and they will put the MTs and Lootboxes back in to the game.
sweeten165 h, 53 m ago

It's funny that as soon as mainstream media like BBC and CNN covered the …It's funny that as soon as mainstream media like BBC and CNN covered the story today and started asking Disney for comment they disabled them literally within a couple of hours. The microtransaction system is so geared towards buying loot boxes that the game has a 3 hour cooldown once you hit a certain amount of credits in arcade mode. That's like if I played rainbow six siege terrorist hunt for a couple games then the game said nope no more credits for you for 3 hours, gotta grind PvP now It was calculated you'd need to play 40 hours to buy a hero and that's without using credits on anything else. £50 to buy a game that works like a free p2w mobile game. The multiplayer should be f2p with the system they have.




To be fair the 3 hour in arcade mode is because people can grind credits really fast compared to people who play pure multiplayer. R6 you just get more credits in MP.
catbeans6 h, 44 m ago

$10 million to make Hellblade , a short , repetitive , esthetically …$10 million to make Hellblade , a short , repetitive , esthetically pleasing but up close ugly game VS Battlefront where the licensing is probably more than 10mil to start isn't really a great comparison, what's that 1/15 of BF2 budget for Hellblade, has it got 1/15 of BF2's gameplay and development mmm. That's without getting into 4k, multiplayer Vs non multiplayer etc. I would argue also the scale and quality of games has increased massively since PS2 aswell and PS2 games were not cheap £30~40 (so inflation you are looking at what £45 in today's money), similarly ps one was £30~40 with platinum games being £20. Let's not even get into the £50~70 cartridges. I don't buy a game nowadays above £40, so no the prices haven't really increased, unless you pre-order digital copies, then by not much considering inflation. So no it's a very real question and issue in the games industry today.



Ninja Theory made Hellblade with $10 million and Battlefront 1 for example, cost $50 million yet lacked a lot of content and seemed rushed and half finished. So you’re agreeing with me then? EA run their business badly hence why it cost so much to make?

Battlefront 1 (2015) still went on to sell 14 million copies. To borrow someone else’s phrase, it doesn’t take Carol Vorderman to do the math and see that they aren’t struggling. In regards to EA, what has increased in scope to you about the majority of their titles exactly? They make sports games. GTA V is a game that shows an increase in scope. Battlefront though? Nah. It still lacks features from the first Battlefront 2. That released on PS2!

Yes, inflation has occurred, but why haven’t America had their prices increased? Jim Sterling sums this all up very well about this “games are expensive” myth. m.youtube.com/wat…fPM

The games industry is bigger than it was back on PS2. More games are made and more are sold. With higher development costs, surely that would mean there is no way these publishers could be in profit with all the games they release? No, it’s the exact opposite. You’re falling for their nonsense. Don’t get pulled in by them. Games are more expensive to make, yes, but they are still rolling in money from them. They’re just wanting even more money.

As for ragging on Hellblade, it scored higher in reviews than Battlefront 2 has so it must have done something right. That “short” argument too when Battlefront lasts 5 hours on it’s campaign. Much like Call of Duty games today. AAA games aren’t expensive to make. The publishers are just throwing money (too much) into marketing. There is no way that Battlefront 2 cost $150 million to make. Sorry. Not when GTA V cost $137 million.
Edited by: "Biddy2" 17th Nov 2017
catbeans10 m ago

To be fair the 3 hour in arcade mode is because people can grind credits …To be fair the 3 hour in arcade mode is because people can grind credits really fast compared to people who play pure multiplayer. R6 you just get more credits in MP.



So why did they make the multiplayer credits earned so low? It’s their own fault that their progression system, that they developed, was geared towards microtransactions. It’s not our fault.
I have started renting games now and upon completing the single player sending them back.

I have found recently that with pay to win games I get no enjoyment playing them as I find a lot of people simply pay and therefore have a competitive advantage which then makes me think why do I even bother playing?

The only games I play online now are Fifa (not ultimate team) and rocket league.
Biddy246 m ago

Ninja Theory made Hellblade with $10 million and Battlefront 1 for …Ninja Theory made Hellblade with $10 million and Battlefront 1 for example, cost $50 million yet lacked a lot of content and seemed rushed and half finished. So you’re agreeing with me then? EA run their business badly hence why it cost so much to make? Battlefront 1 (2015) still went on to sell 14 million copies. To borrow someone else’s phrase, it doesn’t take Carol Vorderman to do the math and see that they aren’t struggling. In regards to EA, what has increased in scope to you about the majority of their titles exactly? They make sports games. GTA V is a game that shows an increase in scope. Battlefront though? Nah. It still lacks features from the first Battlefront 2. That released on PS2!Yes, inflation has occurred, but why haven’t America had their prices increased? Jim Sterling somes this all all very well about this “games are expensive” myth. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSso2vufPMThe games industry is bigger than it was back on PS2. More games are made and more are sold. With higher development costs, surely that would mean there is no way these publishers could be in profit with all the games they release? No, it’s the exact opposite. You’re falling for their nonsense. Don’t get pulled in by them. Games are more expensive to make, yes, but they are still rolling in money from them. They’re just wanting even more money. As for ragging on Hellblade, it scored higher in reviews than Battlefront 2 has so it must have done something right. That “short” argument too when Battlefront lasts 5 hours on it’s campaign. Much like Call of Duty games today. AAA games aren’t expensive to make. The publishers are just throwing money (too much) into marketing. There is no way that Battlefront 2 cost $150 million to make. Sorry. Not when GTA V cost $137 million.



I'm not defending Battlefield or EA it was a general statement about the cost of games in general.

Ok Hellblade Vs Battlefront 1. 10mil v 50mil. Let's compare them, does Hellblade have 1/5th of the textures of B1; no. Does it have 1/5th of the engine ability; no. Does Hellblade have 1/5h of the the multiplayer; no. Does it have 1/5th of the assets; no. 1/5th of the shadow and lighting detail no. If you want to look at reviews cool, Hellblade does well, it is also not in the same category at all for review as Battlefront 1. So again they are not comparable.

"What has increased in scope for EA" The size of textures alone are substantially bigger than a PS2 game, so to say it doesn't cost more to produce a game is instantly out the window.

BTW did you actually watch that Jim Sterling video? He opens by saying game development costs more and inflation exists, his argument is then that the extras you pay for the game are what makes it more than 60 dollars, i.e Season pass/DLC, deluxe editions, loot crates, hence my original question.


My argument isnt that the companies don't make money it's that games costs more to make, mid tear games have suffered due to this, just like mid tear movies, hence why I was asking if people would pay £20 more for a game and didnt really want to get into this exact discussion about profits and wether games had gotten more expensive to make.
Edited by: "catbeans" 17th Nov 2017
catbeans21 m ago

I'm not defending Battlefield or EA it was a general statement about the …I'm not defending Battlefield or EA it was a general statement about the cost of games in general. Ok Hellblade Vs Battlefront 1. 10mil v 50mil. Let's compare them, does Hellblade have 1/5th of the textures of B1; no. Does it have 1/5th of the engine ability; no. Does Hellblade have 1/5h of the the multiplayer; no. Does it have 1/5th of the assets; no. 1/5th of the shadow and lighting detail no. If you want to look at reviews cool, Hellblade does well, it is also not in the same category at all for review as Battlefront 1. So again they are not comparable. "What has increased in scope for EA" The size of textures alone are substantially bigger than a PS2 game, so to say it doesn't cost more to produce a game is instantly out the window.BTW did you actually watch that Jim Sterling video? He opens by saying game development costs more and inflation exists, his argument is then that the extras you pay for the game are what makes it more than 60 dollars, i.e Season pass/DLC, deluxe editions, loot crates, hence my original question. My argument isnt that the companies don't make money it's that games costs more to make, mid tear games have suffered due to this, just like mid tear movies, hence why I was asking if people would pay £20 more for a game.



So why do games need to increase if they are making money still then?

I didn’t say they aren’t “more” expensive. I said they aren’t expensive when they are selling more these days. I also haven’t denied inflation, but equally, inflation then has to be taken into account with development costs. If our costs have increased by £20 per game since PS2 then surely this balances out too?

Why is a game like Horizon Zero Dawn extremely successful, but we have to think other games need all these microtransactions to do well? Why did that do well without needing extra money being added on the price of games? Also, why are we comparing the ability of engines and graphics here in relation to costs? The increased costs is down to studios being increased in size and ludicrous amounts being spent on marketing budgets. (By the way, ragging on Hellblades graphics seems a tad silly. They’re far better than you’re giving credit for)

Yes I have watched that whole video but it would appear that the point has been missed by you. They’ve been getting extra revenue for years. They just want more revenue which is what they get with microtransactions and lootboxes. Games cost more to make, but they are selling far more. They are selling DLC. They are selling multiple editions of games.

The argument regarding assets, graphics etc goes right out of the window too when you realise that PC games have had all these things for years and were and still are cheaper than console games and don’t need to charge for online multiplayer. Even Microsoft let you play on Xbox Live for free on PC.
Edited by: "Biddy2" 17th Nov 2017
catbeans32 m ago

I'm not defending Battlefield or EA it was a general statement about the …I'm not defending Battlefield or EA it was a general statement about the cost of games in general. Ok Hellblade Vs Battlefront 1. 10mil v 50mil. Let's compare them, does Hellblade have 1/5th of the textures of B1; no. Does it have 1/5th of the engine ability; no. Does Hellblade have 1/5h of the the multiplayer; no. Does it have 1/5th of the assets; no. 1/5th of the shadow and lighting detail no. If you want to look at reviews cool, Hellblade does well, it is also not in the same category at all for review as Battlefront 1. So again they are not comparable. "What has increased in scope for EA" The size of textures alone are substantially bigger than a PS2 game, so to say it doesn't cost more to produce a game is instantly out the window.BTW did you actually watch that Jim Sterling video? He opens by saying game development costs more and inflation exists, his argument is then that the extras you pay for the game are what makes it more than 60 dollars, i.e Season pass/DLC, deluxe editions, loot crates, hence my original question. My argument isnt that the companies don't make money it's that games costs more to make, mid tear games have suffered due to this, just like mid tear movies, hence why I was asking if people would pay £20 more for a game and didnt really want to get into this exact discussion about profits and wether games had gotten more expensive to make.


There certainly is the argument that games cost more, however there is also the argument that they cost less. The platforms (PS4 & XB1 mainly) have less constraints (8gb v 512mb [ps3 & x360]), utilise a common architecture now and especially in the case of the PS3 are easier to develop for.
Hell some companies have even cut out their QA departments (see Sterling's Battlefront 2 impressions). (joke btw)

You only need to look at EA's share price ( $14 five years ago, now $114) to know that some companies aren't suffering (some are, mainly the middle tier).
EA are a greedy company and don't think for a minute that these MT won't be back in Battlefront 2 (& others). Get the suckers to buy the game, get the xmas sales & then switch them back on.
No one's really noticed, because it isn't Star Wars, but the new 'Need for Speed' game has a terrible loot crate/P2W system too.
Biddy248 m ago

So why do games need to increase if they are making money still then? So why do games need to increase if they are making money still then? I didn’t say they aren’t “more” expensive. I said they aren’t expensive when they are selling more these days. I also haven’t denied inflation, but equally, inflation then has to be taken into account with development costs. If our costs have increased by £20 per game since PS2 then surely this balances out too? Why is a game like Horizon Zero Dawn extremely successful, but we have to think other games need all these microtransactions to do well? Why did that do well without needing extra money being added on the price of games? Also, why are we comparing the ability of engines and graphics here in relation to costs? The increased costs is down to studios being increased in size and ludicrous amounts being spent on marketing budgets. (By the way, ragging on Hellblades graphics seems a tad silly. They’re far better than you’re giving credit for)Yes I have watched that whole video but it would appear that the point has been missed by you. They’ve been getting extra revenue for years. They just want more revenue which is what they get with microtransactions and lootboxes. Games cost more to make, but they are selling far more. They are selling DLC. They are selling multiple editions of games. The argument regarding assets, graphics etc goes right out of the window too when you realise that PC games have had all these things for years and were and still are cheaper than console games and don’t need to charge for online multiplayer. Even Microsoft let you play on Xbox Live for free on PC.



I'm not going to discuss about the cost of games anymore, we clearly just aren't going to agree. We will just have to say the texture fairy does all the work for free. I'm not even going to touch your inflation magically balancing out comment.

Yes they make money, from micro transactions, from DLCs etc hence my question was ; But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions?

Your argument is they make enough already... From micro transactions and dlc etc, so bit of circular argument don't you think, considering I'm asking if you would be willing to pay £20 more to not have them.
Andy@XCite37 m ago

There certainly is the argument that games cost more, however there is …There certainly is the argument that games cost more, however there is also the argument that they cost less. The platforms (PS4 & XB1 mainly) have less constraints (8gb v 512mb [ps3 & x360]), utilise a common architecture now and especially in the case of the PS3 are easier to develop for. Hell some companies have even cut out their QA departments (see Sterling's Battlefront 2 impressions). (joke btw)You only need to look at EA's share price ( $14 five years ago, now $114) to know that some companies aren't suffering (some are, mainly the middle tier). EA are a greedy company and don't think for a minute that these MT won't be back in Battlefront 2 (& others). Get the suckers to buy the game, get the xmas sales & then switch them back on.



Read the first line of post you quoted.
catbeans16 m ago

I'm not going to discuss about the cost of games anymore, we clearly just …I'm not going to discuss about the cost of games anymore, we clearly just aren't going to agree. We will just have to say the texture fairy does all the work for free. I'm not even going to touch your inflation magically balancing out comment.Yes they make money, from micro transactions, from DLCs etc hence my question was ; But my question is would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions? Your argument is they make enough already... From micro transactions and dlc etc, so bit of circular argument don't you think, considering I'm asking if you would be willing to pay £20 more to not have them.



That texture fairy is the same exact artist doing the work. What? Also, as I pointed out, they’ve been in PC games for years now. Game prices have increased, development costs have increased, but more games are sold now compared to back on PS2. Yep, I’d say that definitely balances out and isn’t some kind of “magic”, which was my point about balancing out.

I would pay it IF they weren’t holding back content, IF the DLC that followed was substantial and IF microtransactions were taken away for good. Those ifs won’t happen though. They will continue to rip everyone off. They charge £40 for season passes so that £20 is a pipe dream. Also, that raised price will increase the prices of games that are single player that won’t be getting any dlc just because of the narrative that “games are more expensive” which really means “I want a new Ferrari”.

So no, they get enough money. Horizon Zero Dawn cost $47 million dollars to make and has a much bigger scope than Battlefront. The whole “but, but server costs because it’s multiplayer” is ridiculous too considering I have to pay Sony for PSN and that server cost is taken into account on the games initial budget anyway. (Hence why it is free multiplayer on PC).
Krooner22 m ago

No one's really noticed, because it isn't Star Wars, but the new 'Need for …No one's really noticed, because it isn't Star Wars, but the new 'Need for Speed' game has a terrible loot crate/P2W system too.


Yeah they have ruined what might have been an okay game (just okay mind) but as you say no-one cares as it isn't Star Wars plus there are other racing games to play (Need for Speed doesn't have quite the same devoted fan base ).
The great thing at the moment is that there are so many games to play that EA can go and ...
Krooner29 m ago

No one's really noticed, because it isn't Star Wars, but the new 'Need for …No one's really noticed, because it isn't Star Wars, but the new 'Need for Speed' game has a terrible loot crate/P2W system too.



Need for Speed though...

No, to be fair, you are absolutely right and it was the first thing I checked when I heard about Battlefront removing the crystals. It’s still there which tells us that nothing has changed. If one good thing comes from this, it’s that we can get these crates and free to play/pay to win progression systems removed from future games. Microtransactions will likely continue though.
Biddy219 m ago

That texture fairy is the same exact artist doing the work. What? Also, as …That texture fairy is the same exact artist doing the work. What? Also, as I pointed out, they’ve been in PC games for years now. Game prices have increased, development costs have increased, but more games are sold now compared to back on PS2. Yep, I’d say that definitely balances out and isn’t some kind of “magic”, which was my point about balancing out. I would pay it IF they weren’t holding back content, IF the DLC that followed was substantial and IF microtransactions were taken away for good. Those ifs won’t happen though. They will continue to rip everyone off. They charge £40 for season passes so that £20 is a pipe dream. Also, that raised price will increase the prices of games that are single player that won’t be getting any dlc just because of the narrative that “games are more expensive” which really means “I want a new Ferrari”. So no, they get enough money. Horizon Zero Dawn cost $47 million dollars to make and has a much bigger scope than Battlefront. The whole “but, but server costs because it’s multiplayer” is ridiculous too considering I have to pay Sony for PSN and that server cost is taken into account on the games initial budget anyway. (Hence why it is free multiplayer on PC).




Draw a 1080p picture of a house, now draw a 4k minimum picture of house, which took longer?

Build a cube and add the 1080p picture of the house and add lighting, now build a fully 3d modelled house add dynamic lighting, more complex collision physics, which takes longer?


How long have they been in PC games for? Does "years" mean 4years? Because yes they have been for ~4 years. I played Crysis on the PC Ultra settings 1080p in 2007, it looks like junk now compared to new games.
Biddy230 m ago

Need for Speed though... No, to be fair, you are absolutely right …Need for Speed though... No, to be fair, you are absolutely right and it was the first thing I checked when I heard about Battlefront removing the crystals. It’s still there which tells us that nothing has changed. If one good thing comes from this, it’s that we can get these crates and free to play/pay to win progression systems removed from future games. Microtransactions will likely continue though.


I'm okay with micro transactions provided it doesn't affect the balance and playability of the game I've paid for. The model in say, 'Overwatch' is fair enough. I don't go for any of it and don't feel I'm being penalised for not doing so. I don't mind if people want to pay a bit extra to have green boots or whatever.

Activision's new system with the post purchase match-making is insane too. Don't know how they're getting away with that.
Edited by: "Krooner" 17th Nov 2017
catbeans30 m ago

Draw a 1080p picture of a house, now draw a 4k minimum picture of house, …Draw a 1080p picture of a house, now draw a 4k minimum picture of house, which took longer? Build a cube and add the 1080p picture of the house and add lighting, now build a fully 3d modelled house add dynamic lighting, more complex collision physics, which takes longer?How long have they been in PC games for? Does "years" mean 4years? Because yes they have been for ~4 years. I played Crysis on the PC Ultra settings 1080p in 2007, it looks like junk now compared to new games.



Your argument was that the 4K textures aren’t being made for free and have now changed it to “they take longer”. Games are still releasing within their normal timeframes regardless of texture improvements. They require more manpower which results in a higher cost. (I didn’t say they aren’t more expensive to make) but, game prices have increased, they are selling more copies and selling multiple editions of games with DLC on top. The “we have higher costs” myth is just that, a myth. What they’re saying is, they want more profit. One makes them look greedy and the other way is an attempt to guilt customers into paying more. Which looks better to PR?

Using Crysis as an example to prove your point doesn’t really make sense considering they were also limited by hardware at that point. It has advanced a lot over the last decade which allows developers to make better looking games. That wasn’t solely down to the cost of development.
Krooner19 m ago

I'm okay with micro transactions provided it doesn't affect the balance …I'm okay with micro transactions provided it doesn't affect the balance and playability of the game I've paid for. The model in say, 'Overwatch' is fair enough. I don't go for any of it and don't feel I'm being penalised for not doing so. I don't mind if people want to pay a bit extra to have green boots or whatever.Activision's new system with the post purchase match-making is insane too. Don't know how they're getting away with that.



It’s because of the generation that grew up during the boom of mobile/tablet games I guess. My niece and nephew grew up through it and they see no issue either. Maybe Battlefront was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Hopefully, other companies will be far more cautious now.

I agree about the Overwatch model if the publishers absolutely must pursue microtransactions. ( The lootcrates need to go though. They should just sell the costumes upfront) Can’t help forget the whole outcry over horse amour last gen mind, but the alternative is season passes which split the online games I guess and nobody wants that anymore.
Edited by: "Biddy2" 17th Nov 2017
Biddy216 m ago

Your argument was that the 4K textures aren’t being made for free and have …Your argument was that the 4K textures aren’t being made for free and have now changed it to “they take longer”. Games are still releasing within their normal timeframes regardless of texture improvements. They require more manpower which results in a higher cost. (I didn’t say they aren’t more expensive to make) but, game prices have increased, they are selling more copies and selling multiple editions of games with DLC on top. The “we have higher costs” myth is just that, a myth. What they’re saying is, they want more profit. One makes them look greedy and the other way is an attempt to guilt customers into paying more. Which looks better to PR? Using Crysis as an example to prove your point doesn’t really make sense considering they were also limited by hardware at that point. It has advanced a lot over the last decade which allows developers to make better looking games. That wasn’t solely down to the cost of development.



They get payed by the hour, more complicated larger textures = more cost.

Yes exactly games have improved massively since Crysis that is my point when you say development is exactly the same, no it's far more detailed, taking more resources.

"I didn’t say they aren’t more expensive to make" then a few lines later; "the "we have higher costs" is a myth. " You are conflating actual cost to produce a game with profit. Even to reproduce a PS2 game today would be increased.
Edited by: "catbeans" 17th Nov 2017
catbeans10 m ago

They get payed by the hour, more complicated larger textures = more cost. …They get payed by the hour, more complicated larger textures = more cost. Yes exactly games have improved massively since Crysis that is my point when you say development is exactly the same, no it's far more detailed, taking more resources. "I didn’t say they aren’t more expensive to make" then a few lines later; "the "we have higher costs" is a myth. " You are conflating actual cost to produce a game with profit. Even to reproduce a PS2 game today would be increased.


LOL, I'd imagine they're salaried positions catbeans.

You're wrong. It's nothing to do with spiralling Dev costs and everything to do with year on year profit pressures from shareholders. These systems are employing the science of addiction, it's nothing to do with offsetting the creation of art.
Biddy225 m ago

It’s because of the generation that grew up during the boom of m …It’s because of the generation that grew up during the boom of mobile/tablet games I guess. My niece and nephew grew up through it and they see no issue either. Maybe Battlefront was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Hopefully, other companies will be far more cautious now.I agree about the Overwatch model if the publishers absolutely must pursue microtransactions. ( The lootcrates need to go though. They should just sell the costumes upfront) Can’t help forget the whole outcry over horse amour last gen mind, but the alternative is season passes which split the online games I guess and nobody wants that anymore.


Absolutely. The Overwatch model is fine, cosmetic stuff.
The Battlefront 2 model is pay to win plus they show you the cards of the person that killed you so the temptation of "I've got to get those cards just to even the field" is there. Same goes for the Activision patent that Krooner mentioned although that hasn't (as far as has been reported) been implemented, yet.

Vote with your wallet folks, it is as simple as that.
Krooner6 m ago

LOL, I'd imagine they're salaried positions catbeans. You're wrong. It's …LOL, I'd imagine they're salaried positions catbeans. You're wrong. It's nothing to do with spiralling Dev costs and everything to do with year on year profit pressures from shareholders. These systems are employing the science of addiction, it's nothing to do with offsetting the creation of art.



By the hour or Salaried manpower still costs money, see my initial and previous posts, I know it's for profit.
catbeans8 m ago

By the hour or Salaried manpower still costs money, see my initial and …By the hour or Salaried manpower still costs money, see my initial and previous posts, I know it's for profit.


Yeah, but coupled with the workplace culture surrounding overtime, particularly during crunch, it doesn't really cost anymore.
catbeans25 m ago

They get payed by the hour, more complicated larger textures = more cost. …They get payed by the hour, more complicated larger textures = more cost. Yes exactly games have improved massively since Crysis that is my point when you say development is exactly the same, no it's far more detailed, taking more resources. "I didn’t say they aren’t more expensive to make" then a few lines later; "the "we have higher costs" is a myth. " You are conflating actual cost to produce a game with profit. Even to reproduce a PS2 game today would be increased.



Ok, we’re going around in circles now and there are more misunderstandings developing. My point was, higher development costs has had no impact on AAA publishers as you did point out . They are doing all these things for more profit. Adding £20 onto games won’t give them the profit they desire. They are already making more money even with the increased development costs. Their profits haven’t gone down. As Andy said, it’s the smaller developers suffering from the cost increase. Not the likes of EA and Activision.

If they made sure you got your £20 worth in DLC after release then I’d be all for that model, but it won’t happen. You’ve only got to look at what they’re all trying to pull now.
Krooner28 m ago

Yeah, but coupled with the workplace culture surrounding overtime, …Yeah, but coupled with the workplace culture surrounding overtime, particularly during crunch, it doesn't really cost anymore.



The teams are drastically bigger than they used to be. The culture hasn't changed much over ten years, still had overtime etc ten years ago in the games industry, they work load has increased and the staff to build a game has imcreased so of course costs have increased.
catbeans15 m ago

The teams are drastically bigger than they used to be. The culture hasn't …The teams are drastically bigger than they used to be. The culture hasn't changed much over ten years, still had overtime etc ten years ago in the games industry, they work load has increased and the staff to build a game has imcreased so of course costs have increased.


And (as has been pointed out to you) so have profits. "dev costs" aren't a defence for greedy business practices. I'm not sure what you're arguing about? Games cost more to make, so predetory practice is to be expected??

Your question is: "...would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions?"


32460285-PFcoX.jpg
I'm thinking they'd charge more than £20.
Krooner10 m ago

And (as has been pointed out to you) so have profits. "dev costs" aren't a …And (as has been pointed out to you) so have profits. "dev costs" aren't a defence for greedy business practices. I'm not sure what you're arguing about? Games cost more to make, so predetory practice is to be expected??Your question is: "...would you be willing to pay £20 more than you do now if there were no micro-transactions?" [Image] I'm thinking they'd charge more than £20.




if your not sure what we are arguing about maybe you should of read the thread, then you can point out where i also defended greedy business practices, because if you even read my first or second post on the thread you would see i said i dont like them from the get go.
Edited by: "catbeans" 17th Nov 2017
catbeans16 m ago

if your not sure what we are arguing about maybe you should of read the …if your not sure what we are arguing about maybe you should of read the thread, then you can point out where i also defended greedy business practices, because if you even read my first or second post on the thread you would see i said i dont like them from the get go.


Right... so what point are you making? £30-£40 on PS1. Look up there /\, £49.99 new. five pounds more than your "£45" adjusted for "inflation"

Every year tent-pole releases launching with multiple versions at different pricing tiers, standard editions, collectors editions, deluxe editions, steelbooks, £150 versions with a badly painted statue. Now, players like me and yourself are a bit smarter with our money, we wait until it hits the price WE want to pay, but lets not pretend that the prices have stayed the same.
Edited by: "Krooner" 17th Nov 2017
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants