Looks like they've got no problem with following along with EA and in a way going to an all new low when it comes to big video game development and micro transactions for randomized loot boxes in games that already cost $60.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/insert...ike-theyre-going-to-be-a-serious-problem/amp/
I really hope lawmakers eventually notice this crap and regulation reigns it in. It's really getting ridiculous that what used to come standard or unlocked through simply getting better at a game now has to be gambled for or received incredibly slowly through a grind to make the payments look more attractive.
(
please don't make me do this, please don't make me play devil's advocate...please...ugh...here goes)
Yes, the way EA has implemented this is stupid and terrible and they deserve what they are getting. But it's not for the reasons you think. The actual valid complaint is getting lost in the din.
The valid complaint is that general progression is tied to random boxes you earn and open (based on the beta). Now, that is VERY important to point out - based on the beta. Leaks have happened that show a different build of the game where it's quite different. If that turns out to be the case, then EA was really, really stupid to have it this way in the beta. The reason this is a bad thing is because you and I can both have equal skill, both play the same length of time, and both get the same number of kills, etc. - and one of us can be further ahead than the other. That is stupid and deserves the ire.
When it comes to DLC and microtransactions - here is the thing. They are here to stay. Well, no, you have two choices. One, live in a world where video games cost a standard $60, as they do, and put up with them (and is demanded by retailers and the game community at large, as well as just about every study/survey ever done), or games have a sliding scale, and a game like BF2 which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make costs everyone $120 for the standard edition. When the financials are out, I won't be surprised if EA spent more on BF2 than Disney did on TLJ, and unlike a film Disney can profit on for essentially forever, a game has a much shorter lifespan.
Look what happened to the last BF. The crap storm around the fact that the full game was really the game plus the season pass, pretty much meaning you had to spend $100 to get the full game. Even though it was still the best selling game of the year (and by far the best selling Star Wars game ever), the gaming community still had a monstrous fit over it. So this time, they said okay, no DLC, all future content will be free. So they monetize the only other way there really is, micro-transactions. It's actually better for the gamers in this instance, as much as I wish it wasn't - that way, everyone gets the entire game experience and all content for $60, and the people that want to dump anywhere from a few bucks to a few thousand dollars (and don't kid yourself, there are enough people that will be dropping thousands on this game that it's going to add up significantly) to progress instantly, can.
It's gamer's demand that games (with ever-rising production costs) are not affected by inflation. Games essentially have not seen any price increase of significance in
decades. Hell, I spent $60 for Super Mario Bros. 3 in 1990, and the average first-party NES game back then was $50. And video games never used to go on sale like they do now, either (contractually, they couldn't, even if the retailers wanted to). When companies switched to CDs, the prices remained at $50 until a couple of generations ago, and they are now still steady at $60.
(And don't you dare say, "Well Nintendo has managed to not really do it..." - they do now, and even before they
always have been the worst company when it comes to inflated game prices. In fact - you'll have to look it up because you might not know, as it was before you were born, but their price fixing and practices against retailers and consumers were so bad on the NES that the FTC had to get involved and they got into a lot of legal trouble, not to mention that since they have continued selling the same damn games over and over and over on system after system at prices that are roundly ridiculous for the age of the games and the fact that they often use emulators and ROMs they themselves just download off of the freaking internet - literally, it's been proven).
So...be mad at EA. Be ed even. I am. But be ed at the right things. Be ed at the random progression system. But starting out with the complaint that this time, your $60 is getting you access to absolutely *all* the content in the game, the caveat being some people can spend more money to progress their little digital characters more quickly, when last time the complaint was you had to spend $100 to get the complete game, is just nonsensical and just gamers who aren't willing to accept the realities of buying games that cost as much as AAA major feature films.
Personally, I was just fine last time around when BF one had the content spread over the game and the season pass. But there was such uproar, they are doing it this way this time. The costs of making these games has gone up 50-100x, yet the prices have remained virtually the same. That's why so few companies actually stay in the game business for long. Unless you have a massive hit regularly, financially, they can't. The gaming community just can't have it both ways.
