Avatar image for durman667
#1 Posted by DurMan667 (136 posts) -
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for nutter
#2 Posted by nutter (2110 posts) -

I got a vibe CLOSE to this when EA was talking about Anthem.

NO LOOT BOXES! Also, we have a lot of visual customization options you can buy!

I’m less likely to buy games for my kids due to this shit. Someone is always asking for money for some sort of DLC and the best way to avoid the constant nickle and diming through my kids is to just not buy products with microtransaction schemes.

Avatar image for soulcake
#3 Posted by soulcake (2753 posts) -

You know what boggles my mind! That Fifa is still gonna get those shitty loot card money hoses cause people who play FIFA don't care about Gambling Regulation?

Avatar image for cameron
#4 Posted by Cameron (1053 posts) -

Maybe they're not random? If everyone gets the same items, then they aren't really loot boxes.

Avatar image for berniesbc
#5 Posted by berniesbc (250 posts) -

I don't give a fuck if they want to sell cosmetic items. I get why it's a big deal to someone with kids who are always pestering you, but who cares if they lock up hats? It does not matter as long as we're talking cosmetics.

Online
Avatar image for jeremyf
#6 Posted by JeremyF (353 posts) -

These games are built in such a way that EA can't just turn microtransactions off. They can pay lip service but ultimately this stuff is part of the design from the very beginning.

Avatar image for sasnake
#7 Posted by SASnake (612 posts) -

Isnt it just cosmetics though? Nobody cares about that shit if its just cosmetics.

Avatar image for efesell
#8 Posted by Efesell (4475 posts) -

Microtransactions are not going to stop just because people bite bit back at a specific vector for them. The randomness and gambling aspect of them is being curbed due to uproar and sudden government focus but nobodies gonna fuckin' stop selling boxes of fancy hats.

Avatar image for ares42
#9 Edited by Ares42 (4342 posts) -

They're basically just gonna take the boxes away. Practically it might even be implemented the same exact way (you get some random items), but removing the casino-like animations etc is probably enough to get government off their backs. If you want to play devils advocate that's what many of the most engaged people argued for eventually anyways, trying to make it about addiction and kids etc to bring in attention.

Avatar image for panfoot
#10 Posted by Panfoot (328 posts) -

I mean, did people not expect EA to try and wring as much money out of you as possible before trying to sell you the next game in 2 years to start the process over again?

Avatar image for briarpack
#11 Posted by briarpack (327 posts) -

@panfoot said:

I mean, did people not expect EA to try and wring as much money out of you as possible before trying to sell you the next game in 2 years to start the process over again?

"I like hope. We have to start with hope" - Jeff Gerstmann

Avatar image for deckard
#12 Posted by deckard (354 posts) -

No one should ever have expected EA or any other big game company to simply get rid of loot boxes and have no monetization Plan B. But I do think having cosmetic items available to purchase for a stated amount of money is an acceptable compromise in this day and age. And those Airlift things are probably similar to how you get loot boxes for leveling and special events in Overwatch.

Avatar image for rawrz
#13 Posted by Rawrz (673 posts) -

Battlefield has had battle packs for years so I dont see the issue with this when it just sounds like a different name for the same thing.

Avatar image for sasnake
#14 Posted by SASnake (612 posts) -

@rawrz said:

Battlefield has had battle packs for years so I dont see the issue with this when it just sounds like a different name for the same thing.

Yeah and it's just cosmetics right? People seem to be making a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Avatar image for berniesbc
#15 Posted by berniesbc (250 posts) -

I've gotta say, its nice to see all these folks saying "who cares?" because that's the right answer, and I'm sure there are plenty of communities out there losing it over this.

Online
Avatar image for hayt
#16 Posted by Hayt (1672 posts) -

They're not random.

Avatar image for danishingact
#17 Posted by DanishingAct (414 posts) -

@sasnake: No, in past battlefield games weapon attachments and boosters were in the packs.

Avatar image for sasnake
#18 Posted by SASnake (612 posts) -

@sasnake: No, in past battlefield games weapon attachments and boosters were in the packs.

Not in BF1 though was it?

Avatar image for opusofthemagnum
#19 Posted by OpusOfTheMagnum (647 posts) -

It’s cosmetics, not loot, not gameplay. I could give a shit about cosmetics and actually kinda like that system for those.

We also don’t know if you’ll need “keys” or what have you for them yet. If it’s just random cosmetics, and that’s how they monetize, who cares? Considering how dumb that stuff looks anyway I’ll probably stick to vanilla stuff anyway. I just want the gameplay progression to be more like BF3/4 and I’ll be happy.

Avatar image for opusofthemagnum
#20 Posted by OpusOfTheMagnum (647 posts) -

@danishingact: True but it just got you stuff early or got you xp boosts, which is fine. They also didn’t require keys or anything and you got a lot of them if you played frequently/well. That system was fine.

Avatar image for bollard
#21 Posted by Bollard (8163 posts) -

They aren't random so they aren't loot boxes.

Your incorrect meme picture doesn't need a thread.

Avatar image for bobbyr
#22 Edited by Bobbyr (138 posts) -

They’re the least liked company for a reason. I ain’t no business major but I’m quite surprised that they won’t become a Madden/FIFA warehouse and sell of the rest of the properties to more suitable publishers for a relatively quick influx of cash to improve their sports franchises. But I don’t think EA can downsize like that without putting the employees under the bus.

Avatar image for onarum
#23 Posted by onarum (3212 posts) -

As long as it's just for worthless cosmetic stuff I really don't care.

Avatar image for katpottz
#24 Posted by katpottz (511 posts) -

it will be funny when anthem of fifa gets blocked from selling in a major country because of this hit and they'll lose so many investors.

Avatar image for bradbrains
#25 Posted by BradBrains (2265 posts) -

@bollard said:

They aren't random so they aren't loot boxes.

Your incorrect meme picture doesn't need a thread.

Not to mention it shows how quickly false information spreads due to some sites wanting to hate on EA.

Cosmetic options are needed if you have a model that has free maps and updates. This stuff is getting insane.

Avatar image for moderp
#26 Posted by Moderp (229 posts) -

This implies a false equivalencey that is just not the case. Not that I'm an advocate for any of this micro transaction bullshit but seriously, it's a step forward.

Avatar image for the_nubster
#27 Posted by The_Nubster (4088 posts) -

@durman667: is it random? Loot boxes are dangerous because they manipulate vulnerable players into spending more money than they need to in order to get items. If "Airlifts" aren't random, it doesn't matter. Can you even buy them, or is this just what they're calling their cosmetic content drops? I don't see, in your post at least, any hunt of these being random or even paid beyond a bonus for the deluxe edition.

Avatar image for whitestripes09
#28 Edited by Whitestripes09 (918 posts) -

It's crazy to see how angry some people are over this and I'm just sitting here thinking how does this actually impact me? It doesn't... even with BF1 I don't think I even opened my supply drops because a lot of the skins I thought were ugly anyway. Now it seems like a more simplified system. You want to have a Katana on your back without having to grenade double jump and find the super secret whatever, even though it's a first person game? That's fine, now you can just pay for it if you really want to be that guy. I don't honestly see the problem with that and it gives people the option to do so if they want. Titanfall 2 did the exact same thing and the community voluntarily payed for skins and camos because they wanted to show support of a microtransaction system that didn't effect gameplay. But I guess now the fad is to bandwagon on reddit and be against all microtransactions even though we've been living with that model for almost a decade now.

Avatar image for breq
#29 Edited by breq (107 posts) -

Random or not cosmetics are whatever. The issue I have with BFV is how out of place and dumb some of the cosmetics are. Does a WW2 game need a Jason Voorhees mask, or a ninja costume? Is the WW2 setting even necessary at this point if they're just trying to make money from fort nite levels of hats?

Avatar image for tyrellocp
#30 Posted by TyrellOCP (487 posts) -

It all depends on how it's handled.

Titanfall 2, an EA game, had paid skins for Titans to supplement them not charging for new maps and new Titans. They need cashflow to keep the servers up somehow.

As was mentioned during the conference commentary, governments are getting involved and taking action against loot boxes. EA are going to be very careful about how they handle micro-transactions from now on. Doesn't mean they may not poorly explain the terminology for those micro-transactions.

Avatar image for ungodly
#31 Edited by Ungodly (446 posts) -

EA is not unique in this, they were never unique in this, and EA is still successful even though people continue to shit on them. If you don't like what they are doing, then don't play the games. I am so sick of the self entitled nonsense. What they did with Battle Front was shitty, and they walked it back. What more do people want? EA to close? Is this just a "I hate EA", thing? Loot crates are bad and they take advantage of people who are susceptible to it. If they change to a direct model that removes randomisation, and gives the developer funds to make more content, then I'm fine with that. If people want to spend their money on silly cosmetic item, then they are more than welcome to. I really wish that every game publisher would release the amount of money it costs them to make AAA games. Maybe then people would understand that 60 bucks doesn't cover as much as it used to.

Avatar image for therealseaman
#32 Edited by TheRealSeaman (133 posts) -

I'm remaining open minded for V but may just end up installing BF4 or buying BF1 on discount. All this weird character customisation is not what I come to Battlefield for.

I don't like the tone they are going for either. I would rather see WW2 (even Normandy) depicted in Frostbite with a semi-serious tone than what I have seen so far.

Female soldiers are fine but show some respect and do it right instead of idk cyborg arm tough lady. There are stories to be told and lights to be shone on the women that fought in WW2. This is not doing that.

Hopefully the multiplayer is still good without too much dumb stuff bolted onto it. I want a good Battlefield game free of the customisation and "zany" bullshit from free to play games/Fortnite.

I hope this won't be another game where EA force a studio to chase what's hot and ruin the game (Dead Space 3, looking at you).

Avatar image for cursethesemetalhands
#33 Posted by CurseTheseMetalHands (178 posts) -

If they had made this Bad Company 3 then the only complaint would've been, "Why can't I get a cosmetic skin to make this tank look like a solid gold monster truck?"

Avatar image for berniesbc
#34 Posted by berniesbc (250 posts) -

Hey you guys. Battlefield is traditionally silly and zany. People didn't ride on plane wings over midway irl, but they sure did in Battlefield.

Online
Avatar image for soulcake
#35 Edited by soulcake (2753 posts) -

"It's not a roulette wheel. It's a wheel that looks like a Roulette wheel" Is something a EA lawyer is gonna say to some government official at some point in the next decade.

Also kinda amazed how many people defend this shitty business practice or use the "we gotta keep the servers going" bull shit argument. Hey if they let me host my own server i would happily turn on my Linux server to host a GB BF server.

Avatar image for mostlysquares
#36 Posted by MostlySquares (322 posts) -

I'll chime in and say: As long as it's not random chance, I'm fine with devs just putting millions of tons of stuff in there for sale. All that means is that I will see a lot of variety on the battlefield, not just a squad of Generic Joe Soldier.

If they keep the randomness away, I'm never going to lift an eyebrow. If they want to sell skins, that's 100% ok. If they lock my ACOGs or silencers behind pay walls they can suck an infinite amount of herpes infected cocks. That is un-fucking-acceptable. Do not touch the gameplay! That's literally all that is sacred.

Avatar image for rigas
#37 Posted by Rigas (819 posts) -

Who honestly didn't think this was what was going to happen. The second I heard no loot boxes, it meant they wont be boxes. Might as well be Malibu Stacy with a new hat, just without the hat.

Avatar image for hivetyrant
#38 Posted by Hivetyrant (18 posts) -

It's not a pyramid scheme guys, it's multi level marketing!

Avatar image for the_greg
#39 Posted by The_Greg (539 posts) -

Got to love EA. Scummy business.

I'll still buy their games. Not 'boycotting' them, just because they're another greedy corporation. If we did that to all greedy corporations, we'd be living in a ditch in the middle of the desert.

Avatar image for sammo21
#40 Posted by sammo21 (5968 posts) -

I'm less worried about loot boxes with Anthem than I am the game actually being good. I've not gotten burned by a Battlefield games because of "loot boxes" yet so I'm not going to go off on them for something I don't even know sucks or not.