criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube

Cosmetic Loot Boxes VS paid DLC expansions

MrFurious1000
1231 posts Member
edited December 2017
If anyone played Battlefront for its entire life you know the terrible fate of paid DLC expansion for this type of game. Division of the community. This resulted in terrible matchmaking and paid DLC exclusive game modes were dead on arrival.
Yes, Pay to win lootboxes are a bad thing....but paid DLC expansions to divide the community is a close second. Lets lend our support to make sure EA makes the right choice.

Feel free to argue for or against Cosmetic Lootboxes vs Paid DLC Expansions. Just keep it friendly.

Replies

  • My honest opinion cosmetic lootboxes and free dlc is fine but if they make us choose between progression lootboxes and paid dlc I choose paid
  • Evazan127
    8105 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    We get garbage dlc cuz people freaked about microtransactions.
  • I just had a big post about this on another thread see my post below

    "One big complaint about bf2015 was that the season pass split the community. A lot of people complained that population was drying up due to this. They had to create the playlists so people could find games because some modes dried up when you had some people only able to play with others who purchased dlc. This is a big problem in a multiplayer focused game. So the solution for bf2 was to give everyone access to dlc and find another way make up the development costs for the extra content.

    Unfortunately the solution they came up with was implemented poorly. They took several steps that the community thought was over the line. Any of these by themselves are not total deal breakers but combining them all was seen as pure greed and overboard. Pay-2-Win, Microtransactions, and loot boxes along with very stingy credit payout system. They compounded this problem by having some heroes cost 60k credits before launch. That was the last straw I think. They just appeared like they didn't care at all about the community. Designing a system that made progression so slow it pushed players who didn't have as much time I to buy loot boxes with real money.

    They have to pay for dlc somehow. So if no microtransaction at all then it will be difficult unless they offer some cosmetic packs or something that would not be construed as microtransaction."
  • Hanzo
    1677 posts Member
    No one freaked out about microtransactions, those are in almost every game...it's the stuff in the crates that caused the uproar.
  • The main problem here was that they did all the perceived "evil" things at once. They doubled down as hard as possible on the revenue model with no regard to how it may effect customers (well they hoped it would force them to take out their wallets.) Microtransactions, loot boxes, pay2win progression, very low rewards for performance and just time in general. Then jacking up hero cost to 60k credits was just a slap in the face and perceived as end zone spike by big company out to punish it's customers.
  • DynamitePro26
    1169 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Cosmetic lootboxes are all right. As long as they don't affect the gameplay and progression isn't completely centred around them.
    Post edited by DynamitePro26 on
    PSN: DynamitePro26
  • I think either one could actually work if either one were actually done correctly.

    The problem with the loot boxes as MTX is that not only was the system designed to be painfully slow without paying for those boxes, it also becomes a gamble that you'll get what you want at all. If I can pay for something that will improve my gameplay, I don't mind paying for it. What I do mind is playing for a *chance* at it. With the crap I've gotten in my loot boxes so far I can't imagine actually paying for that. I think the real error here was mixing progression with probability. You have to pay to progress, but paying doesn't necessarily guarantee you progress unless you're willing to spend ludicrous amounts on it. Who in their right mind though "pay2win unless you're really unlucky in which case then maybe pay2keeplosing" was a good idea?

    The problem they made with the original Battlefield was with saturation. Each DLC was, what, 15 bucks? That's not so bad. If it lasts me a while. It didn't. It was another 15 bucks every month practically. It's great that they wanted to release so much content... but instead of charging 15 bucks for one big DLC with a few maps and game modes, they made a ton of tiny little DLCs trying to sell each one for 15 bucks. The second way makes more money... if people keep buying. I sure didn't. I just paid 60 bucks for the game, I'm not gonna shell out another 60 within half a year of its release.

    Both cases show the same central issue. You can push MTX. You can push DLC. But you can't force MTX and then not even guarantee you'll get what you want, and you can't charge for DLC if you're going to trickle it out and charge for every trickle.

    Do either one, just don't be so greedy that people won't buy it. How hard is that?
  • stevenomes
    4640 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    What about the angle that loot boxes are just played out. I don't know about you but I'm just sick of seeing every single new big AAA game with some kind of lootbox system. Are we at point of market saturation? I know I myself have no joy when I see the loot box opening. There is supposed to be this anticipation, what could be inside. Will I get something good? Instead I think "just another loot box to open". I'd rather they just drop the content on the screen right at end of match, without the whole loot box animation. Why does it have to be a lootbox?"
  • bfloo
    14061 posts Member
    stevenomes wrote: »
    What about the angle that loot boxes are just played out. I don't know about you but I'm just sick of seeing every single new big AAA game with some kind of lootbox system. Are we at point of market saturation? I know I myself have no joy when I see the loot box opening. There is supposed to be this anticipation, what could be inside. Will I get something good? Instead I think "just another loot box to open". I'd rather they just drop the content on the screen right at end of match, without the whole loot box animation. Why does it have to be a lootbox?"

    It helps make rng more exciting for those who like such things.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Coldlogic wrote: »

    The problem they made with the original Battlefield was with saturation. Each DLC was, what, 15 bucks? That's not so bad. If it lasts me a while. It didn't. It was another 15 bucks every month practically. It's great that they wanted to release so much content... but instead of charging 15 bucks for one big DLC with a few maps and game modes, they made a ton of tiny little DLCs trying to sell each one for 15 bucks.

    They only released 4 DLC's (not including the free Jakku map) And it was usually to 3-4 months till we got another DLC release.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • stevenomes
    4640 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    bfloo wrote: »
    stevenomes wrote: »
    What about the angle that loot boxes are just played out. I don't know about you but I'm just sick of seeing every single new big AAA game with some kind of lootbox system. Are we at point of market saturation? I know I myself have no joy when I see the loot box opening. There is supposed to be this anticipation, what could be inside. Will I get something good? Instead I think "just another loot box to open". I'd rather they just drop the content on the screen right at end of match, without the whole loot box animation. Why does it have to be a lootbox?"

    It helps make rng more exciting for those who like such things.

    My point is more it was exciting at one time, before every game company started doing it. Now id rather have some other animation.
  • For how often these games come out I would rather they just charge $100 up front and that gives you 2 years of content. They can add cosmetic MTX for all I care as long as it doesn't impact the game.
  • Cosmetic lootboxes.
    Army or not, you must realize....you are doomed.
    tumblr_m83kl8wd161rv3w3po2_500.gif
  • I never would've bought crystals under the old system, but if they add cosmetic packs for purchase, I'm likely to buy a lot of them because 1) I enjoy skins in games, moreso because it's Star Wars 2) feel i'd be supporting the game without feeling like I was condoning a p2w environment.

    I think they could generate enough revenue from cosmetic purchases as well as shortcut kits (instant unlocks for certain weapon and star cards, like in Battlefield 1) to fund ongoing season releases.

  • I would personally rather have MTX than a season pass, I hate how the season pass splits the community.
    Another thing about cosmetic loot crates though, is I don't want cosmetics that aren't canon, I only want stuff which is canon in the game.
  • rocketpig
    624 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    I'd much rather see MTX than paid expansions. I can decide not to pay for the MTX and still enjoy the entire game.

    Paid DLC, on the other hand, ends up costing me $40-60 more over the course of two years if I want the entire game experience.
  • MrFurious1000
    1231 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Coldlogic wrote: »

    The problem they made with the original Battlefield was with saturation. Each DLC was, what, 15 bucks? That's not so bad. If it lasts me a while. It didn't. It was another 15 bucks every month practically. It's great that they wanted to release so much content... but instead of charging 15 bucks for one big DLC with a few maps and game modes, they made a ton of tiny little DLCs trying to sell each one for 15 bucks.

    They only released 4 DLC's (not including the free Jakku map) And it was usually to 3-4 months till we got another DLC release.


    I think his point was that it was very little content in each expansion
  • Coldlogic wrote: »

    The problem they made with the original Battlefield was with saturation. Each DLC was, what, 15 bucks? That's not so bad. If it lasts me a while. It didn't. It was another 15 bucks every month practically. It's great that they wanted to release so much content... but instead of charging 15 bucks for one big DLC with a few maps and game modes, they made a ton of tiny little DLCs trying to sell each one for 15 bucks.

    They only released 4 DLC's (not including the free Jakku map) And it was usually to 3-4 months till we got another DLC release.


    I think his point was that it was very little content in each expansin

    If that's the case then yeah he is definitely right.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    That said the farthest I would go is cosmetics. Granted I hate that too,i should be able to chose how I look in battle from the beginning, not grind for it. But I would come to the table for Cosmetic MTs
  • MrFurious1000
    1231 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    That said the farthest I would go is cosmetics. Granted I hate that too,i should be able to chose how I look in battle from the beginning, not grind for it. But I would come to the table for Cosmetic MTs

    you are defiantly wrong about that. There was alot of forum talk about that
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    That said the farthest I would go is cosmetics. Granted I hate that too,i should be able to chose how I look in battle from the beginning, not grind for it. But I would come to the table for Cosmetic MTs

    you are defiantly wrong about that. There was alot of forum talk about that

    Im talking about for older MP games. Not in the last 3 years.
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    That said the farthest I would go is cosmetics. Granted I hate that too,i should be able to chose how I look in battle from the beginning, not grind for it. But I would come to the table for Cosmetic MTs

    you are defiantly wrong about that. There was alot of forum talk about that

    Im talking about for older MP games. Not in the last 3 years.

    true. but the way battlefront 1 did it divided community. Maybe if MAPS would be free to all but guns/heros/cosmetics would be part of a DLC expansion. That way the matchmaking would still be in one giant pool

    but then again there would be more outcry that its pay to win since weapons would effect gameplay
  • A_Wookie_Roar
    2339 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • I'm all for cosmetic upgrade microtransactions. Keeping the DLC free will allow the player base to not be divided.
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.
  • shredhead
    204 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    It was already advertised that all DLC will be free. They'll never make it paid beause it would be a straight lie to the customers, no way. So bring MTX back please ASAP and give us lots of new good content please.
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    That said the farthest I would go is cosmetics. Granted I hate that too,i should be able to chose how I look in battle from the beginning, not grind for it. But I would come to the table for Cosmetic MTs

    In the last Battlefront the DLC content was super hit or miss with getting into a decent lobby. Some modes seemed to be dead all the time, especially after that specific expansion had been out for a while.
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.


    what a stupid comparison.....If you want to go that way then think of it like this. You go to movies back you entrance fee but you wont get the whole movie because the rest of the movie (DLC) cost another 10 bucks. If Im going to pay for a movie I want the WHOLE movie. The MTX are like getting extras like beer/candy/popcorn for your movie
  • If anyone played Battlefront for its entire life you know the terrible fate of paid DLC expansion for this type of game. Division of the community. This resulted in terrible matchmaking and paid DLC exclusive game modes were dead on arrival.
    Yes, Pay to win lootboxes are a bad thing....but paid DLC expansions to divide the community is a close second. Lets lend our support to make sure EA makes the right choice.

    Feel free to argue for or against Cosmetic Lootboxes vs Paid DLC Expansions. Just keep it friendly.

    Being a bad game divided the community, not DLC..




  • bfloo
    14061 posts Member
    deadbydawn wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    That said the farthest I would go is cosmetics. Granted I hate that too,i should be able to chose how I look in battle from the beginning, not grind for it. But I would come to the table for Cosmetic MTs

    In the last Battlefront the DLC content was super hit or miss with getting into a decent lobby. Some modes seemed to be dead all the time, especially after that specific expansion had been out for a while.

    The way they did the playlists for the last dlc was bad. We couldn't just stay in the mode we wanted to play.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • A_Wookie_Roar
    2339 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.


    what a **** comparison.....If you want to go that way then think of it like this. You go to movies back you entrance fee but you wont get the whole movie because the rest of the movie (DLC) cost another 10 bucks. If Im going to pay for a movie I want the WHOLE movie. The MTX are like getting extras like beer/candy/popcorn for your movie

    Thank you.

    And Strogg since it is not letting me respond to you with a quote directly here is my response.


    Lol oh my goodness. I am saying if we spend $100 dollars then we should be getting free DLC. $80-100 bucks is anything but cheap. And to comment on your dumb analogy, if people are stupid enough to pay for my DLC then I am pretty sure that is not my fault. Just like I am sure there are some stupid people who would pay for your movie tickets.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • Strogg1980
    2559 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.


    what a **** comparison.....If you want to go that way then think of it like this. You go to movies back you entrance fee but you wont get the whole movie because the rest of the movie (DLC) cost another 10 bucks. If Im going to pay for a movie I want the WHOLE movie. The MTX are like getting extras like beer/candy/popcorn for your movie

    Its a very accurate comparison considering your seeing 3 parts to a trilogy, much like DLC is part of the game.

    Your changing around the analogy because you dont like how it calls out the problem-a number of fans are paying for others free content, which those other fans should be chipping their fair share in. And thats what its doing. To deny that is denying the truth of the matter
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.

    I don't really think that is the same argument. I could be reading your first paragraph wrong but it sounds like you're saying if you paid $60 for the standard edition of the game you should only be allowed to play the base content and have to pay for the DLC.

    If you pay $60-$80 for a multiplayer centered game, the extra DLC should be free. Creating bonus content and releasing it like Battlefront 2015 did absolutely divides the player base. It's not about being cheap it's about allowing everyone who bought the game to play the content, thus keeping the game alive and healthy.
  • deadbydawn wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.

    I don't really think that is the same argument. I could be reading your first paragraph wrong but it sounds like you're saying if you paid $60 for the standard edition of the game you should only be allowed to play the base content and have to pay for the DLC.

    If you pay $60-$80 for a multiplayer centered game, the extra DLC should be free. Creating bonus content and releasing it like Battlefront 2015 did absolutely divides the player base. It's not about being cheap it's about allowing everyone who bought the game to play the content, thus keeping the game alive and healthy.

    Thats fine but my point was dont rely on other people to pay for your content. Either everyone pays for it, or no one does. It was against people who rely on whales for content.

    I was saying to the others dont be concerned over free content if you were not one of the people who didnt pay into the system. Its like complaining about the president when you didnt vote
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.

    Lol oh my goodness. I am saying if we spend $100 dollars then we should be getting free DLC. $80-100 bucks is anything but cheap. And to comment on your dumb analogy, if people are stupid enough to pay for my DLC then I am pretty sure that is not my fault. Just like I am sure there are some stupid people who would pay for your movie tickets.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • A_Wookie_Roar
    2339 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.

    Finally my comment was approved but this is a dupe so disregard.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    If its a healthy amount of content. Yes. Expansions all the way. It works, there was never talk back in the day of Expansions dividing communities. Never. Now for some magical reason, there is. Sounds more like people dont want to pay to get content anymore. To me it sounds like mooching and being cheap.

    Because that was what we were used to. We didn't think years ago we could have free DLC consistently. Now we can see a lot of companies have been giving us DLC free and using profit from somewhere else.

    And I have seen people saying people who want free DLC is cheap. Now that is just an egregious comment. We are not cheap if we spend $60-80+ dollars on a game. Then after that spend $50-60 dollars more on a few maps is just dumb. I am sorry but I don't believe that is being cheap. We would rather spend $80 bucks and then get some free season than dishing out about $200 dollars just for maps and weapons and the base game.

    Next time I go to the movies with my BF, Ill ask the couple or next 2 couples behind me to cover our cost. Thats literally what you are doing. Having someone else pay for your entertainment. You bought the standard game? Good for you. If its a good, fun game why not pay for more for more content?

    Another analogy is like saying you saw Star Wars 7 and 8 in theatres but because you paid for the first 2 films, you did your dues, someone else can pay for you to see episode 9.

    Yes you are being cheap and a mooch. Becausse your fine with others paying for DLC weather you use MTs or not, just so long as its not YOU pumping money into the system. The fact of the matter is asking for others (whales) to pay for your DLC is lazy and thats the main reason I hope they ditch the lootboxes. To **** off people who have that way of thinking.


    Lol oh my goodness. I am saying if we spend $100 dollars then we should be getting free DLC. $80-100 bucks is anything but cheap. And to comment on your dumb analogy, if people are stupid enough to pay for my DLC then I am pretty sure that is not my fault. Just like I am sure there are some stupid people who would pay for your movie tickets.
    SFA Reinforcement Ideas - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/98321/starfighter-assault-reinforcement-ideas#latest

    Specialist Scout Pistol Addition - https://battlefront-forums.ea.com/discussion/90785/flash-pistol-scout-pistol-needs-to-be-on-specialist-please/p1

    "Lean upon pain like a crutch and you create anger and a dark fear of truth. Pain guides, but it does not support" Obi-Wan Kenobi

    3i4nza8m24rn.gif
  • the problem with bf2015 expansion was that much of the community dropped the game early on because it was so bare on content. it as all over the place as feeback. people were expecting more than the maps they got and there were some big issues early on that didnt get resolved for a while. some of the community who bought the game because it was "star wars" dropped it and the game really took a hit in population, especially on PC which basically died. then DLC divided the already decreased population. DICE had to add the playlists so that people could find games because as much as people wanted play one mode over and over, the population in other modes was so low that they needed to combine everyone to get the most chance to flll the matches. it worked as even as of a last month i could still find games in the main playlist.

    I dont really mind what way they want to do the DLC funding. it has to be paid for i mean they cant release the game at $60 and then free dlc with no expectation of return. Microtransactions pay for the DLC for sure. But i dont think there is any issue if people do or dont want to buy them. I personally think its not worth it but i would buy something if i liked what they were selling. if its just a loot box, nope i would rather spend the money on something else. but if they had comestic pieces i would definitely consider buying something like that if i liked the piece they were selling. no need to just buy a loot box to support DLC. only buy it if you want what they are selling.
  • Watch this if you're wondering why EA is killing single player games in favour of multiplayer P2W ones. Future Battlefield WILL also have these P2W cards because of the money they're making. ROFL.
  • If I were EA, I would make a mix of both... cosmetic microtransactions for Multiplayer, paid DLCs of single player content.. everybody is happy.
  • yes i think they could do something like skins/emotes/victory poses for multiplayer transactions. im sure there are hundreds that could be created. if some are worth buying i would do it.
  • Cad_Bane
    6252 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    Cosmetic MTX is the obvious choice. Cosmetic MTX don’t affect gameplay and is something I believe would work for the community and for EA as well. If we don’t get cosmetic MTX, don’t expect any deep, cool customization ever being added
    There is more than enough canon options available
  • Foxdie491 wrote: »
    If I were EA, I would make a mix of both... cosmetic microtransactions for Multiplayer, paid DLCs of single player content.. everybody is happy.

    probably best idea yet.....both sides would be happy
  • gzcnr
    290 posts Member
    As EA stated before cosmetic loot boxes are not an option.

    When it comes to progression loot boxes vs paid dlcs. I prefer paid dlcs. When you pay for a paid dlc you know what u are paying for. You know you get 4 maps, 2 heroes, 4 weapons, 4 starcards for $15. But when you pay for a rng box u dont know what will u get. You dont know how many boxes you had to buy to access a new dlc weapon.

    I am not against mtx. I think the best solution is this: Make maps free for everyone, sell all other dlc content with money (heroes, weapons, starcards etc) and get rid of rng loot boxes. Basically paid dlc but maps are open to everyone.
  • Cad_Bane
    6252 posts Member
    edited December 2017
    gzcnr wrote: »
    As EA stated before cosmetic loot boxes are not an option.

    When it comes to progression loot boxes vs paid dlcs. I prefer paid dlcs. When you pay for a paid dlc you know what u are paying for. You know you get 4 maps, 2 heroes, 4 weapons, 4 starcards for $15. But when you pay for a rng box u dont know what will u get. You dont know how many boxes you had to buy to access a new dlc weapon.

    I am not against mtx. I think the best solution is this: Make maps free for everyone, sell all other dlc content with money (heroes, weapons, starcards etc) and get rid of rng loot boxes. Basically paid dlc but maps are open to everyone.

    Cosmetics are definitely an option. He made a comment about cosmetics not being an option because of breaking the canon. There are more than enough canon possibilities for cosmetic only crates or Micro Transactions
  • Okay I try to break down the gametypes and whats their pros or cons.
    We all know that EA is a company, so they want to get some extra money after you bought the game. It's legit i guess.

    P2P: In my opinion one of the best systems by far. Yeah many guys don't think so, but you pay 9 bucks a month to get your content, which is most of the time free (except AddOns, but "DLCs" are free). Yeah it's a lot of money but the company needs to make you happy to make you stay in the game and pay your sub. Therefore the service is great most of the time, the bugfixes are fast and the content is good

    F2P w Cosmetic Item Shop: I gues it's good at all. You get some glamour for money. Problem is, that most games make DLCs you have to pay for. So you got an item shop and paid DLCs. And - as you can see in Destiny - the glamour/emotes is lovely designed for paid shop but not that good for F2P-Player.

    P2W: The worst system in the entire game industry. Yeah you can play it for free and even the DLCs are free. But you can pay to spend less time/you get advantages over the F2P guys.
    And the biggest trap of all: The game is designed to make you UNHAPPY. First you get a good start, get some cool items, maybe nice glamour and cool heroes. You spend some hours playing and it's great. And then they bring you down forcing you to pay to stay as good as the other ones. Well the "all-purple-with-best-weapons-and-perks-guy" killed you? Here you get your beginner-offer for only 5,99$.
    Oh you killed some F2P guys with your beginner-pack? Funny isn't it? Great feeling, isn't it? But guess what? Here's the purple guy again dragging you across the whole map.
    But guess again: You can buy a crate for only 4,99$ with a little chance of a purple card.
    But it comes even better: Buy 5 crates at once and you get a 6th crate for free with a GARANTIED purple card in it.

    And here we go, getting our first purple card, killing some more F2P dude and even some of the "purple" guys for shure...

    And you only spend 30,94$ for it... What would a DLC cost in a F2P with paid DLCs? 20 bucks? xD
    Well thats the system guys...

    But hey, Xmas is coming, so be shure to safe 99$ cause there will be a special package with 30 crates and 8 (!!!) purple cards, just because you are such a great community!!!
    "Resistance to the pit of misery! Dilly! Dilly!"
    - Kylo Ren via iPhone -
  • koprich
    1438 posts Member
    I have no objection to cosmetic boxes, never have.

    Paid DLC splits the community which isn’t great.
  • How about none? Everyone are coming from the point that the devs/EA need more money to provide multiplayer and updates.

    Anyone has profit/development/server costs charts on their end? Why do we believe that they are not profiting from the game just from sales? (yes I know about their shares dropping by 6 billions)

    Development costs are DOWN not up as they are saying. Soo why do we need either PAID dlc or microtransactions (cosmetics only are fine). BUT NOT RNG microtransactions I like a skin here take 2-3-4 dollars.

    The point that can be considered valid is the server uptime cost for multiplayer, no idea if they have their own datacenter or renting one. In either case 2-3-4-5 USD per month is more then enough to pay for the servers.

    How **** up is the community for wanting to pay extra for nothing?!
  • EA already announced that the DLC would be free ... that's one of the main reasons I picked up the game. If they retract that statement now that's really not fair and may even stray in to the realms of false advertising.

    If EA want to shake us down for more money, MTXs for cosmetic things is the way to do it. It doesn't affect how the game plays so negates the P2W argument and opens up a veritable gold mine of new content for them to rinse.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!