... but apparently box fees don't cover the costs of development in the 21st Century...
I would like to see definitive proof that this is the case in a B2P game. The thought that all these extras are necessary to cover the cost is at the root of the casual acceptance by gamers of these business models.
IMO it's just an imported concept from the F2P world where, the argument can clearly be made that they are needed. It helps to rationalize their inclusion in games where the same argument makes no sense.
Until I see proof (and fat chance any of them will open their books enough to prove it,) I'm looking at all of these as extra profit, not as covering the cost of development.
Nothing is that cleanly defined that it can easily and simply be divided into binary categories. Roget couldn't even do it and he was brilliant.
How much a business considers necessary to justify production, development, or an expense is subjective. My point is they consider it necessary to return an amount of revenue. They can do that through broader sales, tiered sales (what they're doing now or with DLC), or fewer sales at a higher pricepoint. What is going to maximize revenue? You'll never get a consistent answer between publishers or games within a publisher. EA might have different expectations and budgets for different titles.
So of course it's extra profit. Saying it covers the cost of development is more likely alluding to the product returning the expected revenue not as a specific budget item. I agree that it's not simply something to cover the budget, but rather a key component in a more complicated revenue projection.
Of course. But the statement "cover the cost" in common everyday discussions carries with it an implication of "breaking even" to most people that see it. And that is either deliberately or inadvertently misleading.
It shouldn't be used synonymously with "cover the projected target revenue" the way it often is here.
I mean... don't you see the irony in the fact that this sort of thing was extremely rare in B2P games 10 or 20 years ago when the box sales numbers were a fraction of what they are today? Now they are pulling in a lot more from just general up front sales and microtransactions are everywhere in B2P games.
Something tells me this is all about "greed is good" where no ROI is ever too obscene. It kind of reminds me of banks with transaction fees... covering the cost?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
"We know you have a lot of questions about Crates and progression, so
we want to clarify a few things, as the complete system was not in the
Beta and will continue to be tuned over time:
There are many things you can earn in the game, including weapons,
attachments, credits, Star Cards, Emotes, Outfits and Victory Poses.
As a balance goal, we’re working towards having the most powerful items in the game only earnable via in-game achievements.
Crates will include a mix of of Star Cards, Outfits, Emotes or Victory Poses.
Players earn crates by completing challenges and other gameplay
milestones, or by purchasing them with in-game credits or Crystals, our
premium currency.
If you get a duplicate Star Card in a crate, you will get crafting
parts which you can then use to help upgrade the Star Card of your
choice.
And lastly, you have to earn the right to be able to upgrade Star
Cards and unlock most Weapons. You can only upgrade or unlock them if
you have reached a high enough rank, which is determined by playing the
game.
We also have heard
some players are looking for a way to play where all players will have
the same set of Star Cards with flattened values. Like everything else,
we will be continually making necessary changes to ensure the game is
fun for everyone. We will work to make sure the system is balanced both
for players who want to earn everything, as well as for players who are
short on time and would like to move faster in their progress towards
various rewards."
So if they don’t consider it gambling because you always win something… can we change casinos to where they give you penny if you lose. Wait not lose, just win less than you gamble… I mean… win less than you pay.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
What a piss poor argument. You should be ashamed for writing something that tries to defend loot boxes, esp. in this case. The entire article is hot garbage.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Funny how there seems to be no game around, openly labelled as pay-to-win. Every time a game is under scrutiny for bordering the p2w area, someone always finds the silver-lining: "Relax folks, this LOOKS like p2w, but let me explain to you why it isn't."
Really glad that this Star Wars is not pay to win, too bad it is EA otherwise I would have tried it...
"We know you have a lot of questions about Crates and progression, so
we want to clarify a few things, as the complete system was not in the
Beta and will continue to be tuned over time:
There are many things you can earn in the game, including weapons,
attachments, credits, Star Cards, Emotes, Outfits and Victory Poses.
As a balance goal, we’re working towards having the most powerful items in the game only earnable via in-game achievements.
Crates will include a mix of of Star Cards, Outfits, Emotes or Victory Poses.
Players earn crates by completing challenges and other gameplay
milestones, or by purchasing them with in-game credits or Crystals, our
premium currency.
If you get a duplicate Star Card in a crate, you will get crafting
parts which you can then use to help upgrade the Star Card of your
choice.
And lastly, you have to earn the right to be able to upgrade Star
Cards and unlock most Weapons. You can only upgrade or unlock them if
you have reached a high enough rank, which is determined by playing the
game.
We also have heard
some players are looking for a way to play where all players will have
the same set of Star Cards with flattened values. Like everything else,
we will be continually making necessary changes to ensure the game is
fun for everyone. We will work to make sure the system is balanced both
for players who want to earn everything, as well as for players who are
short on time and would like to move faster in their progress towards
various rewards."
Thoughts?
Gating the P2W is still P2W.
It'll be easier for whales to earn the achievement related items... and easier for them to stop you earning them.
Providing a mode that doesn't allow upgrades removes features from the game for those who prefer not to be affected by loot crate purchases. So.. to get a fair game play experience you lose all progression features.
Not gunna fix the problem.
They'll never do it, but the only fix is a mode that means you'll never get paired with a user who has spent real money.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Usually, I laugh off the accusations of shilling as being nothing more than ignorant gamers devaluing the reviewer's opinion. This load of corporate horse shit, however, is gross and unethical.
Pay to win loot boxes in a competitive multiplayer game that you pay upfront for is not a grey area. It's just an unethical business practice. End of story.
I highly, highly doubt that Electronic Arts is paying, or otherwise compensating mmorpg.com for saying something mildly favorable about the game's business model.
How much did they pay you to say that? Or are you just being a contrarian for the sake of it?
Be honest, earn some respect.
Pay me to say what? That I prefer crates to the convoluted progression systems in other Battlefield games? Yeah, I'd rather have things be a simple stupid RNG box than have to do obnoxious assignments and level up 30 different things. That's my personal preference after having spent hundreds of hours in every Battlefield game available on PC. Obviously, I'd prefer said boxes not to be available for pay, but I can live with it if it means those who do pay are subsidizing free DLC for the rest of us, which has the bonus effect of solving community fragmentation and P2W due to the sale of paid DLC. Aside from the RNG, there's not really any new ground being charted here. You've been able to pay to skip through progression in Battlefield games forever. I've simply considered the whole thing and found the pros to potentially outweigh the cons if the system is properly implemented and that's all that I've laid out here today.
Feel free to disagree and articulate your reasons why. That's why I wrote the thing to begin with. I'm well aware that my position is in the minority and that's OK. I was just hoping to offer a different angle and encourage people to wait and see how things are implemented at launch when we'll have a fuller picture.
Corporations that prey on the weak-willed need regulating. At least China, Korea, and Japan have some laws that force devs to show loot box drop rates.
I agree the same reasons we have laws behind seatbelts and distracted driving and selling liquor to someone already over the limit,tobacco to minors,because a lot of people are not capable of thinking rationally or with any common sense.
Even when there are laws,those corporations,businesses are still using lawyers to find ways around circumventing the law.Geesh even the governments are trying to circumvent their own law/legislature with new legislature that claims to be on behalf of homeland security,people all over the world are SOB's,corrupt and trying to exploit other people.
You know the first sign someone is incapable of engaging in a rational argument? False equivalencies. It's a favored tool of those that have no logical footing to stand on.
50 to 100% damage reduction scaling. That's my logical footing to stand on.
Just to clear things up: If you're referring to the Boba Fett upgrade, that card only reduces incoming damage while flying and firing his Rocket Barrage ability (30s CD in the beta). He isn't just walking or flying around taking 50-100% less damage due to a Star Card. It's basically your standard sort of "take less damage when channeling X ability" type upgrade and only if he's flying at the same time.
So 30s CD. How long does it last? If it is 2-5s, who cares. Even if it is 10, it's manageable.
The channel time is around 2.5-3s, IIRC. And you have to be flying (exposed) to get the bonus at all.
In a single player game, I could care less about micro transactions. When discussing loot boxes or paying real money for items in multiplayer games, they really should be cosmetic only. Being able to purchase the best items with a credit card eliminates the joy of pure and balanced (as can be anyways) competition.
Remember the RMAH fiasco with Diablo 3? It tarnished the franchise name and it took Blizzard a couple years and an expansion to fix it. And D3 didn’t even have PVP!
This is a poor choice on EA’s part and I know the backlash is going to be strong. The question is, are enough people going to vote with their wallets and voice their concerns through the appropriate channels, or will the Star Wars label and release of a new movie overshadow the gamebreaking pay-2-win?
I hope for the former, but being a huge Star Wars nerd myself I know people are going to gobble this game up and make EA millions in the first week. I can’t say I blame them, we’ve been deprived of AAA Star Wars games since Lucasarts went under.
I know many people on facebook and other friends who are still buying the new battlefront 2. Mostly my console gaming friends who say they don't care about micro-transactions and just want to play a fun star wars game (their words).
The backlash on this is overblown and will make very little difference to the sales of battlefront 2. Most people don't care, despite the rage on youtube and some gaming sites. They just don't go on forums and talk about it, because they are playing the game or just don't care enough to go to forums or even use forums.
Its like the new middle earth game. Its done really well in sales despite some rage at whatever was going on with it (loot boxes? dunno, didn't bother to look). However my console gaming friends are really enjoying the new middle earth game and don't care about any controversy with it.
The same thing was said about MEA and we see where that stands now. I think it will do fine at first, but something tells me in a few months many maps/mods will be empty, just like the BF1 after it launched. I won't touch a game that locks progression behind RNG or a SP game that has loot boxes at all.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
"We know you have a lot of questions about Crates and progression (SAME THING), so
we want to clarify a few things, as the complete system was not in the
Beta and will continue to be tuned over time: (OUR BAD, BUT WE AREN'T SORRY.)
There are many things you can earn in the CRATES, including weapons,
attachments, credits, Star Cards, Emotes, Outfits and Victory Poses.
Crates will include a mix of of Star Cards, Outfits, Emotes or Victory Poses.
Players earn crates by completing challenges and other gameplay
milestones, or by MAINLY PURCHASING them with in-game credits or Crystals, our
premium currency.
If you get a duplicate Star Card in a crate, you will get crafting
parts which you can then use to help upgrade the Star Card of your
choice.
And lastly, you have to earn the right to be able to upgrade Star
Cards and unlock most Weapons. You can only upgrade or unlock them if
you have reached a high enough rank, which is determined by playing the
game.
We also have heard
some players are looking for a way to play where all players will have
the same set of Star Cards with flattened values. Like everything else,
we will be continually making necessary changes to ensure the game is
fun for everyone. We will work to make sure the system is balanced both
for players who want to earn everything, as well as for players who are
short on time and would like to move faster in their progress towards
various rewards." BUT THAT WILL LIKELY LOSE US MONEY SO DON'T HOLD YOUR BREATH.
Thoughts?
Fixed that with some caps lock goodness. Seems like EA forgot a few words, imo.
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
... but apparently box fees don't cover the costs of development in the 21st Century...
I would like to see definitive proof that this is the case in a B2P game. The thought that all these extras are necessary to cover the cost is at the root of the casual acceptance by gamers of these business models.
IMO it's just an imported concept from the F2P world where, the argument can clearly be made that they are needed. It helps to rationalize their inclusion in games where the same argument makes no sense.
Until I see proof (and fat chance any of them will open their books enough to prove it,) I'm looking at all of these as extra profit, not as covering the cost of development.
Just look how badly Blizzard is hurting. EA and the rest of them are probably in the same boat.
I feel so sorry for these companies... sooo hard to turn a profit.
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
The rational behind this argument is a lot like trying to make a good case for why being a prostitute is an acceptable career alternative for your daughter.
Might be true as opposed to some other bad options but not sure learning to live with it is the right way to go.
Great false equivalency. Those are excellent click grabbers.
Well it was meant to give a bit of a laugh while making a subtle point which I'm guessing most who laughed at it understand.
Most also know there is no serious equivalency between the two as well they know logical rationalization was never really my thing.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
also to add. Even if the MMO is free...that just makes it even easier to multi-box a ton of accounts and have a massive advantage over someone who can or only plays on one account. All MMOs allow this...this is as big of advantage if not bigger than "pay to win" in battlefront 2 or in any other game.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Interesting article. Never thought I would read something like that.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
also to add. Even if the MMO is free...that just makes it even easier to multi-box a ton of accounts and have a massive advantage over someone who can or only plays on one account. All MMOs allow this...this is as big of advantage if not bigger than "pay to win" in battlefront 2 or in any other game.
lol How is multi accounts a massive advantage over anyone when anyone can do the same for free? Also the grind is still the same regardless if you have 1 alt account or 10 alt accounts, having more than 1 account doesn't change that.
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
also to add. Even if the MMO is free...that just makes it even easier to multi-box a ton of accounts and have a massive advantage over someone who can or only plays on one account. All MMOs allow this...this is as big of advantage if not bigger than "pay to win" in battlefront 2 or in any other game.
lol How is multi accounts a massive advantage over anyone when anyone can do the same for free? Also the grind is still the same regardless if you have 1 alt account or 10 alt accounts, having more than 1 account doesn't change that.
Most people who play for free are kids, or limited amount of money to spend on a buy to play/pay to play MMO. Or limited time. Those who play normally, many people don't have the computer power or the income to afford a setup where they can log onto 10-20 accounts (I saw a 20 man group all being controlled by one person in WoW) at the same time, nor the bandwidth to even do that. That is a massive advantage to someone who has all that and can play on tons of accounts at the same time, a huge advantage in a PvP MMO.
Only people who disagree, but agree battlefront 2 are pay to win are trolls who have hopped on the hate battlefront 2 bandwagon. That or/and they use multiple accounts to gain a massive advantage and don't want to lose their advantage by calling multi accounts pay to win.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
also to add. Even if the MMO is free...that just makes it even easier to multi-box a ton of accounts and have a massive advantage over someone who can or only plays on one account. All MMOs allow this...this is as big of advantage if not bigger than "pay to win" in battlefront 2 or in any other game.
lol How is multi accounts a massive advantage over anyone when anyone can do the same for free? Also the grind is still the same regardless if you have 1 alt account or 10 alt accounts, having more than 1 account doesn't change that.
To add, while multi boxing in EVE provides significant ecconomic benefits its usefulness in PVP is almost nil.
Overall few who understand the game feel it is any sort of real advantage, and sometimes it's a major headache when you lose 5 Skiffs to that most deadly of opponents...."the Recliner"
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
also to add. Even if the MMO is free...that just makes it even easier to multi-box a ton of accounts and have a massive advantage over someone who can or only plays on one account. All MMOs allow this...this is as big of advantage if not bigger than "pay to win" in battlefront 2 or in any other game.
lol How is multi accounts a massive advantage over anyone when anyone can do the same for free? Also the grind is still the same regardless if you have 1 alt account or 10 alt accounts, having more than 1 account doesn't change that.
To add, while multi boxing in EVE provides significant ecconomic benefits its usefulness in PVP is almost nil.
Overall few who understand the game feel it is any sort of real advantage, and sometimes it's a major headache when you lose 5 Skiffs to that most deadly of opponents...."the Recliner"
Just like in battlefront 2...someone more skilled can overpower 1 person despite how much they are paying. Just like in EVE (or any other PvP MMO). However its still a massive advantage in both.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
Personally, I dont like the article, but one thing most older players need to understand (and I just realized this myself) is that the playing field in games was never fair to begin with. People always had an advantage over others simply because they had more time to dedicate than others. Companies didn't selflessly introduce micro-transactions but it does help make those with less time and more money want to engage, which is important in a game's life span. Unfortunately, there are those that have a lot of both and regardless of how many you think there are that exist, they still influence a game even if its minimal in some cases, because a degree of influence will always be subjective.
This is true for any game, there was never a level playing field in any genre of gaming.
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
also to add. Even if the MMO is free...that just makes it even easier to multi-box a ton of accounts and have a massive advantage over someone who can or only plays on one account. All MMOs allow this...this is as big of advantage if not bigger than "pay to win" in battlefront 2 or in any other game.
lol How is multi accounts a massive advantage over anyone when anyone can do the same for free? Also the grind is still the same regardless if you have 1 alt account or 10 alt accounts, having more than 1 account doesn't change that.
Most people who play for free are kids, or limited amount of money to spend on a buy to play/pay to play MMO. Or limited time. Those who play normally, many people don't have the computer power or the income to afford a setup where they can log onto 10-20 accounts (I saw a 20 man group all being controlled by one person in WoW) at the same time, nor the bandwidth to even do that. That is a massive advantage to someone who has all that and can play on tons of accounts at the same time, a huge advantage in a PvP MMO.
Only people who disagree, but agree battlefront 2 are pay to win are trolls. That or they use multiple accounts to gain a massive advantage and don't want to lose their advantage by calling multi accounts pay to win.
Ok I have no idea why the gif was posted 3x and in your post I am sorry. What kids have the income to have 10-20 pc's set up to play 10-20 accounts and 20-40 arms to control them all in a pvp setting and still win? Seems like alot of work to me. DAoC is the only mmo that I know of that lets you play more than one game client/alt account on the same computer, so your alt/s can follow your main around and keep it buffed.
Comments
It shouldn't be used synonymously with "cover the projected target revenue" the way it often is here.
I mean... don't you see the irony in the fact that this sort of thing was extremely rare in B2P games 10 or 20 years ago when the box sales numbers were a fraction of what they are today? Now they are pulling in a lot more from just general up front sales and microtransactions are everywhere in B2P games.
Something tells me this is all about "greed is good" where no ROI is ever too obscene. It kind of reminds me of banks with transaction fees... covering the cost?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Over at Massively they are the complete opposite http://massivelyop.com/2017/10/11/but-seriously-lockboxes-suck-even-if-the-esrb-doesnt-think-theyre-gambling-stop-buying-lockboxes/ thankfully.
No argument will ever convince me that P2W lockboxes are the future of gaming.
"We know you have a lot of questions about Crates and progression, so we want to clarify a few things, as the complete system was not in the Beta and will continue to be tuned over time:
We also have heard some players are looking for a way to play where all players will have the same set of Star Cards with flattened values. Like everything else, we will be continually making necessary changes to ensure the game is fun for everyone. We will work to make sure the system is balanced both for players who want to earn everything, as well as for players who are short on time and would like to move faster in their progress towards various rewards."
Thoughts?My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Really glad that this Star Wars is not pay to win, too bad it is EA otherwise I would have tried it...
Gating the P2W is still P2W.
It'll be easier for whales to earn the achievement related items... and easier for them to stop you earning them.
Providing a mode that doesn't allow upgrades removes features from the game for those who prefer not to be affected by loot crate purchases. So.. to get a fair game play experience you lose all progression features.
Not gunna fix the problem.
They'll never do it, but the only fix is a mode that means you'll never get paired with a user who has spent real money.
If all games become "P2W", then you'll either have to give up gaming, or start paying !
My bet is that most gamers will choose the latter option...
Pay to win loot boxes in a competitive multiplayer game that you pay upfront for is not a grey area. It's just an unethical business practice. End of story.
Feel free to disagree and articulate your reasons why. That's why I wrote the thing to begin with. I'm well aware that my position is in the minority and that's OK. I was just hoping to offer a different angle and encourage people to wait and see how things are implemented at launch when we'll have a fuller picture.
The same thing was said about MEA and we see where that stands now. I think it will do fine at first, but something tells me in a few months many maps/mods will be empty, just like the BF1 after it launched. I won't touch a game that locks progression behind RNG or a SP game that has loot boxes at all.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
I feel so sorry for these companies... sooo hard to turn a profit.
The stock holders must be running for the hills.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
FPS games...if your internet sucked or sucks...you will definitely be on the bottom of the food chain (rankings).
Strategy games, the same. Also as quote said, if someone just has more time to play strategy games (or FPS games) they are going to do way better than someone who can only play a match or two a day or whatever if even that.
MMOs...definitely never been fair. PVE MMOs are a lot more fair, so this is more for PvP based ones...Anyone who grinded more than you, played longer than you, has a better guild than you, a better player than you, has vastly better items than you ...
OR and this is the kicker...
How is having microtransactions and pay to win mechanics ANY different than ...say ...someone in EVE Online who can multibox 10+ accounts at the same time, any LESS FAIR than someone who can only pay for one account? Or any other MMO where they allow multi-boxing? multi-boxing is a MASSIVE advantage, on the level of microtransaction pay to win schemes...but why does no one complain about it like they are doing with battlefront 2?
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Most also know there is no serious equivalency between the two as well they know logical rationalization was never really my thing.
I'm more of a showman, here for your amusement.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Only people who disagree, but agree battlefront 2 are pay to win are trolls who have hopped on the hate battlefront 2 bandwagon. That or/and they use multiple accounts to gain a massive advantage and don't want to lose their advantage by calling multi accounts pay to win.
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
Overall few who understand the game feel it is any sort of real advantage, and sometimes it's a major headache when you lose 5 Skiffs to that most deadly of opponents...."the Recliner"
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
My Skyrim, Fallout 4, Starbound and WoW + other game mods at MODDB:
https://www.moddb.com/mods/skyrim-anime-overhaul
What kids have the income to have 10-20 pc's set up to play 10-20 accounts and 20-40 arms to control them all in a pvp setting and still win? Seems like alot of work to me. DAoC is the only mmo that I know of that lets you play more than one game client/alt account on the same computer, so your alt/s can follow your main around and keep it buffed.