It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Star Wars: Battlefront II is sure to be overshadowed by the controversy surrounding its microtransactions, but beneath the fury lies a game truly worthy of the Star Wars IP.
This is all well and good, but will they have a better way to ban hackers in this game? The first one is unplayable in multi-player now regardless of how you are geared.
Why does it matter if a game has microtransactions or not? Is the game good? Then why punish yourself from playing a good game? I play Destiny 2 on console and its amazing and a ton of fun...I'm not gonna self harm myself by not playing it just because of some loot boxes or whatever. I'm gonna buy Star Wars Battlefront 2, because I love star wars and its looking to be another great game.
Too many people rage against microtransactions and DLC...and the vast majority of time they'd have no effect on the persons game.
Oh well, I hope those people leave the gaming genre so people who actually LIKE games can enjoy games without a bunch of whiners complaining about them.
And wasn't there a pro-microtransaction article just recently praising loot boxes and microtransactions? It was for battlefront 2 lol
Just like that article on this site, I learned to stop worrying about things like this and just enjoying the game itself. Now I have far more fun in all kinds of games.
It's mostly a problem specific to multiplayer shooters. We don't cover multiplayer shooters very frequently. I only wrote about it as part of my weekly column. I've been playing these games since I was a teenager and it's always been a massive problem, even before the DLC/season pass craze. It's just gotten a lot worse lately. Paid DLC content can be OK for other genres, but it's hugely problematic for multiplayer shooters because it splits up the community. This is why I state in the beginning of the piece that the context is important when it comes to Battlefront. Losing the season pass is a monumental win for fans of multiplayer shooters and if the trade off involves loot boxes, I think it's worth it if implemented well.Iselin said:Sovrath said:
It's not about making profit. It's about making the profit they need/want/have projected to make.
But getting back on point... where the heck (other than in Mike's article) did this gaming evil of player fragmentation through DLC come from? If it were such a huge problem I should have seen many anti-DLC articles here before... maybe I missed them.
It's clear that this decision was rooted in a core idea: "We don't want to segment our community," Diemer said.
"I cannot talk about the specifics of this, but we have something different in mind that will allow you to play longer, be [more] invested in the game without having a fragmented community."
Diemer admitted that it's "dangerous" to the health of a game's community when new maps and new modes are locked behind a paywall. It creates a situation where, as he put it, "the community is falling apart because there are simply not many people playing the different modes."
"So we definitely want to avoid that."Decent discussion on this on NeoGAF: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1149750