Star Wars Battlefront 2 - now with lootbox drama

[Havoc]

seven peso jose

 

[Daedalos]

So Joe finally reviewed it, and he gave it a surprising 6/10. Surprising to me, because all the other bandwagon reviews have been scores like 2/5 4/10 5/10 etc. just being edgy.

But Joe has been one of the most vocal and angry of them all, and he still gave it a 6/10. Not bad I guess ;D

Oh wow! Let's post the one and ONLY rating above 5/10 because that would so TOTALLY prove my point that the game is worth sinking money into. No, I didn't waste my money! You are so mean to say that! I spent my money well! It is the best thing I have ever done, well, since the other time I spent money on the best game EVAH (also by EA)... Or the time before that, or the one before tha- Shut up! Just shut up! Battlefront II is the best EVAH! Neener! Neener! I can't hear you!

You need good professional psychiatrical help. I can recommend a few doctors. Get well soon.

 

[Kitchen Utensil]

So Joe finally reviewed it, and he gave it a surprising 6/10. Surprising to me, because all the other bandwagon reviews have been scores like 2/5 4/10 5/10 etc. just being edgy.

But Joe has been one of the most vocal and angry of them all, and he still gave it a 6/10. Not bad I guess ;D

Oh wow! Let's post the one and ONLY rating above 5/10 because that would so TOTALLY prove my point that the game is worth sinking money into. No, I didn't waste my money! You are so mean to say that! I spent my money well! It is the best thing I have ever done, well, since the other time I spent money on the best game EVAH (also by EA)... Or the time before that, or the one before tha- Shut up! Just shut up! Battlefront II is the best EVAH! Neener! Neener! I can't hear you!

I can recommend a few doctors.

You can?

 

[Cael]

You can?

Given his neuroses, it is not inconceivable that he knows ALL of them :D

 

[ColonelTeacup]

ColonelTeacup, yes that is really CEO of Sony

Why is the CEO of Sony commenting on EAs fuckups? If even nips are paying attention to this dumpster fire, it's even worse than I thought.

Dunno if you're serious or not but, no, it's not actually Sony's CEO, it's a (hilarious) parody account

Ah, I see. I don't care enough about twitch to know either way. However, thank you for the information.

 

[Luckmann]

not gamebreaking

really really annoying and unnessecary.

 

[ColonelTeacup]

I thought Puerto Rico was still without electricity?

Angry Joe is just a slightly more talented DSP with a scoche more ethical backbone.

 

[Daedalos]

not gamebreaking

really really annoying and unnessecary.

Yes. Is reading comprehension an issue for you?

There's a difference between being very annoying and shit, and being OMGG ABSOLUTE FUCKING SYUPPEERRR SHITTER GAMEBREAKINGLY FUCKING SHIT BAD OMG WORST THING EVERRrrrr.

To reiterate a final time, the game can be enjoyed for countless of hours, regardless of the progression and loot system, BUT it would be even MORE enjoyable if those things got fixed. Understand now?

More news at 11.

 

[Luckmann]

very annoying and shit

OMGG ABSOLUTE FUCKING SYUPPEERRR SHITTER GAMEBREAKINGLY FUCKING SHIT BAD OMG WORST THING EVERRrrrr.

 

[nodar]

I know the Duke Nukem impersonator is a troll but I'll make this counter argument availible for ctrl-cing in case anyone else runs into some publisher plant making the same argument he's making outside this thread.

Despite being prompted multiple times by multiple goverments no study has ever being able to prove that violence in videogames provoked violent behaivour in children, meaning any sort of regulation beyond what is already in place would be utterly pointless and unjustified. Loot boxes on ther hand HAVE been proved to be linked to addictive behaivour that could harm children's, and adult's, mental health. so regulation in this one specific respect is wholly justified.

That and violence makes games awesome while microtransactions makes them suck. QED.

Likewise, one can find studies that claim how violent video games have opposite effect - something that conservative culture warriors did back in 90s - just like one can find studies that claim how microtransactions don't have any influence of the development of gambling habits among youth. Sciences of psychology and sociology are such by nature - there are very few universals in regards to human condition.

Point is that, back then, gamers stood with their industry. Now, they stand against it, even though attack is just the same with same "think of the children" rhetoric. Culture warriors are turning gamers against their own field.

 

[Shackleton]

I know the Duke Nukem impersonator is a troll but I'll make this counter argument availible for ctrl-cing in case anyone else runs into some publisher plant making the same argument he's making outside this thread.

Despite being prompted multiple times by multiple goverments no study has ever being able to prove that violence in videogames provoked violent behaivour in children, meaning any sort of regulation beyond what is already in place would be utterly pointless and unjustified. Loot boxes on ther hand HAVE been proved to be linked to addictive behaivour that could harm children's, and adult's, mental health. so regulation in this one specific respect is wholly justified.

That and violence makes games awesome while microtransactions makes them suck. QED.

Likewise, one can find studies that claim how violent video games have opposite effect - something that conservative culture warriors did back in 90s - just like one can find studies that claim how microtransactions don't have any influence of the development of gambling habits among youth. Sciences of psychology and sociology are such by nature - there are very few universals in regards to human condition.

Point is that, back then, gamers stood with their industry. Now, they stand against it, even though attack is just the same with same "think of the children" rhetoric. Culture warriors are turning gamers against their own field.

You have got to be a troll. No-one can be that delusional. Gamers stood with their industry? Gamers were acting in their own best interests then and are doing so now, never mind this rubbish about 'supporting their industry.' There was pushback against the 'violent video games cause RL violence' because gamers could see that their hobby was in danger of being affected negatively by a swing towards puritanism, just as they can see now that it's in danger of being negatively affected by this swing towards 'in-app' purchases fuelled by whales who waste large sums of money on gaining a tiny advantage in a video game. It's fuck all to do with supporting anything other than their own self-interest.

I don't recall this furore around the F2P games that have expensive in-app purchases. It's only when greedy publishers ask for $60 to buy the game and then try and bleed you dry afterwards that it gets the pitchforks rising.

God, i remember all the whining that went on when WoW launched and all the bitching about it requiring a subscription. Little did people know what was coming down the line...

 

[nodar]

But, politicians who are engaged in this are once once again hiding behind moral outrage (gambling addiction rather than violence, this time around), and you can bet that their motives are once again the same - another industry is to be chained by government meddling.

Situation itself is identical, it is the frame in which people like you approach it that is different. Whereas there was a strong feeling of solidarity between gamers, devs and publishers as well as awareness that they are sharing the same interest in their battle, gamers are now engaged in open crusade against their industry.

 

[Cael]

Equating gameplay (violence) with non-gameplay (lootboxes) is ludicrous.

Demanding people (gamers) blindly support and agree with everything the tribe (game industry) does or say is equally ludicrous.

 

[ColonelTeacup]

But, politicians who are engaged in this are once once again hiding behind moral outrage (gambling addiction rather than violence, this time around), and you can bet that their motives are once again the same - another industry is to be chained by government meddling.

Situation itself is identical, it is the frame in which people like you approach it that is different. Whereas there was a strong feeling of solidarity between gamers, devs and publishers as well as awareness that they are sharing the same interest in their battle, gamers are now engaged in open crusade against their industry.

That's a lot of misdirection and facts left out there to justify your narrative, soy boy.

 

[DragoFireheart]

But, politicians who are engaged in this are once once again hiding behind moral outrage (gambling addiction rather than violence, this time around), and you can bet that their motives are once again the same - another industry is to be chained by government meddling.

Situation itself is identical, it is the frame in which people like you approach it that is different. Whereas there was a strong feeling of solidarity between gamers, devs and publishers as well as awareness that they are sharing the same interest in their battle, gamers are now engaged in open crusade against their industry.

That's a lot of misdirection and facts left out there to justify your narrative, soy boy.

There's nothing worse than a Soy Boy.

 

[ColonelTeacup]

Indeed.

 

[Luckmann]

Situation itself is identical

No. There is no link whatsoever between violent media consumption and violence. There are countless links between gambling media and gambling addiction.

 

[fantadomat]

Situation itself is identical

No. There is no link whatsoever between violent media consumption and violence. There are countless links between gambling media and gambling addiction.

Well that is not exactly true. Violent media/games do have calming effect on people. As a whole we are pretty violent and aggressive specie. We do need to exhaust our aggression,some go for sports,some for fitness,some for bar fights and some people go for killing pixels .

 

[Durandal]

But, politicians who are engaged in this are once once again hiding behind moral outrage (gambling addiction rather than violence, this time around), and you can bet that their motives are once again the same - another industry is to be chained by government meddling.

Situation itself is identical, it is the frame in which people like you approach it that is different. Whereas there was a strong feeling of solidarity between gamers, devs and publishers as well as awareness that they are sharing the same interest in their battle, gamers are now engaged in open crusade against their industry.

Are you just being a lolbert devil's advocate now?

There is no solidarity to be had between consumers and producers when the producers decide to push their greed even further over the line. When publishers decide to use unethical predatory practices in order to shake down more money from their costumers; including children who don't realize the consequences of spending money as much, at the expense of the quality of your product, then the government is actually protecting consumer interests for once by stepping in with regulations, rather than protecting corporate interests like usual. For years have publishers have innovated more on the front of troggling more money from whales than they have with games, as they introduced gradually more and more anti-consumer practices to videogames. The free market has brought us to this point, and it was with Battlefront II that a line was able to be finally drawn.

Even fucking China had the decency to pass a law which mandated that all online games with lootbox systems were required to publish the drop chances of the potential items inside in order to counteract the widespread addiction somewhat. Previous attempts by the government to intervene in the videogaming industry were mostly based on the outrages of soccer moms who were more upset with the thematic (violent) of videogames back when they were mostly considered just toys for kids (instead of a profitable product). Nowadays no government would care about videogames unless you're like China or South Korea where the majority of your youth spends their days playing games in internet café's, but it was thanks to the #gambling push that local senators felt obliged to step in for the kids.

Besides, the gambling claim isn't bullshit either. Battlefront II very strongly nudges/intended to nudge players towards buying lootboxes which may contain items vital to player progression and by extent, more fun as you end up having an easier time killing everyone else. At least F2P P2W games trying to do the same shit didn't hide their premium items behind RNG, while it can be hardly said that games with cosmetic lootboxes like Overwatch encouraged you to spend more money on cosmetic items you clearly didn't need to win. With a franchise as popular with kids as Star Wars, it's not too hard to imagine who the target audience for Battlefront II would be. EA really broke new ground here, and for that the government had to step in in order to prevent other companies from doing the same and letting the cancer spread.

 

[Spectacle]

BTW, was there anyone in this thread other than Mengsk who would actually have bought Battlefront 2 if it didn't have any microtransactions, or are we just getting butthurt over a game we were never going to play in the first place?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

You mean like Fallout 3?

Disgusting. Didn't think Nintendo was into that shit also.

Little detail I found on the comments: telling the rabbit that you don't want to pay to keep playing after using your free tries makes him smile and say "no worries, that's cool!". In the japanese version he guilt trips you with a dejected look, lol.

 

[fantadomat]

BTW, was there anyone in this thread other than Mengsk who would actually have bought Battlefront 2 if it didn't have any microtransactions, or are we just getting butthurt over a game we were never going to play in the first place?

Mengstk for certainty won't buy the game!!! Have you seen a sjw back the think that they drivel about? How many games have succeeded because sjws?

 

[Sam Ecorners]

BTW, was there anyone in this thread other than Mengsk who would actually have bought Battlefront 2 if it didn't have any microtransactions, or are we just getting butthurt over a game we were never going to play in the first place?

I bought it for my 9 year old. He doesn't really give a shit about progression, he just wanted star wars MP

 

[Santander02]

Putting this here since every post related to lootboxes gets split and merged with this thread (We might as well remove the "SW Battlefront 2" part from the title now). The Aussies are on it too:

http://www.pcgamer.com/australian-g...oxes-constitute-gambling-by-legal-definition/

Australian gambling analyst says loot boxes 'constitute gambling' by legal definition


By Andy Chalk 19 hours ago

The Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation analyst said the real question is what to do about it.


The backlash against loot boxes has now reached all the way to Australia: Responding to an inquiry from a redditor named -Caesar, a strategic analyst for the Compliance Division of the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation said that "what occurs with 'loot boxes' does constitute gambling by the definition of the Victorian Legislation."

"We are currently engaging with interstate and international counterparts to progress wider policy changes and to modernize and inform both Federal and State-based legislation," the analyst, Jarrod Wolfe, wrote. "We take on board responses from the community, such as your concerns, to ensure that our actions are reflective of the risks these products pose as well as the community’s expectation. Watching recent Reddit activity certainly indicates the majority of the gaming community is at odds with decisions made by certain companies."

Wolfe said his focus is on "the more predatory aspects related to 'pay to win'" games, while things like skins and virtual currencies are somewhat more secondary. But he made no bones about where he stands on the matter: "The normalization of gambling vernacular and mechanics targeted at vulnerable persons (minors) is not just morally reprehensible, but is also legally questionable."

He also emphasized the inherent difficulties in regulating loot boxes in games, and acknowledged that "enforcement is probably not an option." He believes that the most effective path to change is through cooperation with other agencies that can bring different kinds of pressure to bear on publishers.

"For instance; if these companies want to include significant elements of gambling in their products then perhaps we should work with the Australian Classification Board to ensure than any product that does that and monetizes it gets an immediate R rating," he wrote. "I could imagine that this would send ripples through the industry and it would support the objectives of the Gambling Legislation to ensure minors are not encouraged to participate in gambling."

The response isn't an official position adopted by the government of Australia or Victoria, but the lack of ambiguity clearly illustrates which way the wind is blowing. All that's up for discussion is what to actually do about it. Every nation has its own laws, and Australia certainly hasn't been reluctant about going its own way in the past, but with similar noises coming out of Europe and North America, it certainly looks like trouble could be brewing.

Wolfe also leveled an unmistakable and rather sinister-sounding warning to anyone in the business hoping that this will all blow over: "It is perhaps unfortunate for these companies that gamers have infiltrated most areas of government; be assured that knowledgeable and interested parties are undertaking a large body of work in relation to issues you noted. And if an avenue of investigation or enforcement is found, then we will most definitely pursue it."

I've reached out to the VCGLR and Electronic Arts for more information, and I'll update if I receive a reply.

Lolz highlighted, Maybe there's more to that meme about GG getting Trump elected guys...

 

[Lahey]

BTW, was there anyone in this thread other than Mengsk who would actually have bought Battlefront 2 if it didn't have any microtransactions, or are we just getting butthurt over a game we were never going to play in the first place?

I'm not into fps, but as mentioned above, posts on the recent developments keep getting merged into this thread despite the fallout being much larger in scope than a single game or company. The llama in me came to this thread initially just for lulz at the reddit post, but now there are legislators/regulator/justice minister from multiple different countres expressing a desire to take action that puts the future of entire business models into question, in what is potentially the biggest happening of the games industry since the crash.