George-Roper Comments

Page 1 of 127

  • "This game is a Star Wars-themed online casino designed to lure kids into spending money"

  • George-Roper 23/11/2017


    What difference? Nothing has happened yet you moron.

    I don't need to read on, because the only moron here is the one who believes the journey of a thousand miles doesn't begin with one step.
    Reply +2
  • George-Roper 23/11/2017


    The "game" part, simply doesn't come into it. Its just a casino, there's no fun to be had outside the wagering.

    Which if that was actually the case, would render the whole product non-functional when they removed the ability to buy stuff.

    The MT framework is wired all the way around and through this 'game'. Removing it, as many have already said, effectively breaks the progression system, as its so finely intertwined.

    If you had a fucking clue about the game we're talking about, you'd know that already.

    Instead, its just a very grindy game, which if you had a fucking clue about our "beloved hobby", you'd know is no more no less than a stylistic or balancing choice.

    Can you hear yourself? You sound exactly like the EA/DICE mouthpiece.

    "The way the game is designed is on purpose, its about giving the player choice in how to play".

    And yet BF1 had no such 'stylistic or balancing' design. How do you care to explain that a supposedly progressive 'game' has actually regressed in real terms over its predecessor?

    If you had a fucking clue about the game we're talking about, you'd know that already.

    Time to face facts, all those 'entitled' gamers were right. They were right to voice their outrage and they were right to vote with their wallets.

    Whereas if you'd had your blinkered way, everyone would just lap up whatever shit they're served. It must leave SUCH a bitter taste in your shrivelled gullet that gamers have been able to make this level of impact. If I could be bothered to look back through your posts, you're probably one of the enablers who was shouting that "You're in the minority!" and "You can't make a difference!"

    Well, on behalf of everyone who did make a difference. Fuck you.

    Reply +5
  • George-Roper 22/11/2017


    Magic is ripping me off in the same way since the 80s.
    Speak for yourself, I just sold hundreds of mid 90s MTG cards for £200.

    Guess how much you could get for all your BF2 loot box animations?
    Reply +4
  • George-Roper 22/11/2017


    Its a fucking game. And games are supposed to be "addictive" because they aren't movies where a single viewing is enough for most people, they are supposed to keep the buyer coming back for more.
    Newsflash, games ARE still addictive.

    Games STILL offer a ton of replayability.

    Games ARE still a hell of a lot of fun.

    Just not these games. Because they've made it more about increasing revenue more and more and more than providing a game that can stand on its own two feet and sell copies on its own merits.

    Reply +8
  • George-Roper 22/11/2017


    And if that's the tack they're taking, the conversation on violence isn't far behind. Then somebody brings up drinking in games. Then smoking.Then somebody will bring up gender representation, because it offends their moral sensibilities, and we 'shouldn't be showing that to children'.
    It doesn't matter which way you try and cut it, its not worse than letting our beloved hobby get even more mired in grubby, predatory MTs.

    Frankly, I'd sooner have ZERO new AAA games and focus more on indies, than pander to Activision and EA.
    Reply +8
  • George-Roper 22/11/2017


    Not defending microtransactions, but genuinely interested to know: if MTs were made 'illegal', where would that leave things like Pokemon cards, action figure blind bags, Panini cards... i.e. physical items that have a similar 'random content' mechanic?
    Isn't it obvious?

    You can swap or sell the cards you dont want or are duplicates.

    If you pony up £3 for a loot box and you get a shitty animation you dont want, you can't swap or sell it. You're stuck with it.
    Reply +16
  • George-Roper 22/11/2017


    For all those citing the exact word of law on this, you're missing the bigger picture. Just because it doesn't align exactly with the book, doesn't mean its not morally repugnant.

    EA are targetting young and vulnerable gamers. There's no doubt there, its a system built on impatience and the need to have the 'cool stuff' now.
    Reply +48
  • Marvel Heroes developers say they were let go the day before Thanksgiving

  • George-Roper 23/11/2017


    Of course, naturally my post will be down voted due to not displaying faux empathy.
    Not having any empathy for someone who's pretty much been thrown onto the street with no income to fall back on is quite something to see.

    I've been through redundancy, three times, and I can also say that its not the end of the world and in a way it hardens you. But at the time, when you have bills to pay, when your mortgage might be at risk, it certainly does feel like the of the world.

    There's no need to be a twat about it. If you have nothing decent to say, perhaps say nothing?
    Reply +36
  • Lucasfilm reacts to Star Wars Battlefront 2 loot crate controversy

  • George-Roper 21/11/2017


    There is now no more extra to pay in BF2, as EA have removed it
    Temporarily. Removed temporarily.

    Please don't fall into the PR trap. That's exactly what EA want you to believe.

    Main point is people seem to be more OK with it with Shadow of War, a single player game with online multiplayer components, but BF2 is more of a MMO, with loads of people connected. BF2 will need more server maintenance to keep running smoothly than Shadow of War. I do not agree with paying real money to get these crates, but BF2 has more valid reason to have them than Shadow if War, but neither should have them at all.
    Can I ask what makes BF2 unique compared to other games? Why doesnt Overwatch have loot tied to progression, if thats the case? Surely every other developer has to maintain servers and such?

    I don't buy it. I don't buy MTs in Shadows of War and I don't buy them in BF2. They're there because publisher see another revenue stream to tap, not because they need servers to be supported.
    Reply +3
  • George-Roper 21/11/2017


    MMOs mostly carried a £8.99 monthly sub fee, but then got switched to free to play with microtransactions.
    That fee came with depth and content.

    BF2 has neither. Just like BF1 had neither. All the supposed depth in BF2 has this MT framework wrapped all the way around and through it.

    I have no problem paying a subscription to access a game, providing that game has sufficient content, depth and support. These are things that EA are totally disinterested in as they want to sell you effectively the same game, yearly, for $60. At that point, the last game is GAME preowned bin fodder.
    Reply +1
  • Inside FIFA 18's Weekend League, the gruelling mode that's consuming players' lives

  • George-Roper 21/11/2017


    owever, my understanding is that the online experience is really starting to take over people's lives. The 8-18 bracket, in particular, can be hit hard by this move towards always-online and it will affect things like exam results.
    No doubt thats the demographic.

    Impressionable, impulsive young people. Fanatics about the sport and the 'stars' of that sport.

    Most easily parted with their time and money.
    Reply +3
  • Clicker Heroes studio abandons upcoming sequel's free-to-play model for "ethical reasons"

  • George-Roper 21/11/2017

    "In Clicker Heroes 1, we never tried to abuse players with our real-money shop," the studio said in a statement on the Clicker Heroes website, "Despite this, we found that some number of players spent many thousands of dollars on rubies. I can only hope that these people could afford it, and that they were doing it to support us, and not to feed an addiction. But I strongly suspect that this is not the case.


    I mean, if you really were that bothered you could have not put an MT shop in there at all.

    Just sayin'.
    Reply 0
  • After Star Wars Battlefront 2, EA changes Need for Speed Payback loot crates, progression

  • George-Roper 20/11/2017

    Just so awkwardly transparent why this is happening. Embarassing to hear the "We were already making changes!" line. Just like "Player choice".

    EA are on full damage limitation, it seems. I've thought for a while that they were riding the wave too close to the edge. Seems they've fallen off the surfboard.
    Reply +13
  • Star Wars Battlefront 2 physical sales down 60% on Battlefront 1

  • George-Roper 20/11/2017


    Are you saying digital sales aren't rising?

    They are.
    They are but that doesn't equate to missed physical sales being gobbled up by digital.

    Here's what we know. BF2 is down 60% on physical sales, compared to BF1.

    Here's what we don't know. What the digital sales of BF2 are.

    Now, arguably, I think you could say that a game like BF2 is classic physical. Its the sort of game that Auntie Susan or Grandpa Joe will tootle on down to GAME or HMV and pick off a shelf. Or, if they're more savvy, get it online. But those people aren't buying it digitally for anyone. They aren't buying PSN vouchers, they're buying "That Star Wars game thats on the TV adverts!!".

    So, IMO, this level of drop over the first is something that EA won't be happy about.
    Reply +12
  • How to fix Star Wars Battlefront 2

  • George-Roper 18/11/2017


    I'm still not quite sure I understand the difference between this and Ultimate Team
    No difference.

    They're both full of insidious micro-transactions, on several levels, that prey on the weak-minded, cash-rich fans of their respective genres.

    That's EA.
    Reply +7
  • FIFA players react to EA's dramatic Star Wars Battlefront 2 microtransactions U-turn

  • George-Roper 17/11/2017

    Arguably, FIFA was the foot in the door for EA. I've thought that for a long, long time now.

    The right demographic, young adults and kids, idolising players in real life who want those players in their yearly iteration of FIFA.

    EA are scumbags. I hope there's enough of a furore from BF2 to shine a spotlight on EA and their aggressive, predatory MT infrastructure in their games.
    Reply +24
  • EA has switched off Star Wars Battlefront 2's microtransactions

  • George-Roper 17/11/2017


    Edit: I mean, if it is simply something they can switch off that has no effect on the game, doesn't that make it worse in a way?
    I guess it means everyone is on the same level until some point in the future.

    Apart from those who've already thrown shitloads of cash into it and now have a dominant position over everyone else? Especially those who won't actually get in until today.

    It's a mess on several levels, born from their own ultra-convoluted MT systems, early access, pre-release DLC bonuses and so on but it really does warm my heart that after weeks of robotic "Player choice" statements from EA, they've had to shut this core system down after a bollocking from Disney, likely about bad PR preceding the movie.

    Warm and fuzzy.
    Reply +9
  • George-Roper 17/11/2017


    They will probably come back on anyway they are just a little skittish as news is going mainstream news and to investors.
    Early 2018 is my guess, post movie.
    Reply +9
  • George-Roper 17/11/2017

    According to Venturebeat sources, Disney boss Bob Iger phoned EA boss Andrew Wilson shortly before the U-turn was announced to discuss Star Wars Battlefront 2. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of that conversation.
    For all those bemoaning how 'we' probably won't make a difference, read this message loud and clear.

    When your IP starts to generate negative mainstream press on the run up to a major movie release, everything is on the table.
    Reply +13
  • Star Wars Battlefront 2 loot boxes investigated by Belgian Gaming Commission

  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    Just don't expect that whining about it on here will achieve anything when the financial and legal realities of life mean that (in the most likely outcome) nothing will happen
    I don't think anyone here is under the misapprehension that they can change anything by typing out moaning comments. However, a tremendous amount of negativity can achieve something that companies like EA don't want. Making the news in mainstream ways, like the BBC and who knows, maybe a tabloid or two?

    Personally, I won't buy a game that has this level of MTs. That's my protest. Don't put money in their pockets.

    But if 5000 parents also don't buy the game, due to BBC reporting and exposing the issue, all the better.

    And if 10000 other parents don't buy the game, due to chatting with said 5000 parents, even better.

    It starts somewhere and you know what? Here, reddit or wherever, the more its talked about, the more its reported on, the less EA are going to like it.

    And that's perfectly fine by me.
    Reply +11
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017

    "Creating a fair and fun game experience is of critical importance to EA. The crate mechanics of Star Wars Battlefront 2 are not gambling. A player's ability to succeed in the game is not dependent on purchasing crates. Players can also earn crates through playing the game and not spending any money at all. Once obtained, players are always guaranteed to receive content that can be used in game."
    I hope everyone is happy with that? LOL.
    Reply +4
  • DICE fails to quell Star Wars Battlefront 2 controversy in reddit AMA

  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    If you're a publicly traded business that made $700 million in revenue from your first product - for the sake of argument, a ham sandwich in two slices of normal white bread - then released your second product - again for sake of argument, a ham and cheese sub sandwich with a refillable drink - and at absolute best made $700 million again, your business would be under severe threat not only from a lack of growth overall, but from your shareholders.

    Making MORE money is the point. That's why a business exists - and it's even more critical for a publicly traded business that is expected to pay out increasing dividends to shareholders as a result of growth.

    Does it mean EA should have approached the game the way they have? Of course not - it's been a terrible idea on multiple fronts. Does it mean that there is a reason for it beyond EA simply being 'evil' - of course it does.

    It doesn't take being an 'apologist' or 'licking EA's boots' to understand the reality of the situation. I won't be buying Battlefront 2, not least because of these reasons (and I'd encourage everyone else to do the same), but I can at least understand WHY the decisions have been made, and they're far more complex than "greed".
    You've perfectly stated the point.

    It's all about making money.

    So why are they NOT saying that, but ARE saying its about 'player choice'?

    Go back to my first comment here and you'll see that I fully get the reasoning. I don't agree with the predatory nature and way its built into progression but I understand they're a business out to make money.

    But it's the blatant lies coming out of their PR front-end that are disrespectful and insulting to their potential customers.
    Reply +12
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    I donít agree with EA or any other company being greedy,but at the same time I do except that the costs of producing games has risen a lot over the past 20+ years.
    And yet you conveniently disregard the stats that BF1 sold 16 million units as of May 2016.

    Please answer why EA needed to entrench BF2 in MTs, when they have an estimated $700 million in revenue for the base game sales of BF1 alone.
    Reply +12
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    What EA have done with Battlefront is a very aggressive move to trying to find a long term strategy for funding a huge game like this
    16 million sales of the original Battlefront, as of May 2016, says otherwise.

    It's blatant profiteering. Not about sustainable development.
    Reply +15
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    well common sense would dictate that costs have risen the past 20+ years in Gaming to its a very sensible guess that the production costs of BF2 would be higher than,letís say Super return of the Jedi!!!!!
    Totally agreed. But ownership of consoles and PCs has also gone up. Digital access to games on consoles is almost exclusively on their respective services (PSN and XBL) which in turn means its a fixed pricing model with no competition. You want to buy digital, you're forced into using PSN or XBL. So you're forced into whatever pricing is set, which we both know is way over the top.

    And Iím not apologising for EA but I do understand why we are now paying more for our video games and why the production costs have risen.
    You still don't have any proof that this is the reason MTs exist. BF1 sold over 14 million copies, as reported back in early to mid 2016. If we go in at the low end and say that most of those were bought at $50, that's $700 million in sales. If we then say that half of those people also bought the Season Pass at a modest $30, that's another $210 million.

    Its obviously not going to be 100% accurate but on those figures, that's almost $1 billion in sales.

    Are you seriously expecting me to believe that BF1 cost EA/DICE even 10% of that figure to develop? 20%? Throw in a 30% cut for Lucasfilm, that's still a ridiculous amount of revenue.

    It's not because games cost too much to develop. It's because a board and the shareholders want to be the maximum amount of profit levered out of gamers. Profit isn't bad, all companies need it to survive. But not at the expense to the game experience.

    Someone else here commented that when the currency system has more depth and detail than the game itself, you know the priorities of the developers was on the wrong thing.
    Reply +31
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    Has anyone taken on the story regards the refund button being removed from BF2 preorders? Forcing people into hour long waits to speak to customer service, before they can proceed with a preorder cancellation?
    Reply +39
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    unfortunately itís not 1990 anymore and unfortunately the past 27+ years everything has increased in price due to inflation and the average cost of living and wages has increased,so making ďGames has also increasedĒ,and unfortunately they canít continue to make games for £40 with everything included and still make a profit to pay the staff and production costs.
    If you believe you can the please start your own Game development company and start to produce AAA Games and sell those AAA games for £40 with everything included.
    Can you provide some links to the budget used for the development of BF2?

    I assume you have that information, given that you're playing the apologist card for EA.
    Reply +38
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017


    The time gating on earning credits in arcade mode is the real shitty move.
    Its all a shitty move. Just because you've been able to blast through content to earn 20k doesn't mean everyone else can. Some people might only get an hour here or there, how long will it take them to get 20k?

    The whole issue here is one of massive imbalance. I was talking to friends just last night and there's already players out there running around with Epics. Just let that sink in for a moment, the game isn't even on general release yet and there are players with gear, clearly bought, already in the upper tiers of the game. Gear that gives them a massive advantage over other players, players who haven't even begun to start playing yet...
    Reply +63
  • George-Roper 16/11/2017

    Brannvall did address the inclusion of microtransactions in general, however, saying that they are "there for player choice, but won't be a requirement to play or succeed at the game. And like everything else, we'll continue tweaking and tuning until we achieve these goals".
    If they'd been up front about it and just admitted that they needed the MTs to shore up the removal of the Season Pass for ongoing content, I'd have more respect. I still wouldn't touch the game but I'd have more respect.

    That they're being ordered to trot out the same bullshit reply just isn't going to wash. I don't buy it and I doubt anyone unhappy with their inclusion to the level and insidious detail that they are, buys it either.

    A waste of an AMA that has done nothing to change anyones mind.
    Reply +31
  • StarCraft 2 Twitter account has a pop at Star Wars: Battlefront 2

  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    Being free or not in Hearthstone's case is moot;
    It's really not, because there isn't an entry fee.

    Paying $60-80 and then finding out those who splash out more cash on top have a big advantage over you, doesnt get you your cash back. Uninstalling Heartstone therefore nets you with a loss of zero.

    Getting into the mechanics, you have a point but I don't think we'd be having this conversation if BF2 was F2P.
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    Hearthstone account stays conspicuously silent
    Is that the same Hearthstone game that doesn't cost $60-80 before you can even fire it up?
    Reply +3
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    Were you intending on buying this game?

    You seem rather worked up.
    I was borderline. Happy to hear they'd put more depth in but the Beta still didn't sell it and then all the P2W stuff came to light.

    So yeah, it was a 'maybe' but now a firm 'no chance'.

    Worked up? More like outright anger at how my hobby is being viciously torn up and replaced with predatory systems like this.
    Reply +5
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    And can you point us to something that actually does state this?
    No and that's the basis of my statement. Until they do, I'll err on the side of cynicism because they've done nothing to deserve the benefit of the doubt. Whereas you seem to be taking an optimistic attitude towards them which beggars belief given what's going on.

    Like I've already said, SP doesn't generate them any revenue at all. So on that basis, there's no business case for them to put any effort into it, for free. Which is why I believe it will be gated behind credits and/or will be a pack-in with other MP stuff anyway.

    Until they come out and state it differently, in black and white and clear as day.
    Reply +1
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    They have stated that the single player content and new maps will be free but any new heroes or weapons will have to be obtained via the credit or lootbox system.
    Have they? Do you have a link?
    Reply 0
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    No this is just the usual exaggerated gamer spouting nonsense.
    Can you point us towards something that states the campaign updates won't be gated behind credits?

    Until you can, I don't think given what's going on so far, EA deserve the benefit of the doubt. Arguably, SP is precisely WHERE gating will occur as there's no ongoing revenue stream there.
    Reply -2
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    I've not seen any marketing to the contrary. The DLC that's been stated so far, MP granted, is as you know gated to credits.

    There's no reason for me to believe that all post-release content, regardless of SP/MP, won't be gated in the same way. They'll put 'packs' out and the campaign updates will be part of a pack that also contains MP stuff.
    Reply -1
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    From what I can tell, that's right. All that 'FREE DLC' slapped over the PR is actually gated behind game credits.

    Game credits you can buy with a credit card. Or spent X hours grinding credits in game.

    Easier to use a credit card...
    Reply +4
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    Could someone explain this to me? Can you not just play the solo campaign in Battlefront 2? Is it unlocked through multiplayer or something?
    And just to follow on from Spams reply, you need to buy the DLC, all BF2 DLC, with credits earned in game through gameplay or via buying them with your credit card.

    So whilst the next slice of DLC for the campaign might drop sometime early next year, you don't automatically get access to it.
    Reply 0
  • Star Wars Battlefront 2 review

  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    I fear the gaming community as seen in these comments and in other gaming websites out there as well as discussion forums only represent a very minor part of the gaming public at large.
    Y'know, people keep saying this.

    So is that why EA took down the refund button off preorders, forcing people to go through 60 minute wait times to speak with support in order to get the refund processed?

    Doesn't seem worth the negative press, if its such a small minority of people.
    Reply +6
  • George-Roper 15/11/2017


    Incorrect. The end of game bonus is to unlock Iden as a hero. This is the reward has been reduced. So, in reality the player is no worse off.
    So just to be clear, the end of game reward was ONLY to be used to unlock Iden? Or could that reward have been put towards other heroes, later?

    Because if the latter, it seems to me that they've stripped away 75% of a reward that could have been used against other heroes which actually does mean that players are worse off.
    Reply +4
  • George-Roper 14/11/2017


    WTF are they playing at? What legitimate logic does it make to have a refund button there before release and then remove the refund button also before release?

    I guess just something else to add to the list why people need to avoid this game like the plague. Utterly disgraceful behavior.
    Reply +10
  • George-Roper 14/11/2017


    Appearently, EA has removed the refund button from their customer portal so people can't cancel preorders without consulting EA support:
    Can anyone here corroborate this?
    Reply +2
  • George-Roper 14/11/2017


    I really detest that in Arcade mode you can only do 5 scenarios to earn credits before you have to come back XX number of hours later (you can still play them, just can earn more credits before the time runs out)
    F2P game mechanics in a full price, AAA, $60-80 game.
    Reply +12
  • George-Roper 14/11/2017


    Surely the solution is to charge everyone the going rate for the full game to achieve the desired ROI, and do away with all this shite?
    Not really, because that's still a finite amount of revenue they'll generate.

    Consider that if each player bought just three trooper loot boxes each, thats £8 woth of credits straight into EAs pockets. So in order to just offset that tiny bit of revenue, they'd have to bang almost a tenner onto each 'tier' of the game.

    It's just not financially worth it. Its way better to charge people 'just' $80 and then sit back and wait for the revenue to tick over. The worst bit is, that revenue will be long term, as the DLC all has to be bought too. It's not 'free'. You want it, you play the game to get the credits or you get your credit card out. The pattern is crystal clear, with this.

    If they'd had an ounce of integrity, they'd have struck a deal with Lucasfilm to allow small customizations to characters. Insignias here, logos there, not enough to detract from the Star Wars (tm) style but enough to make it worthwhile. Nobody would have been bothered about cosmetic items as they dont unbalance the game. It works perfectly fine in Overwatch.

    EA were just being greedy. They ARE being greedy, with every single retraction and change of policy that we see, the game STILL has P2W mechanics built into its core.
    Reply +13
  • George-Roper 14/11/2017


    However, to rubbish microtransactions and the games that carry them in their entirety smacks of a community losing sight of what they're actually angry and/or upset about
    Sadly, you're missing the bigger picture. If a game with offensive MTs gets 80-90% scoring, you don't get a separation of that scoring. Its just 80-90%. If you look at Metacritic, you don't get a score of 90 (20) to indicate the game itself and then the manner in which the MTs are installed.

    So unfortunately, the game itself has to suffer because its glued into the MT framework so fundamentally. And IMO, rightly so. The game is the delivery method for obscene, disgusting, borderline predatory monetization and for that, it deserves to fall way below EA board expectations.

    Literally the only way the likes of EA will get the message is in lost revenue. That happens, in part, due to lower review scores.

    Like others have said, the campaign could be the only thing worth having in this but even that at launch is incomplete with future updates gated behind currency.

    So whilst BF2 has its widely marketed 'free' DLC support, you'd better get playing the game to build up your credits to 'buy' the 'free' stuff.

    Or get your credit card out.
    Reply +13
  • George-Roper 14/11/2017


    EA are quite rightly being Darth Maul'd over this, but to be honest I have just as much of an issue with season passes.
    I disagree. Season Passes represent a set amount of content (good or bad) that you, as a consumer, can make an informed decision on at the point of purchase, or at least semi-informed anyway.

    X new vehicles
    Y new guns
    Z new game modes
    Z+ new maps
    Z++ new features

    I thought the Season Pass for Battlefield 4 was fantastic. Utterly fantastic. For £30 it was like I was getting a new game each time a new slice of the Pass was released.

    Good Season Passes can be good but bad Season Passes can be bad. However, limitless MTs in the vain hope of getting something you specifically want, gambling lets be honest, can in no way be compared. Three trooper loot boxes in this game will cost you £8.


    Also, most importantly, the cost of a Season Pass can fall. Origin was literally throwing me Battlefront 1 with the Season Pass for a fiver a few weeks ago. Do you think the cost of MTs will fall at the same rate in this game? When a company has total dominance in their pricing, there's no competition, ergo no incentive to reduce pricing.

    BF2 has got it wrong on so many levels, it can only have been a bait and switch strategy. Go in ludicrously high and then pare it back (but not remove it) to gain consumer confidence back. Then they're the good guys, even though its still a P2W $60-80 game.
    Reply +16
  • George-Roper 13/11/2017

    Fingers crossed it's a Metacritic bomb from other reviews, aligned. Reply +33
  • EA slashes Star Wars Battlefront 2 hero costs after fan furore

  • George-Roper 13/11/2017


    On another note - even half a million invisible negative internet points is only a fraction of the number of shipped copies of the original in its first 6 months.
    And yet, strangely then, its 'just' those half a million invisible negative internet points that have very likely directly resulted in this last-minute change.

    Odd that. For such a mere drop in the ocean. Don't you think?
    Reply +21
  • George-Roper 13/11/2017

    It's progress of sorts
    How is it progress? You still have to get the preequisite currency to unlock a character that was already freely available in the original Battlefront game.

    It beggars belief that because its now less fleecing than before, it's better. Better than what, exactly?

    Angry Joe outed ALL these insane timesinks weeks ago and yet it took today to get this result. Don't get me wrong, I'm so happy to see EA on the ropes and having to make embarrassing last-minute changes to try and ausage the playerbase but IMO the damage is already done.

    They're already seen for what they are. Wildly profiteering on the back of a massive IP like Star Wars.

    Too little, too late.
    Reply +22
  • EA's response to Star Wars: Battlefront 2 hero unlock fury isn't going down well

  • George-Roper 13/11/2017


    I know, right?

    The sheer ignorance of people defending these changes. Literally have no fucking idea how its going to impact them, me, you, all of us in the future for this hobby we profess to love so much.

    Just sheep, eager for the next hit of their favourite IP, regardless of anything else. Just drug addicts.
    Reply +3