So I get in-game purchases for those mobile throw away games that are free to download. But I saw this article on CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/16/technology/battlefront-ii-star-wars-game-ea-costs/index.html

I've heard grumblings that EA is one of the worst for this, but how bad is it really - across the board? I've been away from console gaming for a while now, but I plan to get back into it with Red Dead 2 and a few others. But if I have to pay 60 dollars for a game and then pay that much more to keep playing, then no thank you.

I hate that this is now a thing. Hopefully the backlash listed in the article might curb it some.

11/17/2017 8:53:53 AM

Yeah, EA is the worst for this. They do it in Madden (with the ultimate team) and in most other games. It's annoying and has definitely turned me off of gaming. I realize there are many people who will gladly continue spending money on shit like that, but I won't.

11/17/2017 9:03:22 AM

I had to get one of my friends to stop Game of War before he lost his marriage (over 5K down the hole at that point)

I don't see any of it ending any time soon, there is too much money in selling nothing

11/17/2017 9:08:06 AM

But isn't Game of War a mobile game?

I'm more concerned with the console systems that already involve a large ($60) investment and even more on top of that.

I mean if you want to pay for extra levels or extra maps, I get that, fine, buy away, but when they start locking normal parts of a game to where you either pay money or have to mindlessly grind away at something, that's where I draw the line.

11/17/2017 9:13:50 AM

I haven't played Battlefront II myself but from what I've read, it is pretty bad. They advertised a lot of Star Wars heroes/villains like Darth Vader as playable characters, which is technically true, but you have to grind for literally 40 hours to unlock them. Of course, the shortcut is to just pay to unlock immediately. And that is just for one character. There are a ton of other unlockables in the game. Some people did the math -- to fully unlock everything in the game, it would take 4,528 hours of gameplay (over 6 months!) or $2100. Ridiculous.

11/17/2017 9:15:17 AM

i'm fine with griding/paying for things that are cosmetic only, my only problem is when you have to pay for something that only gives you a chance of unlocking an item. my understanding of this game is that you can buy crystals, but those crystals just give you a random chance of getting the item you want in a loot box. is that a correct understanding?

11/17/2017 10:02:04 AM

Thank you for giving me the final push not to buy this game. Been on the fence for a week. I'll be picking up the new AC Origins.

11/17/2017 10:03:33 AM

^^That was the basis for Belgium's investigation, but EA denies that.

11/17/2017 10:26:03 AM

This is the best breakdown of how loot crates work in Star Wars BF2 that I've found:
https://www.polygon.com/2017/11/16/16658476/star-wars-battlefront-2-loot-crate-costs-analysis

Microtransactions (basically buying loot crates) allow companies to rake in a lot of dough. A tiny percentage of players will spend thousands of dollars on a game and those people bring in enough money to justify putting loot crates in just about anything. In this article someone says he's saw people spend $15000 on Mass Effect 3 multiplayer:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-10-23-manveer-heir-bioware-mass-effect-ea-monetisation

It's also why GTAV hasn't had any single-player expansions, they've made over $500 million off microtransactions in the multiplayer:
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/gta-5s-online-mode-has-generated-half-a-billion-do/1100-6438765/

They turned off microtransactions in Star Wars: BF2, but that was just to end all the bad press the game's gotten. They plan on turning it back on at "a later date"

11/17/2017 11:28:08 AM

I'm afraid developers are going to eventually abandon the single player story line altogether in the pursuit of more money

11/17/2017 12:22:43 PM

^Did you ever play GTA5? There's a mode called GTA online where the entire island is populated by other players (16 max I think). In GTA online there's in game currency that you can purchase with real money to use to purchase vehicles, guns ect. to play on GTA online. These vehicles/guns aren't available in the single player.

I never dabbled much in GTA online but apparently Rockstar makes a ton of money off of these systems ($700 million per year at its peak according to this website I can't open at work so may be off https://www.reddit.com/r/GrandTheftAutoV/comments/561ibp/gta_online_shark_card_sales_revenue_exceeds_700/)... So much so I can't see a way this type of system wouldn't be incorporated in some way in Red Dead 2.

11/17/2017 12:41:48 PM

Publishers know that most gamers hate this, but it just doesn't matter because of how much money it makes.

EA makes $800 million a year selling microtransactions for FIFA alone. The equivalent to selling 14 million copies at full $60 retail price (which would be one of the top selling games in any given year). And they cost FUCKING NOTHING to make.

If anyone watches Jim Sterling he's always harping about loot boxes in $60 games, (that and shitty no effort Unity games released on Steam), and his Jimquisition this week was a good summary of the loot box issue in general and Battlefront 2 specifically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLDid1UNyg8

Also, single player games are having a rough stretch. Bethesda has published 4 very good single player only, no microtransaction games in the past 12 or so months (Dishonored 2, Prey, The Evil Within 2, Wolfenstein 2) and every one of them underperformed. Considering they are about the only third party publisher not doing loot boxes these days, it's not a good sign.

[Edited on November 17, 2017 at 6:29 PM. Reason : ]

11/17/2017 6:07:47 PM

Apparently, they took down all purchases on BF2 in response to backlash. How have they replaced them?

11/17/2017 7:53:42 PM

i'd never pay money for an RNG lootbox. I spent plenty of money when i used to play LoL on skins for my favorite characters, because i knew what i was receiving for my money.

The only other thing that irks me is the whole "season pass" movement where you're paying up front for content that will come at some unspecified future date. I think destiny 2 is forcing you to purchase the season pass just to get the first DLC.

11/18/2017 3:44:43 PM

To me, you can't win. Publishers, either bc games cost more but haven't risen in price, or cuz they are greedy, are going to find a way to get paid. Sadly I prefer the battlefront 2 model over season passes. I have played a few games with paid dlc and the fractured playr base IS a huge problem.

I wish they'd just do cosmetics. Hell I am fine even with some side grade chars being locked, but the gameplay affecting cards is frustrating.

That said, I did buy bf2 and have been enjoying it. I think the star card fiasco is a bit overblown in 20v20 but I do understand ppl not wanting to support this business model.

11/18/2017 5:16:50 PM

I thought they removed the loot boxes from BF2 for the time being but didn't say they're gone for good.

Could be wrong though.

11/18/2017 7:00:50 PM

It's just temporary

11/18/2017 8:20:27 PM

yeah, i think the rng aspects of loot boxes is the worse, even if it is just cosmetics. i have probably purchased around $20 worth of overwatch boxes over the years of owning it. however i never got that cool zen halloween skin. just let me pay $2 for that skin and i would be happy. however, i know that will never happen cause i can by $20 worth of boxes (10x more money for the developer/publisher) for a CHANCE at it.

gameplay items in a loot box system is terrible and i dont see myself supporting EA anytime soon. the problem is that the one guy that spends $1000 on fifa cards makes up for about 16 people who dont by the game. i watching a big fifa twitch streamer and he was spending like $1000 on credits almost every hour during one of their events. i think microsoft even put a hold on his account cause his activity made it seem like he was hacked.

11/20/2017 9:24:58 AM

So, I'm not up on the latest gaming jargon. So are these loot boxes things you buy at a *chance* for an item?

If so, how is that not gambling, and why is it even legal in states that don't allow it?

11/20/2017 9:31:22 AM

Loot boxes are something you buy in game. The contents are unknown beforehand and generated at random. When you "open" the box, you randomly get items. The items could be incredibly rare and valuable, or just a bunch of shit that you already have. It's kind of like buying a pack of baseball cards -- you have no idea who you are gonna get.

So it essentially is gambling, and there have been some legal concerns that have recently started cropping up regarding it.

11/20/2017 9:43:04 AM

^^^The problem with just buying something outright I guess is perceived fairness. It can probably be argued that loot boxes level the field, although that's bs too because someone with a lot of money can just buy them until they get what they want.

Otherwise, pricing rare items more than non-rare items would probably price some people out of being able to play.

Still, I think console games should do away with this shit altogether. You pay 60 dollars for a game, you should get the game. If the developers want you to buy more, then come up with an expansion pack.

11/20/2017 10:08:18 AM

but at least that would be transparent

you pay $60 for a basic game with none of the cool things you want, or you pay $80 and get to play as darth vader, or $100 and get something else, etc...

loot boxes make it the case of maybe i buy one loot box and get what i want, or maybe i spend $200 and still don't have what i want

if it was transparent no one would buy the game because they could see how expensive it was, with loot boxes no one can see the true cast

11/20/2017 10:12:58 AM

I've always been of the mindset that cosmetic stuff is fine to charge for if the game itself costs money. Now if you give away the game for free and items that help you out cost money thats fine. Otherwise if a game becomes pay 2 win I become uninterested. I think one of the few games I have dumped money on that is random is Hearthstone card packs. However, I get that game for free and while it may not be as successful or fun you can get card packs without paying money and you can win with decks created from just the basic cards you get although probably not up to higher ranks.

11/20/2017 1:56:01 PM

^^^i can totally see "fairness" if you are approaching pay to win where loot boxes provide competitive advantage. however, in games like overwatch and even destiny to a degree offer only cosmetics in the loot boxes. i have not competitive advantage if i buy $100 worth of loot boxes. i just want to skin, so let me pay $2-$5 for it.

fortnite BR actually does this pretty well (even if their prices are kinda high). it is free to play, but you can buy skins for a set price. i've played it for almost 9 hours and havent spent a dime on it.

EDIT: for overwatch and destiny i can also get loot boxes just by playing the game.

[Edited on November 20, 2017 at 2:10 PM. Reason : d]

11/20/2017 2:08:59 PM

Was listening to a Giant Bomb podcast - one of the hosts says the ESRB system doesn't list games with loot boxes as "gambling" because you always win something.

And this business practice will continue to expand for triple A games moving forward, there's just too much money left on the table for them not to design games around this function.

[Edited on November 21, 2017 at 8:30 AM. Reason : podcast]

11/21/2017 8:30:28 AM

I mean, I get the argument that it really isn't much different than Magic or any other TCG, except that those games have a secondary market where you can just pay an absurd amount for what you actually want. The gambling argument seems like the wrong way to go since those business models (like card games) already exist. If someone really can't handle their gambling, they should avoid such games. If kids are the target, step up and be a better parent and don't give them you damn credit card. Derp. Those arguments seem disingenuous. If you are gonna complain at least do so for the real reason...you don't want to spend a bunch of extra money for the ability to compete or get a costume you want. That is plenty good enough reason itself.

I'd still rather they just raise the game's price to $80 or something, basically building in a season pass, but I know this business model likely produces more bux0rs for them.

Either way, if anyone cares, I've actually enjoyed Battelfront 2 thus far and had some pretty cinematic moments. The cards in the larger game modes don't generally seem to cause THAT many problems. I'm still not a fan that they affect gameplay, but it isn't as bad as games with a smaller number of players per round (thankfully).


[Edited on November 21, 2017 at 10:22 AM. Reason : ...adding more to the dsicussion]

11/21/2017 10:19:50 AM

Quote :

"one of the hosts says the ESRB system doesn't list games with loot boxes as "gambling" because you always win something."

i heard the same explanation on another podcast. basically you are paying a certain amount for known, set, "common" items with a chance at the more rare stuff.

when you pull a literal slot machine you can end up with $0/nothing.

korea, iirc, forces companies to publish the drop rates for different levels of rarity. i wish that was published in US. just let me know what my chance at that exotic drop is.

11/21/2017 11:35:30 AM

the game should be free if they are going to do this. i already paid for the system and 60 for 10% of the game.

11/23/2017 3:04:30 PM

I've been meaning to bump the Warframe thread because I just recently came back to it after 4 years and after Destiny 2 was a such a disappointment. They're an example of a great in-game purchase model IMO.

11/26/2017 10:35:34 AM