snopes.com

snopes.com (http://message.snopes.com/index.php)
-   Amusement Bark (http://message.snopes.com/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   A new hope for players battling ‘Star Wars’ game fees (http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=96235)

Psihala 25 November 2017 10:52 AM

A new hope for players battling ‘Star Wars’ game fees
 
Players of the new video game “Star Wars Battlefront II” were angry to discover last week that they had to buy so-called “loot boxes,” which randomly provide gamers new weapons, armor or content that gives them an edge when playing. Those fees were on top of the $60 players had to spend to buy the game from its creator, Electronic Arts.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...e-fees-n823806

crocoduck_hunter 25 November 2017 04:14 PM

I hate microtransactions, but I think that EA has been catching some unnecessary flak over this. Battlefront II is hardly the first game to use a system like the loot boxes, and they're 100% earnable just by playing the game; contrary to the way it's being reported you don't actually need to spend any real money to get them aside from what it cost to buy the game in the first place.

Psihala 25 November 2017 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1965003)
contrary to the way it's being reported you don't actually need to spend any real money to get them aside from what it cost to buy the game in the first place.

From what I understand, the issue is the difference in the amount of time it takes to grind the experience points to get the same stuff vs just buying it. You can buy on day one everything you need to get a competitive advantage over someone who doesn't pay and has to spend hours and hours to get the same equipment.

It creates an unfair playing field in a multi-player environment between those who pay vs those who do not. Those who are getting beat in multi-player, not on experience alone but by better equipped players who bought their way to being better equipped rather than grinding for it are playing in the same matches as those who aren't paying for the perks up front.

At least, that is how it's being explained to me.

~Psihala

crocoduck_hunter 25 November 2017 07:34 PM

Technically true, but unlike, say, World of Tanks, the game also offers Player-vs-Enemy matches and a fairly good (if somewhat short) single player mode that allow you to grind the needed credits without being overmatched in PvP games.

Onyx_TKD 25 November 2017 08:21 PM

Quote:

After players organized and lashed out on Reddit and social media, lawmakers in Hawaii, Belgium, Australia and the U.K. began examining whether games that provide rewards, either through playing the game or through an exchange of money, could constitute gambling.
I think I must be missing something about the way this sentence was meant to be parsed. :confused:

The argument that spending real-world money to buy unknown, randomized in-game items is gambling seems pretty straightforward, whether or not it makes sense to regulate this particular type of gambling in the same way as others. But isn't a game that provides rewards due to playing it just...a normal game? By that logic, kids' soccer games are child gambling because the winners get a trophy (a reward) by playing the game. I thought maybe they meant specifically games that provide the same reward by two paths, gameplay or direct payment, but I don't see how the presence of the gameplay route would strengthen the argument that it's gambling. :confused:

crocoduck_hunter 25 November 2017 10:55 PM

I believe it's because the reward is randomized and consequently independent of the player's skill.

Psihala 26 November 2017 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter (Post 1965012)
Technically true, but unlike, say, World of Tanks, the game also offers Player-vs-Enemy matches and a fairly good (if somewhat short) single player mode that allow you to grind the needed credits without being overmatched in PvP games.

If this refers to the SW Battlefront 2's Arcade mode, it has credit caps and forced (no pun intended) "cool down" during which players earn no credits after completing a mission.

The developer, DICE, explained it was to limit players playing offline from earning too many credits (which can be used in multi-player) from "exploiting" that route.

Apparently, that explanation isn't flying with some since it seems to encourage buying one's way around it.

DICE responds to Star Wars Battlefront II's Arcade hourly credit caps

~Psihala
(*Note: I should point out that currently, all micro-transactions have been turned off in Star Wars: Battlefront 2 "temporarily" (according to EA). In a Wall Street Journal article, which was behind a pay-wall last I checked and only got to see a portion of in a gaming journalists' YouTube video, Disney wasn't happy with the negative publicity EA was generating with SWBF2's release so close the next Star Wars movie release, and told them to pull the plug on the lootboxes. I can't see the article to confirm that, though, so take it with a grain of salt.)

Darth Credence 27 November 2017 01:56 PM

I bought the game on release day. I suck at multiplayer. I haven't even played all that much, but I can currently buy any character I want. This whole thing is way overblown, but it is also about what I expect from gamers. I would consider myself one, but I would also say they are in a tie for the most entitled, whiny people who spend way too much time complaining about the things they also claim to like (superhero fans are the other group, BTW).

crocoduck_hunter 27 November 2017 05:42 PM

Yeah, seconded. I'm honestly surprised that I haven't been hearing complaints about the fact that the main character of single player mode is a woman.


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:41 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.