criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Gamescom 2019 Triple XP
Community Transmission

Battlefront, Can We Save You?

WildSpace
615 posts Member
edited May 2018
I’m sure most of us have seen the leaks by now, and whether they are totally true is yet to be seen. They do have rings of truth which is worrying for the future of this game.
So, Devs, what I’m proposing to you is an admission that you need support from the community. You obviously work in the gaming industry because you guys enjoy it and like it when people love your games. But we are all getting the sense that you are on probation from all the big undertakings for this game because it hasn’t been shown to EA recently to be profitable. I don’t think you guys at DICE want to see this game cut loose before you were able to flesh it out how you planned.
If you can even hint that us buying crystals can help the gears start turning again to bring out the content we’d all like to see, I know the community will.
So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?
Could we potentially cut down on development time of future content? If good support is shown during the Solo season(which seems a bit like a soft launch to prove viability), do you think EA will start granting more funding?
Feel free to discuss
jar-jar-binks-dancing-gif-3.gif
Post edited by WildSpace on

Replies

  • auldtam
    136 posts Member
    "Dice can we save you"

    That's what EA wants you to do....
    PSN: auldtam
  • WildSpace
    615 posts Member
    You do know DICE is not a small indie developer?

    Why should we help? Remember they chose to make a deal with the devil and sell to EA.

    They don't need a "Kickstarter" and people shouldn't buy stuff out of charity.

    I know a lot of people are desperate for the game to survive and prosper, but it really isn't down to us and the onus is on DICE to produce content to entice us firstly to play and secondly produce items we want to buy not forced to.

    Sorry but your post to me smacks of desperation and if that is the case, they will exploit you to the hilt if they can.

    DICEs hands it seems are tied.

    Sorry but tough. Maybe next time they will get it right.

    I'm reinstalling BF1 again for a laugh.
    I’m no fool. I’m not here to feed the monster.
    DICE is big time and EA is the devil. I’m certainly not declaring I’m here to give a fat payday and no one else should either. My money is hard earned and it won’t be spend foolishly. At least with the old system you knew $15 got you a large amount of content.
    I simply want to know if support would get this game rolling. They had their earnings call not long ago that didn’t show any boost in revenue, but it was before they rolled out some cosmetics. I have a feeling that’s why legendary skins have been added is to boost their revenue into declaring its a viable game. I think it’s a fair question to ask, is that if we continue to buy these skins is it helping to get the cobwebs off the stuff we want? Grievous, Kenobi, Clone Wars? I’m sure no one here wants to pay who knows how much for a legendary skin and the game be toast 1-2 months later.

    jar-jar-binks-dancing-gif-3.gif
  • JAREDUP
    1596 posts Member
    OP is right, EA won't fund the game if it doesn't provide profit, so yes DICE needs to lt us know, because we will decide this games fate.
    For the Greater Good

    9k2nxbv51kuu.gif
  • Yup, I agree with OP on this one. I’ll gladly pay $50 for crystals if it means that we’ll get the stuff we’ve been craving for so long.
  • WildSpace wrote: »
    You do know DICE is not a small indie developer?

    Why should we help? Remember they chose to make a deal with the devil and sell to EA.

    They don't need a "Kickstarter" and people shouldn't buy stuff out of charity.

    I know a lot of people are desperate for the game to survive and prosper, but it really isn't down to us and the onus is on DICE to produce content to entice us firstly to play and secondly produce items we want to buy not forced to.

    Sorry but your post to me smacks of desperation and if that is the case, they will exploit you to the hilt if they can.

    DICEs hands it seems are tied.

    Sorry but tough. Maybe next time they will get it right.

    I'm reinstalling BF1 again for a laugh.
    I’m no fool. I’m not here to feed the monster.
    DICE is big time and EA is the devil. I’m certainly not declaring I’m here to give a fat payday and no one else should either. My money is hard earned and it won’t be spend foolishly. At least with the old system you knew $15 got you a large amount of content.
    I simply want to know if support would get this game rolling. They had their earnings call not long ago that didn’t show any boost in revenue, but it was before they rolled out some cosmetics. I have a feeling that’s why legendary skins have been added is to boost their revenue into declaring its a viable game. I think it’s a fair question to ask, is that if we continue to buy these skins is it helping to get the cobwebs off the stuff we want? Grievous, Kenobi, Clone Wars? I’m sure no one here wants to pay who knows how much for a legendary skin and the game be toast 1-2 months later.

    Okay, but your title and post doesn't come across as what you're now saying. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I've re read your original post and I stand buy what I said originally and it smacks of foolishness.

  • Kenobi_Dude
    1485 posts Member
    Sure, I’ll support the game, but buying crystals is no guarantee of anything happening besides me having a bunch of skins that i don’t care about using because there is a lack of new maps or game modes ( like cargo :smile: )

    The only way I am buying something to support their cause would be a guaranteed content DLC like if they said $20 will get you these maps and these games modes. It’s not a weird concept.... they make a product like an expansion pack DLC and I purchase it if the content is there as promised.

  • Yup, I agree with OP on this one. I’ll gladly pay $50 for crystals if it means that we’ll get the stuff we’ve been craving for so long.

    So tell me what have we been craving for? People want different things from this game and even though I don't classify skin's as content, I know that some will say it technically is. I don't as I think content is maps, heroes, weapons and game modes. Something to show off said skin's :wink:

    It's obvious to me it's a catch 22 situation. They need money to produce content, however we need content for us to spend crystals?

    Skin's alone will not save the game and putting out posts like this that say how can we save!!!! not even help but save, makes me think that people have lost perspective on who EA and DICE and even Disney actually are. Billion dollar companies that don't need our money, they just want all our money.
  • WildSpace
    615 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    I swear this is the dumbest thing I have ever read. Those of you that would pay more money to get the awesome stuff that isn't currently being delivered must have Stockholm Syndrome or something. Here is how capitalism works: make something awesome = profit.
    I’m not supporting anything blindly. I’m asking because I want to know. If I can’t know then my money is a no go.
    This isn’t a kickstarter or a bailout and I apologize if some of you are confused by the well meaning way I’ve written it. I’ve changed the title to make it more clear what I’m asking, I realize trying to save DICE was a little bit too broad spectrum lol
    I fully intend on moving on to Jurassic World Evolution in June if it isn’t clarified that support=progress
    If they don’t communicate with us on this then at least they’ll have plenty of unfinished assets ready for battlefront 3
    jar-jar-binks-dancing-gif-3.gif
  • WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • ClavinNatas
    282 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    Ive been thinking about this for a while about how they will get the funding for this game...

    A. They had a failed launch and now the game title "Battlefront" has gone from happy memories of the Pandemic Lucasarts days to a laughing MTX joke of the gaming community.

    B. They promised us FREE DLC and have not given up on their promise. Which means no extra revenue from DLC sales.

    C. EA had planned to sell around 10-12 million copies of this game by December after release. They only sold around 9 million...

    D. They only just started working on cosmetic MTX sales which means there isn't enough disversity of cosmetic content to make a strong enough profit.

    That being said this game is in fact in a financial hole especially with EA turning their eyes and wallet toward the new battlefield. It's a shame because this game truly is fun and a great reminder of how fun the old battlefront was.

    So, if any of you think youll have enough revenue to cover the loss of about 3 million unsold copies of this game go right ahead... I praise you for the effort. However, Im going to continue to earn my appearances the good old fashioned way... by playing the game. But in all honesty, it doesn't look good for us. The future is clouded by the dark side. The end is near... X.x
  • Jimmy89
    152 posts Member
    You guys don't get it. Dice/EA don't care at this point. They abandoned battlefront (2015) and they will soon with battlefront 2 (2017). This is the way EA works.
  • WildSpace
    615 posts Member
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    jar-jar-binks-dancing-gif-3.gif
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Octavarius
    1107 posts Member
    All the cool guys warning about EA exploiting everyone. Real rebels who won't give a penny to such a malevolent force. Funny I wonder how many own this game or BF2015 or BF4 or BF1, Madden, FIFA.
    I also wonder how many are sat by their Windows pc, writing on an EA official forum, while drinking Coca cola, or Pepsi, while eating a McDonald's or KFC. All 'ruthless' business empires too. All out to exploit their customers to make as much money as they can. If people can't live with capitalism they can always move to North Korea.
  • Octavarius wrote: »
    All the cool guys warning about EA exploiting everyone. Real rebels who won't give a penny to such a malevolent force. Funny I wonder how many own this game or BF2015 or BF4 or BF1, Madden, FIFA.
    I also wonder how many are sat by their Windows pc, writing on an EA official forum, while drinking Coca cola, or Pepsi, while eating a McDonald's or KFC. All 'ruthless' business empires too. All out to exploit their customers to make as much money as they can. If people can't live with capitalism they can always move to North Korea.

    Who actually drinks full sugared soda?

    Disgusting.
    PSN: BucksawBoushh
  • F03hammer
    5012 posts SWBF Senior Moderator
    #Wookieeleaks poisons oceans
    #savetheWhEAls
    Voluntary Star Wars Battlefront Moderator

    28zvwf.jpg
    GT XBOX:
    buyakashak


  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back
  • Game is bad and must die. There is no new content and probably will never be. All they do now is think how to milk new players.
    Let it die
  • WildSpace
    615 posts Member
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode
    jar-jar-binks-dancing-gif-3.gif
  • meshugene89
    3453 posts Member
    This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back

    I didn't say that game sales could cover the costs of FIFA nor did I imply it. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that EA only make FIFA because of FUT and without it there wouldn't be any FIFA releases, which is definitely not true and I outlined why that is. FIFA games were being released year on year well before the additional monetisation, and while FUT does pull in a lot of money, it is not the primary reason why EA keep making FIFA games. That was my point.
    As far as these two games are concerned, FIFA is an entirely different beast to Battlefront and the two are not at all comparative. For starters, FUT is an optional game mode which means you don't have to play it and you therefore don't have to put money into it because there are still plenty of ways to play offline and there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing as their team, winning leagues, winning championships, and setting up their own player and progressing through their career. Battlefront II, however, tied the progression system of the principle multiplayer mode to monetised advancement which was, rightly, viewed as a step too far by the community and EA overplayed their hand here.
    Secondly, FIFA has much higher costs what with the contracts they have for the likenesses of all the players, the sports brands who manufacture the kits and the equipment (boots, gloves, footballs), and the companies whose sponsorhips are on the jerseys, stadium adboards, and career mode contracts, all in addition to the funding of new content. All these groups receive royalties from EA in the same way a musician is paid royalties whenever their music is used in a TV show, movie, commercial, or a video game like FIFA. Battlefront doesn't have these kinds of overheads because they get everything from Disney/LucasFilm as part of their contract with this licence, so this game doesn't need as much money as FIFA to produce new content and therefore didn't, and doesn't, need to over-incentivise the purchase of premium currency.
    At the end of the day, you can call it "spitting out the dummy" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this was about a poorly thought out, bordering on greedy, over-monetisation of the primary progression system within a multiplayer game and players were not only smart enough to realise it, but made their voices heard that this was unacceptable. Games companies are always trying to push the enevelope to see what works when it comes to monetising games, and if the main take-away for the industry after this debacle is to not tie progression to MTXs like a mobile game, then we've done a good job.
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode

    Naughty Dog would be great for a single-player, story-based game, but I'm not sure how they'd cope with a multiplayer game. Yes, there was a MP mode in Uncharted, but they're not MP specialists so I don't know how well they'd do with a game solely focussed on MP.
    I think the best thing could be to shop the licence around and not just give it exclusively to one company. Let EA keep the mobile games, but then let's have Ubisoft take on Battlefront, Naughty Dog with a single-player game, maybe an open-world game to Bethesda. Spread it out and give us a variety of creativity.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • Ravogd
    162 posts Member
    Reap what you sow. Everybody whined like babies when they said everything could be bought with real money. They took that away. Nobody spends real money on skins. With no paid DLC this game has no income (apart from the very few people who buy skins with real money). If they’d left it as it is so people could buy everything with real money there would have been a chance this game would have interesting additions. As it is it will probably die soon. The die hard experts are bored because of no new content, the noobs are ***** they can’t buy cards and weapons to compete. The whole thing is a mess
  • WildSpace
    615 posts Member
    This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode

    Naughty Dog would be great for a single-player, story-based game, but I'm not sure how they'd cope with a multiplayer game. Yes, there was a MP mode in Uncharted, but they're not MP specialists so I don't know how well they'd do with a game solely focussed on MP.
    I think the best thing could be to shop the licence around and not just give it exclusively to one company. Let EA keep the mobile games, but then let's have Ubisoft take on Battlefront, Naughty Dog with a single-player game, maybe an open-world game to Bethesda. Spread it out and give us a variety of creativity.
    That would be ideal. One publisher having the rights to the entire license is a tad absurd. I firmly believe Naughty Dog could give us the best Star Wars single player game we would ever get, but you’re right about them being a little iffy handling the MP focus. I’d take Ubisoft over EA or Activision for multiplayer although if Activision did get it I bet Treyarch would also do a great MP experience albeit it would be first-person.
    I hope Disney considers this in the coming years. There’s a lot of studios out there that would be able to fill so many gaming styles that just one publisher simply can’t do.

    jar-jar-binks-dancing-gif-3.gif
  • HansTheBest
    1120 posts Member
    Ravogd wrote: »
    Reap what you sow. Everybody whined like babies when they said everything could be bought with real money. They took that away. Nobody spends real money on skins. With no paid DLC this game has no income (apart from the very few people who buy skins with real money). If they’d left it as it is so people could buy everything with real money there would have been a chance this game would have interesting additions. As it is it will probably die soon. The die hard experts are bored because of no new content, the noobs are **** they can’t buy cards and weapons to compete. The whole thing is a mess

    If the game sucks, you can make that argument that it sucks because EA misread the fans, but that's still on them.
  • Alex64
    7446 posts Member
    As a Producer Square Enix could be a good option.
    The kind mixed with the wicked, the will to fight until the end, I'm not your enemy or friend.
  • ELIMELECH0401
    1332 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    As a group, we could get more and better content faster by buying crystals. If EA is looking for crystal sales.in June (with the release of legendary skins); I think we should a massive crystal purchase campaign.
    If EA gets enough money, we could get more devs to get us more content. For a company to continue to invest in a product it has to be profitable. @f8rge what is your thought on this?
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
  • Piscettios
    5814 posts Member
    Can we all save it? Sure. Should we? At this point. Absolutely not.

    Skins are filler content no matter how cool and unique they look. If there isn’t a fun, balanced game with engaging new modes and maps to use them on, their useless.

    Boussh and Lando appearance. Situational content. Outfits aren’t good for every map, and Useless if your a middle of the pack GA player.

    So they way I see it, they need to knock it out of the park for Season 3 if they expect people to continue to buy crystals/support the game. We as the player have been getting shafted since launch and IMO need them to show us something first. The content drops up to this point have been awful and haven’t met the lowest of expectations.
    Knights of Gareth
    XBL- JsOnMyFett 13
  • As a group, we could get more and better content faster by buying crystals. If EA is looking for crystal sales.in June (with the release of legendary skins); I think we should a massive crystal purchase campaign.
    If EA gets enough money, we could get more devs to get us more content. For a company to continue to invest in a product it has to be profitable. @f8rge what is your thought on this?

    I'd rather buy the big issue than what you suggest.

    Stop and think what you're asking. The community should purchase stuff from a billion dollar company that has decided that one of its development gaming company it owns isn't making the money it expected or wanted and thus we should prop it up if we want new content? This has to be a millennial or generation z mentality as I'm sure most older gamers wouldn't even think of something vacuous.

    Are people that desperate for this game to succeed that they want to chuck more money at it? The game wasn't free to play was it? Pay upfront for stuff you don't want just for the game to survive.
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back

    I didn't say that game sales could cover the costs of FIFA nor did I imply it. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that EA only make FIFA because of FUT and without it there wouldn't be any FIFA releases, which is definitely not true and I outlined why that is. FIFA games were being released year on year well before the additional monetisation, and while FUT does pull in a lot of money, it is not the primary reason why EA keep making FIFA games. That was my point.
    As far as these two games are concerned, FIFA is an entirely different beast to Battlefront and the two are not at all comparative. For starters, FUT is an optional game mode which means you don't have to play it and you therefore don't have to put money into it because there are still plenty of ways to play offline and there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing as their team, winning leagues, winning championships, and setting up their own player and progressing through their career. Battlefront II, however, tied the progression system of the principle multiplayer mode to monetised advancement which was, rightly, viewed as a step too far by the community and EA overplayed their hand here.
    Secondly, FIFA has much higher costs what with the contracts they have for the likenesses of all the players, the sports brands who manufacture the kits and the equipment (boots, gloves, footballs), and the companies whose sponsorhips are on the jerseys, stadium adboards, and career mode contracts, all in addition to the funding of new content. All these groups receive royalties from EA in the same way a musician is paid royalties whenever their music is used in a TV show, movie, commercial, or a video game like FIFA. Battlefront doesn't have these kinds of overheads because they get everything from Disney/LucasFilm as part of their contract with this licence, so this game doesn't need as much money as FIFA to produce new content and therefore didn't, and doesn't, need to over-incentivise the purchase of premium currency.
    At the end of the day, you can call it "spitting out the dummy" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this was about a poorly thought out, bordering on greedy, over-monetisation of the primary progression system within a multiplayer game and players were not only smart enough to realise it, but made their voices heard that this was unacceptable. Games companies are always trying to push the enevelope to see what works when it comes to monetising games, and if the main take-away for the industry after this debacle is to not tie progression to MTXs like a mobile game, then we've done a good job.
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode

    Naughty Dog would be great for a single-player, story-based game, but I'm not sure how they'd cope with a multiplayer game. Yes, there was a MP mode in Uncharted, but they're not MP specialists so I don't know how well they'd do with a game solely focussed on MP.
    I think the best thing could be to shop the licence around and not just give it exclusively to one company. Let EA keep the mobile games, but then let's have Ubisoft take on Battlefront, Naughty Dog with a single-player game, maybe an open-world game to Bethesda. Spread it out and give us a variety of creativity.

    How did the game monetise the progression system on multiplayer, all it did was allow players to pay money for the chance to advance their characters, if you dont want to pay you didnt have to, every card was available by playing the game, yes it was a grind but given the hours people have put in, grind wouldnt be an issue

    There was nothing locked behind a paywall whatsoever, the vocal fanbase that moaned about having to pay credits for in game characters (shock horror having to unlock stuff) have started the decline of what could have been a fantastic game for many years

    As for comparing this to FUT, if EA released new games because they want to upgrade the kits etc and allow players to play new seasons offline, then they would allow online players to transfer their FUT teams over, they dont because they know the same people will spend the same hundreds again on a yearly basis

    Whereas we could have had an excellent starwars game for a number of years where lootboxes allowed spenders, impatient players, newbies looking to catch up and anyone else the chance to spend their earned credits and crystals on hopeful card upgrades etc while the non spenders knew that eventually through time they'd have everything as well

    Now we have a nearly wound down game with bugs, exploits, empty servers all because it isnt worth their while focusing on it,
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back

    I didn't say that game sales could cover the costs of FIFA nor did I imply it. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that EA only make FIFA because of FUT and without it there wouldn't be any FIFA releases, which is definitely not true and I outlined why that is. FIFA games were being released year on year well before the additional monetisation, and while FUT does pull in a lot of money, it is not the primary reason why EA keep making FIFA games. That was my point.
    As far as these two games are concerned, FIFA is an entirely different beast to Battlefront and the two are not at all comparative. For starters, FUT is an optional game mode which means you don't have to play it and you therefore don't have to put money into it because there are still plenty of ways to play offline and there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing as their team, winning leagues, winning championships, and setting up their own player and progressing through their career. Battlefront II, however, tied the progression system of the principle multiplayer mode to monetised advancement which was, rightly, viewed as a step too far by the community and EA overplayed their hand here.
    Secondly, FIFA has much higher costs what with the contracts they have for the likenesses of all the players, the sports brands who manufacture the kits and the equipment (boots, gloves, footballs), and the companies whose sponsorhips are on the jerseys, stadium adboards, and career mode contracts, all in addition to the funding of new content. All these groups receive royalties from EA in the same way a musician is paid royalties whenever their music is used in a TV show, movie, commercial, or a video game like FIFA. Battlefront doesn't have these kinds of overheads because they get everything from Disney/LucasFilm as part of their contract with this licence, so this game doesn't need as much money as FIFA to produce new content and therefore didn't, and doesn't, need to over-incentivise the purchase of premium currency.
    At the end of the day, you can call it "spitting out the dummy" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this was about a poorly thought out, bordering on greedy, over-monetisation of the primary progression system within a multiplayer game and players were not only smart enough to realise it, but made their voices heard that this was unacceptable. Games companies are always trying to push the enevelope to see what works when it comes to monetising games, and if the main take-away for the industry after this debacle is to not tie progression to MTXs like a mobile game, then we've done a good job.
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode

    Naughty Dog would be great for a single-player, story-based game, but I'm not sure how they'd cope with a multiplayer game. Yes, there was a MP mode in Uncharted, but they're not MP specialists so I don't know how well they'd do with a game solely focussed on MP.
    I think the best thing could be to shop the licence around and not just give it exclusively to one company. Let EA keep the mobile games, but then let's have Ubisoft take on Battlefront, Naughty Dog with a single-player game, maybe an open-world game to Bethesda. Spread it out and give us a variety of creativity.

    How did the game monetise the progression system on multiplayer, all it did was allow players to pay money for the chance to advance their characters, if you dont want to pay you didnt have to, every card was available by playing the game, yes it was a grind but given the hours people have put in, grind wouldnt be an issue

    You are either blind, blinkered, EA employee or simply just a shill if you actually believe what you wrote.

    Even if it didn't effect you, EA wanted people to pay to progress faster and they did many things to make this happen. If Darth Vader stayed at 60k, how much would that take with the measley coins you got and that is just one character.

    How many other AAA games ( Jim Sterling voice) tied progression to gambling?

    If it wasn't a problem, why did Disney get involved? Was it only the minority that complained? Nope mate, you're in the minority and "THANK GOD FOR ME" :wink:
  • Set up a kickstarter and ensure that it's official and Dice will actually use it, and I'll donate.
    This is how you teach scrubs:
    xnvLDB.gif
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back

    I didn't say that game sales could cover the costs of FIFA nor did I imply it. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that EA only make FIFA because of FUT and without it there wouldn't be any FIFA releases, which is definitely not true and I outlined why that is. FIFA games were being released year on year well before the additional monetisation, and while FUT does pull in a lot of money, it is not the primary reason why EA keep making FIFA games. That was my point.
    As far as these two games are concerned, FIFA is an entirely different beast to Battlefront and the two are not at all comparative. For starters, FUT is an optional game mode which means you don't have to play it and you therefore don't have to put money into it because there are still plenty of ways to play offline and there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing as their team, winning leagues, winning championships, and setting up their own player and progressing through their career. Battlefront II, however, tied the progression system of the principle multiplayer mode to monetised advancement which was, rightly, viewed as a step too far by the community and EA overplayed their hand here.
    Secondly, FIFA has much higher costs what with the contracts they have for the likenesses of all the players, the sports brands who manufacture the kits and the equipment (boots, gloves, footballs), and the companies whose sponsorhips are on the jerseys, stadium adboards, and career mode contracts, all in addition to the funding of new content. All these groups receive royalties from EA in the same way a musician is paid royalties whenever their music is used in a TV show, movie, commercial, or a video game like FIFA. Battlefront doesn't have these kinds of overheads because they get everything from Disney/LucasFilm as part of their contract with this licence, so this game doesn't need as much money as FIFA to produce new content and therefore didn't, and doesn't, need to over-incentivise the purchase of premium currency.
    At the end of the day, you can call it "spitting out the dummy" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this was about a poorly thought out, bordering on greedy, over-monetisation of the primary progression system within a multiplayer game and players were not only smart enough to realise it, but made their voices heard that this was unacceptable. Games companies are always trying to push the enevelope to see what works when it comes to monetising games, and if the main take-away for the industry after this debacle is to not tie progression to MTXs like a mobile game, then we've done a good job.
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode

    Naughty Dog would be great for a single-player, story-based game, but I'm not sure how they'd cope with a multiplayer game. Yes, there was a MP mode in Uncharted, but they're not MP specialists so I don't know how well they'd do with a game solely focussed on MP.
    I think the best thing could be to shop the licence around and not just give it exclusively to one company. Let EA keep the mobile games, but then let's have Ubisoft take on Battlefront, Naughty Dog with a single-player game, maybe an open-world game to Bethesda. Spread it out and give us a variety of creativity.

    How did the game monetise the progression system on multiplayer, all it did was allow players to pay money for the chance to advance their characters, if you dont want to pay you didnt have to, every card was available by playing the game, yes it was a grind but given the hours people have put in, grind wouldnt be an issue


    You are either blind, blinkered, EA employee or simply just a shill if you actually believe what you wrote.

    Even if it didn't effect you, EA wanted people to pay to progress faster and they did many things to make this happen. If Darth Vader stayed at 60k, how much would that take with the measley coins you got and that is just one character.

    How many other AAA games ( Jim Sterling voice) tied progression to gambling?

    If it wasn't a problem, why did Disney get involved? Was it only the minority that complained? Nope mate, you're in the minority and "THANK GOD FOR ME" :wink:
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back

    I didn't say that game sales could cover the costs of FIFA nor did I imply it. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that EA only make FIFA because of FUT and without it there wouldn't be any FIFA releases, which is definitely not true and I outlined why that is. FIFA games were being released year on year well before the additional monetisation, and while FUT does pull in a lot of money, it is not the primary reason why EA keep making FIFA games. That was my point.
    As far as these two games are concerned, FIFA is an entirely different beast to Battlefront and the two are not at all comparative. For starters, FUT is an optional game mode which means you don't have to play it and you therefore don't have to put money into it because there are still plenty of ways to play offline and there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing as their team, winning leagues, winning championships, and setting up their own player and progressing through their career. Battlefront II, however, tied the progression system of the principle multiplayer mode to monetised advancement which was, rightly, viewed as a step too far by the community and EA overplayed their hand here.
    Secondly, FIFA has much higher costs what with the contracts they have for the likenesses of all the players, the sports brands who manufacture the kits and the equipment (boots, gloves, footballs), and the companies whose sponsorhips are on the jerseys, stadium adboards, and career mode contracts, all in addition to the funding of new content. All these groups receive royalties from EA in the same way a musician is paid royalties whenever their music is used in a TV show, movie, commercial, or a video game like FIFA. Battlefront doesn't have these kinds of overheads because they get everything from Disney/LucasFilm as part of their contract with this licence, so this game doesn't need as much money as FIFA to produce new content and therefore didn't, and doesn't, need to over-incentivise the purchase of premium currency.
    At the end of the day, you can call it "spitting out the dummy" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this was about a poorly thought out, bordering on greedy, over-monetisation of the primary progression system within a multiplayer game and players were not only smart enough to realise it, but made their voices heard that this was unacceptable. Games companies are always trying to push the enevelope to see what works when it comes to monetising games, and if the main take-away for the industry after this debacle is to not tie progression to MTXs like a mobile game, then we've done a good job.
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode

    Naughty Dog would be great for a single-player, story-based game, but I'm not sure how they'd cope with a multiplayer game. Yes, there was a MP mode in Uncharted, but they're not MP specialists so I don't know how well they'd do with a game solely focussed on MP.
    I think the best thing could be to shop the licence around and not just give it exclusively to one company. Let EA keep the mobile games, but then let's have Ubisoft take on Battlefront, Naughty Dog with a single-player game, maybe an open-world game to Bethesda. Spread it out and give us a variety of creativity.

    How did the game monetise the progression system on multiplayer, all it did was allow players to pay money for the chance to advance their characters, if you dont want to pay you didnt have to, every card was available by playing the game, yes it was a grind but given the hours people have put in, grind wouldnt be an issue

    There was nothing locked behind a paywall whatsoever, the vocal fanbase that moaned about having to pay credits for in game characters (shock horror having to unlock stuff) have started the decline of what could have been a fantastic game for many years
    rly wound down game with bugs, exploits, empty servers all because it isnt worth their while focusing on it,

    Wrote a post replying to this but edit decided your post was great and mine was lost to the ether.

    It simply said , shill, EA employee or blinkered and that you we're clueless regards what EA tried and failed to do and that you're in the minority.

    Even Disney disagrees with you and most of the forum/Reddit/YouTube community.

    Blah, blah.
  • Zepheon
    233 posts Member
    Octavarius wrote: »
    All the cool guys warning about EA exploiting everyone. Real rebels who won't give a penny to such a malevolent force. Funny I wonder how many own this game or BF2015 or BF4 or BF1, Madden, FIFA.
    I also wonder how many are sat by their Windows pc, writing on an EA official forum, while drinking Coca cola, or Pepsi, while eating a McDonald's or KFC. All 'ruthless' business empires too. All out to exploit their customers to make as much money as they can. If people can't live with capitalism they can always move to North Korea.

    Possibly the dumbest comment I’ve ever read. When you buy food from McDonald’s you can at least take it back and get what you asked for if they didn’t get it right. You get what you pay for. EA doesn’t care whatsoever if you’re satisfied with what you paid for.

    Also, nobody is moving to ***** North Korea. Come up with something better to promote capitalism. The entire reason greedy businesses thrive is due to capitalism. Caring about your fellow man is put behind monetary gain due to capitalism, evidently. We see it every day.
  • hsf_
    1828 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg

    If it goes to Noobisoft, I will ***** a brick and post it to Disney. The picture is actually partly true, because Ubisoft are worse than DICE, just like the girl alone is worse than the girl he's with.
  • Im curious how much time they spent on developing that huge cash sink of a Bad ‚progression‘-system that they first implemented. No need for charity, since you paid more than the game is worth right now with the initial price...
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back

    I didn't say that game sales could cover the costs of FIFA nor did I imply it. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that EA only make FIFA because of FUT and without it there wouldn't be any FIFA releases, which is definitely not true and I outlined why that is. FIFA games were being released year on year well before the additional monetisation, and while FUT does pull in a lot of money, it is not the primary reason why EA keep making FIFA games. That was my point.
    As far as these two games are concerned, FIFA is an entirely different beast to Battlefront and the two are not at all comparative. For starters, FUT is an optional game mode which means you don't have to play it and you therefore don't have to put money into it because there are still plenty of ways to play offline and there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing as their team, winning leagues, winning championships, and setting up their own player and progressing through their career. Battlefront II, however, tied the progression system of the principle multiplayer mode to monetised advancement which was, rightly, viewed as a step too far by the community and EA overplayed their hand here.
    Secondly, FIFA has much higher costs what with the contracts they have for the likenesses of all the players, the sports brands who manufacture the kits and the equipment (boots, gloves, footballs), and the companies whose sponsorhips are on the jerseys, stadium adboards, and career mode contracts, all in addition to the funding of new content. All these groups receive royalties from EA in the same way a musician is paid royalties whenever their music is used in a TV show, movie, commercial, or a video game like FIFA. Battlefront doesn't have these kinds of overheads because they get everything from Disney/LucasFilm as part of their contract with this licence, so this game doesn't need as much money as FIFA to produce new content and therefore didn't, and doesn't, need to over-incentivise the purchase of premium currency.
    At the end of the day, you can call it "spitting out the dummy" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this was about a poorly thought out, bordering on greedy, over-monetisation of the primary progression system within a multiplayer game and players were not only smart enough to realise it, but made their voices heard that this was unacceptable. Games companies are always trying to push the enevelope to see what works when it comes to monetising games, and if the main take-away for the industry after this debacle is to not tie progression to MTXs like a mobile game, then we've done a good job.
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    WildSpace wrote: »
    So community, if they do hint of their need of support to get the green lights, would you help?

    Absolutely not. As harsh as this may sound, they dug their own grave with the brazenly exploitative progression system at launch and if the game has to go down because of it, then fine, it'll serve as a harsh lesson going forward and hopefully Disney will be annoyed enough to pull the licence from EA.
    In 5 years, EA have produced 2 mediocre shooting games (although BF2015 is still considerably more enjoyable than this game), cancelled another that was deep in development, and haven't even mentioned the Respawn game for almost 3 years. Surely another company could've made at least 3 high quality games in that same timeframe. EA are clearly mishandling these games, from their apparent silencing of employees at DICE with regards to talking the community to let us know what's happening, to their terrible marketing that has announcements for announcements about news that offers very little and promises more soon™. There's a reason EA has been a multi-year winner of "Worst Games Publisher in the World", and the leaks (if true) really shine a light on why.
    If you promise a live-service, you deliver a live-service, you don't take people off an ongoing project to work on another, completely different one as soon as the game is released. You also don't back away from a game with an IP this big so soon after release because you greedily expected to be raking in money from an exploitative system. EA recently posted their financial earnings this week which showed the earnings from last year were at a record level. They are literally swimming in money and yet they can't fund this game? To me, it seems like even the most minimal injection of cash required to get this game back on track wouldn't even register as a loss on next year's finacial records, but the stingy greed of EA prevents them from letting go of the bare minimum of cash to save this game.
    In short, no, I will not support this game financially if they were to beg us like they were some poor, down on their luck indie developer stuggling to make ends meet. EA could fix this problem very easily without us, but they're clearly not interested in a game if it can't make money, even if the reason it can't make money is because they screwed up in the first place, or even if it's one of the biggest IPs in the whole world.
    Harsh as it may be these are excellent points. They’ve done the same thing to Bioware which was an amazing studio before EA put them in a stranglehold. EA is such a terrible publisher it disgusts me.
    I just wanted the live service game we all wanted and expected, to be able to get going again, but your post made me remember that while EA could fix this immediately, they just won’t. Such a shame that they’ll let this game fizzle just because it doesn’t rake in the dough. They’ll just pump out a new one instead for the easy profit. They could learn a thing or two from Ubisoft with Rainbow Six Siege.

    I really hope those earlier rumours about Disney shopping around for a new developer are true; Ubisoft could do great things with this licence.
    Hw9W5Y8.jpg
    Imagine Naughtydog getting it. Talk about an amazing potential story mode

    Naughty Dog would be great for a single-player, story-based game, but I'm not sure how they'd cope with a multiplayer game. Yes, there was a MP mode in Uncharted, but they're not MP specialists so I don't know how well they'd do with a game solely focussed on MP.
    I think the best thing could be to shop the licence around and not just give it exclusively to one company. Let EA keep the mobile games, but then let's have Ubisoft take on Battlefront, Naughty Dog with a single-player game, maybe an open-world game to Bethesda. Spread it out and give us a variety of creativity.

    How did the game monetise the progression system on multiplayer, all it did was allow players to pay money for the chance to advance their characters, if you dont want to pay you didnt have to, every card was available by playing the game, yes it was a grind but given the hours people have put in, grind wouldnt be an issue

    You are either blind, blinkered, EA employee or simply just a shill if you actually believe what you wrote.

    Even if it didn't effect you, EA wanted people to pay to progress faster and they did many things to make this happen. If Darth Vader stayed at 60k, how much would that take with the measley coins you got and that is just one character.

    How many other AAA games ( Jim Sterling voice) tied progression to gambling?

    If it wasn't a problem, why did Disney get involved? Was it only the minority that complained? Nope mate, you're in the minority and "THANK GOD FOR ME" :wink:
  • ELIMELECH0401
    1332 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    As a group, we could get more and better content faster by buying crystals. If EA is looking for crystal sales.in June (with the release of legendary skins); I think we should a massive crystal purchase campaign.
    If EA gets enough money, we could get more devs to get us more content. For a company to continue to invest in a product it has to be profitable. @f8rge what is your thought on this?

    I'd rather buy the big issue than what you suggest.

    Stop and think what you're asking. The community should purchase stuff from a billion dollar company that has decided that one of its development gaming company it owns isn't making the money it expected or wanted and thus we should prop it up if we want new content? This has to be a millennial or generation z mentality as I'm sure most older gamers wouldn't even think of something vacuous.

    Are people that desperate for this game to succeed that they want to chuck more money at it? The game wasn't free to play was it? Pay upfront for stuff you don't want just for the game to survive.

    What is the big issue? We already bought the game and they said no paid DLC. I am not a millennial or generation z. I am generation x. "Are people that desperate for this game to succeed that they want to chuck more money at it?" Yes, because I want hero AI so I can have multiple heroes on the battlefield in split screen, as well as objectives added to the large Arcade mode, new Starfighter Custom Arcade mode, and current Arcade mode.
    Post edited by ELIMELECH0401 on
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
  • Set up a kickstarter and ensure that it's official and Dice will actually use it, and I'll donate.

    I'd donate once Dice agreed to it.
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
  • ELIMELECH0401
    1332 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    In response to Solomacedaddy:

    What is the big issue? We already bought the game and they said no paid DLC. I am not a millennial or generation z. I am generation x. "Are people that desperate for this game to succeed that they want to chuck more money at it?" I want it to succeed because I want hero AI so I can have multiple heroes on the battlefield in split screen, as well as objectives added to the large Arcade mode, new Starfighter Custom Arcade mode, and current Arcade mode.
    Post edited by ELIMELECH0401 on
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
  • This is what happens when people spit the dummy out over lootboxe items that could be earned by playing the game, i was more than happy to earn my way in the game even if others spent their way to better stuff quicker, id get there eventually

    Why do you think EA release a new FIFA game every year, it isnt to simply keep it going, its the FUT money that's brought in, if BF2 brought in even a quarter of what FUT brings in EA/DICE/DISNEY would churn updates out quicker than the millenium falcon doing the kessel run, instead everyone bitched and moaned and this is what we get

    All sports games have had yearly releases ever since their inception which was WAY before they were as heavily monetised as they are today because each year rosters change, jerseys/kits change, stadiums change, and sponsorships change. The developers also find new ways to improve the mechanics of the game each year and how to improve the career modes. FIFA doesn't get a yearly release just because of FUT, that's ridiculous, it gets a yearly release because there are so many changes year to year that just having one game that gets patched every new season isn't enough and it has to be an entirely new game.
    Whilst some people may have blown the lootbox controversy out of all proportion, it doesn't take away the fact that it applied an F2P mobile game model on to a AAA console game. The rate of credits earned was so slow it meant that the average, casual player could probably only get one loot box a week unless they bought crystals to speed up the process. This also meant earning crafting parts was slow and could result in the average, casual player being able to get 1 Epic card a month, if they were lucky. It was purposefully designed for people to spend money which is why it was described as "predatory" and "exploitative", because MTXs should only ever be optional and not a key compnent of the game, especially when it comes to progression.
    People only defend the old system because they think the complaints and changes ruined this game when the fact of the matter is that it was ruined years ago when EA got the licence. Everybody knows what a terrible publisher they are, so it really baffles me that Disney went with them. We knew that they'd eventually try to heavily monetise their Star Wars games, we knew they'd micro-manage their development studios by restricting what they can and cannot do, we knew they'd put profits ahead of the players every time, we knew their customer service would be terrible, we knew all this and more but some people still think the players are the problem. The old system was chosen by DICE and EA and they chose poorly, so the blame is squarely on them for the problems facing this game right now, not us.

    Do you think the income from game sales alone cover all of the costs associated with FIFA, EA know that the same mugs who plowed hundreds into FIFA 18 will do the same for FIFA 19

    When BF2 was released everyone moaned about having to pay x amount for vader, luke etc, i could literally spend hundreds on FIFA and not get messi or Ronaldo, imagine playing an online football game and not having the players you want, least BF2 you eventually would get everything, there was nothing wrong with the lootboxs at launch of BF2, people just spat the dummy for whatever reason and its karma kicking all of us right back

    I didn't say that game sales could cover the costs of FIFA nor did I imply it. You, on the other hand, seemed to imply that EA only make FIFA because of FUT and without it there wouldn't be any FIFA releases, which is definitely not true and I outlined why that is. FIFA games were being released year on year well before the additional monetisation, and while FUT does pull in a lot of money, it is not the primary reason why EA keep making FIFA games. That was my point.
    As far as these two games are concerned, FIFA is an entirely different beast to Battlefront and the two are not at all comparative. For starters, FUT is an optional game mode which means you don't have to play it and you therefore don't have to put money into it because there are still plenty of ways to play offline and there are still plenty of people who enjoy playing as their team, winning leagues, winning championships, and setting up their own player and progressing through their career. Battlefront II, however, tied the progression system of the principle multiplayer mode to monetised advancement which was, rightly, viewed as a step too far by the community and EA overplayed their hand here.
    Secondly, FIFA has much higher costs what with the contracts they have for the likenesses of all the players, the sports brands who manufacture the kits and the equipment (boots, gloves, footballs), and the companies whose sponsorhips are on the jerseys, stadium adboards, and career mode contracts, all in addition to the funding of new content. All these groups receive royalties from EA in the same way a musician is paid royalties whenever their music is used in a TV show, movie, commercial, or a video game like FIFA. Battlefront doesn't have these kinds of overheads because they get everything from Disney/LucasFilm as part of their contract with this licence, so this game doesn't need as much money as FIFA to produce new content and therefore didn't, and doesn't, need to over-incentivise the purchase of premium currency.
    At the end of the day, you can call it "spitting out the dummy" all you want but it doesn't change the fact that this was about a poorly thought out, bordering on greedy, over-monetisation of the primary progression system within a multiplayer game and players were not only smart enough to realise it, but made their voices heard that this was unacceptable. Games companies are always trying to push the enevelope to see what works when it comes to monetising games, and if the main take-away for the industry after this debacle is to not tie progression to MTXs like a mobile game, then we've done a good job.

    How did the game monetise the progression system on multiplayer, all it did was allow players to pay money for the chance to advance their characters, if you dont want to pay you didnt have to, every card was available by playing the game, yes it was a grind but given the hours people have put in, grind wouldnt be an issue

    There was nothing locked behind a paywall whatsoever, the vocal fanbase that moaned about having to pay credits for in game characters (shock horror having to unlock stuff) have started the decline of what could have been a fantastic game for many years

    As for comparing this to FUT, if EA released new games because they want to upgrade the kits etc and allow players to play new seasons offline, then they would allow online players to transfer their FUT teams over, they dont because they know the same people will spend the same hundreds again on a yearly basis

    Whereas we could have had an excellent starwars game for a number of years where lootboxes allowed spenders, impatient players, newbies looking to catch up and anyone else the chance to spend their earned credits and crystals on hopeful card upgrades etc while the non spenders knew that eventually through time they'd have everything as well

    Now we have a nearly wound down game with bugs, exploits, empty servers all because it isnt worth their while focusing on it.

    The progression system was monetised and it was due to the slow nature of said progression. Yes, nothing was locked behind a paywall, yes you didn't have to pay for crystals, but the system was designed to be so slow in order to wear people down to the point where they would spend money to advance quicker., which is the same tactic used in mobile games. They make you think you can do fine as a F2P player, but then you realise how slow advancement is and you start seeing other players with better stuff than you, so you say to yourself, "maybe I'll just buy a small pack to get started", and you spend your premium currency to get new and better stuff, so you think, "maybe I'll get another one later". Thus, the cycle begins and some people can become addicted as has been documented in hundreds, possibly even thousands, of cases where people become addicted to MTX purchasing.
    With the old system, you could play for a couple of hours, earn some credits, and maybe be able to spend them on 1 loot crate which could give you very little crafting parts that were needed for upgrading your cards. Now you can play for a couple of hours and advance a class, character, or vehicle by 1 level, which for the average player who has a job and maybe even a family, is ideal. It means the game is more inclusive because even people with busy lives who love Star Wars and gaming can still play and progress without having to spend their money to do it faster.
    As for FUT, yes, they could allow people to tranfser their team from the previous game, but just because they don't doesn't mean that a new game is released each year just for that reason. It's the number of changes that come with each new season that necessitates a new game be released as the changes can't simply be made with a patch to the exisiting game. The fact that FUT teams can't be transferred should be cause for outrage among the FIFA community because it is such a blatant example of EAs greed, and ever since the Battlefront controversy I have seen a growing number of people from this community speaking out about EAs practices because people are finally starting to wake up and realise they're being taken advantage of.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    My Concepts
    Clone Skin Changes | Clone Customisation & Menu | Empire Customisation & Menu
  • In response to Solomacedaddy:

    What is the big issue? We already bought the game and they said no paid DLC. I am not a millennial or generation z. I am generation x. "Are people that desperate for this game to succeed that they want to chuck more money at it?" Yes, because I want hero AI so I can have multiple heroes on the battlefield in split screen, as well as objectives added to the large Arcade mode, new Starfighter Custom Arcade mode, and current Arcade mode.
    Set up a kickstarter and ensure that it's official and Dice will actually use it, and I'll donate.

    I'd donate once Dice agreed to it.

    I've just checked with my kids and apparently I'm a generation X. Who would of thunk it a great comedian once said.

    However, it's hard to talk or debate with someone who not only confirms they're desperate, but also would agree to a kickstarter to a billon dollar company.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.
  • Skins aren't going to get it done. I'd rather them just show up with a major Clone Wars DLC pack and charge me for that. Give me Grievous, Obi-Wan, Conquest, 2 or 3 new planets, and I'll buy it.

    For something like this to work, EA is going to have to make the first move. No one is going to buy into it without something tangible. EA will have to take a real leap of faith and put out a major Clone Wars DLC drop as constantly requested. Even if they charge for it, it would show consumers they are truly serious about this game.

    Right now, everyone thinks they are moving on to Battlefield and won't spend any money on this game. The "Free DLC" got exposed as "well Free DLC as long as you buy our loot crates". Only action from EA can change this perception.
  • hsf_
    1828 posts Member
    Skins aren't going to get it done. I'd rather them just show up with a major Clone Wars DLC pack and charge me for that. Give me Grievous, Obi-Wan, Conquest, 2 or 3 new planets, and I'll buy it.

    For something like this to work, EA is going to have to make the first move. No one is going to buy into it without something tangible. EA will have to take a real leap of faith and put out a major Clone Wars DLC drop as constantly requested. Even if they charge for it, it would show consumers they are truly serious about this game.

    Right now, everyone thinks they are moving on to Battlefield and won't spend any money on this game. The "Free DLC" got exposed as "well Free DLC as long as you buy our loot crates". Only action from EA can change this perception.

    You know for a fact they are going to charge full game pricing for it.
  • ELIMELECH0401
    1332 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    In response to Solomacedaddy:

    What is the big issue? We already bought the game and they said no paid DLC. I am not a millennial or generation z. I am generation x. "Are people that desperate for this game to succeed that they want to chuck more money at it?" Yes, because I want hero AI so I can have multiple heroes on the battlefield in split screen, as well as objectives added to the large Arcade mode, new Starfighter Custom Arcade mode, and current Arcade mode.
    Set up a kickstarter and ensure that it's official and Dice will actually use it, and I'll donate.

    I'd donate once Dice agreed to it.

    I've just checked with my kids and apparently I'm a generation X. Who would of thunk it a great comedian once said.

    However, it's hard to talk or debate with someone who not only confirms they're desperate, but also would agree to a kickstarter to a billon dollar company.

    You should be ashamed of yourself.

    EA is willing to add more split screen content to this game than most large companies add to theirs. I like playing couch co-op video games with friends. I am tired of online only multiplayer. I want to see split screen portions of games get the same amount of content as the online portion. For this game, I want hero AI so I can have multiple heroes on the battlefield in split screen, as well as objectives added to the large Arcade mode, new Starfighter Custom Arcade mode, and current Arcade mode.

    This game has been better to split screen gamers than most recent AAA titles and it is a blast to play with friends. Most games get money for post release content by paid DLC or MTX. The devs already said no paid DLC and botched the first MTX. I want to see the second attempt at MTX succeed since these devs have agreed to cater to both offline (split screen) and online audiences. As far as the kick starter goes I would back it for offline content; however, I don't think it should happen. I think crystals are the way to go.

    I cut and pasted the posters words and answered them. I am not desperate in the since that I feel like I need the game to be happy. I want to see the game succeed enough that I invest in or "chuck money at" it.
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
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!