EA’s Defense of Star Wars: Battlefront II is Now Reddit’s Most Downvoted Comment

BB Gun

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
1,548
Either you literally don't care about anything older than 4 years or you're being obtuse. That, or it will have to kill something you actually care about before you learn things the hard way that this is an actual problem.

You can, you can play the single player campaign over and over and over again for as long as your operating system supports it. Somehow you think that they have an obligation to keep their online PVP or coop servers running so you can play essentially a new scenario whenever you want (within the game limits) in near perpetuity for that initial 60 bucks you spent.

Good luck with that.

BB
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
You can, you can play the single player campaign over and over and over again for as long as your operating system supports it.
And if that's all that was at stake, again, I wouldn't be making this post. I mean look at the following:

Battleforge = has a single player campaign, now completely unplayable
Darkspore = has a single player campaign, now completely unplayable
Need For Speed = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again
The Crew = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again
The Division = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again
Destiny / Destiny 2 = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again

So, no, you're wrong. You can't just replay the single player over and over again if it's tied to the central server requirement. I'd be surprised if you can run SW Battlefront 2 single player campaign once the server shuts down.

BB Gun said:
Somehow you think that they have an obligation to keep their online PVP or coop servers running so you can play essentially a new scenario whenever you want (within the game limits) in near perpetuity for that initial 60 bucks you spent.
Ah, you got me, yeah I'm saying they need to support it forever. That's why I said this:
tetris42 said:
Making games unnecessarily rely on a central server, then shutting it down is destroying games, that's all there is to it. Meanwhile, I can still play Quake online and it's 20 years old.
tetris42 said:
of course servers will shut down. That's not the issue. The issue is artificially handcuffing it so that EVERYTHING dies when the server does, not just official extra features.

You seem to not understand what I'm saying. Let me clarify: of course I'm not advocating that companies support games forever and keep their servers running into infinity. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying designing their game to unnecessarily require a server KNOWING it's going to get shut down in a couple years is not only incredibly destructive, it's anti-consumer, and is preventable. Riddle me this, why does something like The Division need to be COMPLETELY UNPLAYABLE in any way, shape, or form once the server is shut off? So all the cutscenes, single player components, etc. can never be touched again? Or why does something like Titantfall, a small-scale deathmatch game need to be COMPLETELY UNPLAYABLE once their server eventually gets shut down? You think it's reasonable to tie everything to that when it's totally preventable and people are paying money to play it?

And even for multiplayer, there's this magical technology called PRIVATE SERVERS that can keep a game running even after the company is done with it! I'm not saying a game needs to release with that, but again, designing a game purposefully so that there's no way to play ANY of it 5 years is as shitty a practice as it gets. It's one thing if they only did that on launch, then once they were ready to shut it down, they patched it, but that's not how it works. The industry standard is "get fucked."
 

TheOne&OnlyZeke

100% Irish
Joined
Jul 21, 2000
Messages
11,049
I decided to ditch EA after BF3. Between BF4 being a glorified update, and the craptower that was C&C4, I didn't want to contribute any further to the monetization of garbage games and shitty business practices. Admittedly, I was tempted by BF1, but everything I've seen from EA since has further reinforced my decision. Nothing will change as long as the short-sighted consumer masses continue helping them make bank off this type of behavior.
Oh noooo...BF4 is fucking awesome. It really is...can't believe you didn't get it.
I am not being sarcastic about it either. BF4 is their best IMO by a mile
I can't warm to BF1 at all
 

THRESHIN

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 29, 2002
Messages
3,440
I have hated ea since they killed off origin years ago. I'm still mourning privateer 3.
 

schoolslave

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
1,111
Sorta shallow and one side way of looking at the problem and declaring it fact.

How is that shallow? It's a game, entertainment, nothing more. I suppose if your life consists of nothing else then yes, go ahead and join the hordes of raging online posters.
Meanwhile, the Smiths next door are buying BF2 for their children for Christmas in complete bliss.
This is why people speak up. You keep being a sheep, though.

The only sheep are those who mindlessly follow franchises and get all up in arms when a company makes changes to how that franchise is monetized.
I don't *have* to play every new game, and if some of my favorite franchises go to shit then I stop buying/supporting them and finding something new. Simple as that. But please, tell me all about "sheep".
 

Trepidati0n

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 26, 2004
Messages
9,270
How is that shallow? It's a game, entertainment, nothing more. I suppose if your life consists of nothing else then yes, go ahead and join the hordes of raging online posters.
Meanwhile, the Smiths next door are buying BF2 for their children for Christmas in complete bliss.

The only sheep are those who mindlessly follow franchises and get all up in arms when a company makes changes to how that franchise is monetized.
I don't *have* to play every new game, and if some of my favorite franchises go to shit then I stop buying/supporting them and finding something new. Simple as that. But please, tell me all about "sheep".

Thank you for proving my point...again by stating a shallow and one side way at a problem and declaring it fact. Makes me laugh.
 

Pringle

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,773
The only sheep are those who mindlessly follow franchises and get all up in arms when a company makes changes to how that franchise is monetized.
I don't *have* to play every new game, and if some of my favorite franchises go to shit then I stop buying/supporting them and finding something new. Simple as that. But please, tell me all about "sheep".

Those "whiny children on Reddit" as you called them, actually produced positive change in the industry yesterday. I'm not sure how you can compare them to sheep as well.
 

schoolslave

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2010
Messages
1,111
Those "whiny children on Reddit" as you called them, actually produced positive change in the industry yesterday. I'm not sure how you can compare them to sheep as well.

Just like all the outrage over paid mods stopped Bethesda from ever implementing it.... oh wait.
 

Pringle

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,773
Just like all the outrage over paid mods stopped Bethesda from ever implementing it.... oh wait.

Nobody is ever going to permanently rid of anything. But the backlash did get them to shelve paid mods in 2015. It's only just recently that the Creation Club was created. So yes, the outrage did produce change. Keep going, though.

when did Reddit become the internet voice of the gaming community?

It isn't?
 

Fleat

Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2005
Messages
985
It isn't?

Reddit represents a significant pillar of the gaming community - probably the largest collection across games. Most companies have community reps that post on dedicated subreddits at this point. It can be a great source of information, but the hive mind mentality can also make it quite toxic.
 

BB Gun

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
1,548
And if that's all that was at stake, again, I wouldn't be making this post. I mean look at the following:

Battleforge = has a single player campaign, now completely unplayable
Darkspore = has a single player campaign, now completely unplayable
Need For Speed = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again
The Crew = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again
The Division = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again
Destiny / Destiny 2 = has a single player campaign, online only, will no doubt get shut down and never be playable again

So, no, you're wrong. You can't just replay the single player over and over again if it's tied to the central server requirement. I'd be surprised if you can run SW Battlefront 2 single player campaign once the server shuts down.

Ah, gotcha. RIF and all that. Yah, that's pretty crappy since there is no need for it, but not a crisis in gaming.

You seem to not understand what I'm saying. Let me clarify: of course I'm not advocating that companies support games forever and keep their servers running into infinity. That would be ridiculous. I'm saying designing their game to unnecessarily require a server KNOWING it's going to get shut down in a couple years is not only incredibly destructive, it's anti-consumer, and is preventable. Riddle me this, why does something like The Division need to be COMPLETELY UNPLAYABLE in any way, shape, or form once the server is shut off? So all the cutscenes, single player components, etc. can never be touched again? Or why does something like Titantfall, a small-scale deathmatch game need to be COMPLETELY UNPLAYABLE once their server eventually gets shut down? You think it's reasonable to tie everything to that when it's totally preventable and people are paying money to play it?

And even for multiplayer, there's this magical technology called PRIVATE SERVERS that can keep a game running even after the company is done with it! I'm not saying a game needs to release with that, but again, designing a game purposefully so that there's no way to play ANY of it 5 years is as shitty a practice as it gets. It's one thing if they only did that on launch, then once they were ready to shut it down, they patched it, but that's not how it works. The industry standard is "get fucked."

Do I think it's "reasonable"? If I got what I considered my moneys' worth out of it (as measured by my metric noted earlier) - yeah, sure. The residual value in replay of most games 5-10 years later is pretty shit. This is a mild annoyance at best. So if you can, short of company bankruptcy, make it clear on the package/Digital "cover page" the guaranteed timeframe of server uptime - if I feel that the upfront cost will be rewarded sufficiently through my playtime during that time period - that's at least a clearly available judgement call that can be made on an individual basis.

TBH - with a few exceptions, there aren't that many games that hold their playability over years and years and years for their single player campaigns - except as the occasional trip down nostalgia lane. So while I can agree its an annoying practice - is it telling folks to "get fucked"? Not if clearly understood up front, so the playing public can choose to tell the game company to "get fucked" if they want by not buying. Everybody has a different view of the value proposition. For most people, and most games, that value proposition doesn't include playing the single player campaigns of that game for the 5th or 6th (or 10th) time 3 or 5 or 6 years later. *shrug*

And this part of the discussion is somewhat independent of the whole microtransactional model in general, and as crappily implemented by SWBF2. I mean, if there is no up front purchase price and all I pay are the microtransaction for vanity items - wtf cares how long the servers are up?

BB
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
TBH - with a few exceptions, there aren't that many games that hold their playability over years and years and years for their single player campaigns - except as the occasional trip down nostalgia lane.
This is assuming you had a chance to play the game to begin with. If it's a game that came out a few years ago that you're interested in and only now finding out about or getting a chance to play, you have no options when this practice is implemented.

BB Gun said:
So while I can agree its an annoying practice - is it telling folks to "get fucked"? Not if clearly understood up front, so the playing public can choose to tell the game company to "get fucked" if they want by not buying.
I'd say when you want to run a game that you paid for and the company intentionally makes that impossible, that's as close to a user hostile action as you can get. In many other industries that would be flat out illegal. If you bought a car that was 5 years old and discovered it was designed never to start after because of firmware that destroys the engine after that amount of time, you would consider this an acceptable practice? If you don't consider that a "get fucked" attitude, just what WOULD a company have to do for you to consider it a "fuck you" move on their part? Whether it's annoying or a slap in the face likely largely depends on the game. If you thought the game was so-so, it's annoying. If it's one of the best games you've ever played, it's terrible.

BB Gun said:
Everybody has a different view of the value proposition. For most people, and most games, that value proposition doesn't include playing the single player campaigns of that game for the 5th or 6th (or 10th) time 3 or 5 or 6 years later. *shrug*
Again, that only applies if somebody played the game to begin with. If I only find out about a game that I want to play years after the fact, I never had the value proposition in the first place, because I was previously unaware of it. That's the whole point, you keep talking like there are options. This entire practice is assuring there are NO options for anyone after enough time has passed. This doesn't apply to any other media and is overtly anti-consumer. Then again, companies will also make printers that intentionally die after a few years due to firmware, regardless of how much they're used. That's the only parallel to this I can think of. I think practices like that should be illegal for a variety of reasons, but obviously your view differs. I doubt I can say anything else to change your mind on the topic, I'll just say is I think it's a bad precedent to design and sell products that intentionally fail.
 

bluesynk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
206
I played the mobile game EA Star Wars Galaxy of Heros. This was my introduction to microtransactions for competitive items in a PvP based game. I learned about whales and dolphins and such. You could play the whole game for free but would slowly slide backwards in rank. I probably spent $100 all in during my time, same as a season pass. Can't complain about that, its about right. Soloing a guild raid really was a pretty rewarding gaming experience.
EA made boatloads of money. People spent thousands of dollars to be the first to unlock new characters. They copy pasted this whole system to a AAA title that you Cannot play for free.
I see why they did it, but wow what a backfire. EA got caught with both hands in the cookie jar.
 

Pringle

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,773
It's not even just people on Reddit 'bitching'; every review I have read is clearly as upset over this bullshit.

I did get more glimpses of the Starfighter portion of the game, though, and it looks spectacular. But there's no way in hell I would spend $60 on that and a 3 hour campaign.
 

travbrad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2005
Messages
1,253
It wasn't the silly stuff added to Bethesda's single player MMOs. Let's be real here. It was the runaway success of microtransactions of games like Magic and phone apps. It's just that once it finally got around to PCs, it hit hard and fast.

Microtransactions bother me. But even more than that random loot box/crate keys REALLY bother me. It's absolutely a form of gambling and games that supposedly target the full age spectrum from kids to adults should not be offering monetary gambling for game items. The arguments that the items are virtual or have no real world value is total BS. We all know how much some of the items are worth. And then there is spending an unkown random amount of money to gamble for items, that you then have to trade to get what you actually wanted. This is fundamentally wrong and not healthy to be exposing children to. Hell, a lot of adults don't need or appreciate pressure to gamble with real money.

The item you want, should be available for outright purchase. "but people hate that!" Yeah, well, hiding it behind putting in dollars and pulling the handle vegas style doesn't make it right.

This is really a sick path gaming is heading down.

The really crazy thing is that online gambling is often illegal EVEN FOR ADULTS in many of the places where kids are playing these slot machines/games without restriction. If one of them is going to be heavily restricted, regulated or outlawed surely it should be the one taking advantage of children and young people not the one involving "mature" adults making mistakes.

That would of course assume our laws have anything to do with logic or the good of communities, which I know is a big mistake. :p
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,459
It's not even just people on Reddit 'bitching'; every review I have read is clearly as upset over this bullshit.

I did get more glimpses of the Starfighter portion of the game, though, and it looks spectacular. But there's no way in hell I would spend $60 on that and a 3 hour campaign.
Yes I'm sure the review sites are so "upset". It wouldn't be that they're just catering to the viral outrage bandwagon because its trendy at the moment, and feeding the mob's confirmation bias is good for business and traffic.
 

_l_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 27, 2016
Messages
1,151
Look, EA screwed over many, many gamers with, at the least, the crapola Andromeda release and now they want to turn the screws even more so "screw EA" and then go buy a PS4 Pro (whole system cost less than a USED GTX 1070) ... you'll love Horizon Zero Dawn, check out the video quality on Youtube then ask yourself why you've not switched to console earlier)

If you wont be playing at 4K there's no reason not too except if you fail to BREAK THE HABIT
 

primetime

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
7,301
Its weird but i really enjoyed the beta battlefront way back. I really enjoyed all the battlefield games UNTIL i purchased BF1 and Battlefront. Shit happens cause i hate dice games now! Ill wait till there 5 bucks in the bargain bin for the Complete game before spending any more money with them. Ill wait for the next BF5 or the next BF2142 at Half price at the very least. I just cant get into their games anymore.
 
Joined
May 27, 2017
Messages
674
How can anyone on this forum be against consumer advocacy? "Vote with your wallet" is good but it only goes so far. If you train people to act be unwise with their time and money, guess what? They will become unwise with time and money. Fewer will resist. That's EA's goal in the industry.

Guess what happens if you train people to be wise with their time and money? Most people will be wise and fewer will be dumb.

As a consumer I hope more people will be informed, then we'll have more good games to choose from. Fewer games will have so much greedy nonsense if no one falls for cheap tricks. That's the opposite of EA's goals, which is to train our senses to be like citizens of North Korea.
 

Damar

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
4,610
Found this article tonight and it makes sense. A whole lot of sense.....

https://www.msn.com/en-us/entertain...battlefront-2-drama-ruin-star-wars/ar-BBF6AAp

Disney’s name wasn’t mentioned in any of these announcements. It didn’t need to be: There’s already precedent for how the company exerts its control. Word that Disney Interactive Media chairman Jimmy Pitaro made a call to EA head Andrew Wilson about the Battlefront 2 situation only make it seem more likely that this was as much Disney’s call as it was EA’s.

As the biggest media company in the world and owner of one of the biggest media franchises in the world, it makes sense. There was no way that Disney would let EA do any more damage to the stellar Star Wars name — it’s done enough already

Disney isn't going to let EA fuck up its cash cow, esp with a new movie coming up shortly.
 

Pringle

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
3,773
Yes I'm sure the review sites are so "upset". It wouldn't be that they're just catering to the viral outrage bandwagon because its trendy at the moment, and feeding the mob's confirmation bias is good for business and traffic.

Or, ya know, they're just stating the blatantly obvious
 
Top