EA response is typical

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

For those of you who didn't know, people who had early access to battlefront 2 discovered that most of the heroes are locked behind in-game paywall. Hallmark heroes Luke and Vader costs 60k in-game credits. the avg amount of credits earned by players were around 200-300 each match. This calculates to grinding for 40 hours for EITHER Luke or Vader! And keep in mind, there are other heroes ocked for 20 and 40k. This means to unlock ALL heroes, you need to grind for 100+ hrs.

Here's where the calculations were done:https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7c6bjm/it_takes_40_hours_to_unlock_a_hero_spreadsheet/

It goes without saying, but people were pissed. The reddit page were filled with anger and complaints.

EA had an official response, and it is the most downvpted comment in the reddit history(yes, the ENTIRE reddit domain)
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/

Now, EA is claiming they will make adjustments accordingly, but the fact that iconic heroes are locked behind grinds is ridiculous.
We probably should've seen this coming when "No season passs" was announced

So much for the idea that microtransactions won't impact game design. It was obvious from the start where that story was headed. And if gamers were half as intelligent as they think they are they would have seen it coming and they would have said no to games with microtransactions. Is it really that hard to say no to a video game, especially after what happened with every single previous anti-consumer practice that these people came up with? What did people think was gonna happen? That microtransactions would magically be ethical? How fuckin' dumb would one have to be to think that?

Adam Jensen:
How fuckin' dumb would one have to be to think that?

Ahahahaha. :P

You underestimate the human capacity for stupidity and self-harming actions.

If smoking is still a big industry despite everyone and their dog knowing "This shit WILL kill you", I can't have hope in people being smart enough to not drop 1500 bucks on mass effect microtransactions, let alone pass on games with shit micros in them.

I feel so bad for my brother's girlfriend. She's got hired by EA a few years ago, and the only two games she's worked on have been Mass Effect Andromeda and Battlefront 2.

You know, at times like this I really want to look at everyone who defended microtransactions and ask "Has a line been crossed yet? Or do we need to go even further down the rabbit hole?"

It's been obvious for years that the shady practices of mobile games would make their way to AAA gaming sooner or later. It was always inevitable, there is just too much money on the table for the illuminati lizard aliens that run major gaming publishers to be able to resist.

I'd want to say this is a textbook example of a publisher being out of touch with their consumer base, but then I consider that this is EA, and it's woefully obvious they simply thought they could get away with pissing in the consumer base's collective face and calling it rain. Those Reddit comments are harsh, accurate and well deserved. EA knows it has a sizeable monopoly on gaming, that's why it insists on buying up any and everything even remotely popular so they can turn it into an ethically questionable (at best) cash vacuum and leave the consumer with little to no viable option otherwise. It's going to take a failure of a major IP (and a BIG failure,) to convince EA they're anything other than invincible and beyond reproach.

Man, the BALLS on EA to try and pass that explanation off! The industry is rife with ire towards the pervasiveness of microtransactions, loot boxes and pay-to-win systems within full retail games; it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for any respectable dev and/or publisher to be unaware of that fact or to think for one second that they could ever sell consumers on any intention to implement cash-grab tactics as anything other than. Yeah, about the only part of their response that was genuine was their mentioning they used Open Beta data to determine what unlocks should cost; they saw how much players earned on an average day and determined that +40 hours grinding is just unreasonable enough to break spirits and open wallets. "...challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay." FUCK. OFF. I can walk across the continental United States; that doesn't make it as equally viable as driving or flying.

Meh, game will sell a shiton anyway and the loss of revenue from the controversy will be more than matched with the gain in revenue from people buying that stuff.

The game is selling to casual, people who buy 2-3 games a years (it's right before Christmas, what do you think parent will get for little Timmy?), they don't know about this. Heck for people who primarily game trough mobile stuff this is just business as usual and they might even see it as a positive ("Now kid who don't have anything else do to but play won't have an advantages on me").

This is why don't I buy EA games new.
I'd rather some random on Amazon or even GameStop get the money.

Adam Jensen:
Is it really that hard to say no to a video game...?

"But all my friends are playing it! I won't be one of the 'cool kids' if I don't play it too, Mom!"

Meiam:
Meh, game will sell a shiton anyway and the loss of revenue from the controversy will be more than matched with the gain in revenue from people buying that stuff.

The game is selling to casual, people who buy 2-3 games a years (it's right before Christmas, what do you think parent will get for little Timmy?), they don't know about this.

^

There's a reason EA continues to exist and make money. It's because the bulk of their consumer base doesn't care. As I said in a past thread, whatever. Let them get loot-boxed to death.

Ok, I ask you all this.

Would you all be ok that everything that's developed from now on goes to a paid and free to play business model?

Let's take a game. Tekken 8. There's two models. a 60 dollar experience and free to play. Sothat if you buy the full 60 dollar experience, every dlc and item is always available to you through massive amounts of grinding and/or luck, and you can only play with others who paid for the 60 dollar experience. But there is NEVER a time that you can buy one single item. If you want to be able to buy, you have to just start with the free to play client and not have your progress be able to be transfered over (If you have the 60 dollar version, you'll still have all your saved data, but you can just never use it in free to play_

Free to play has randomized characters you can play with for a season, you earn no experience and you can only buy new items/characters/stages/dlc, and you can only play with free to play players.

That way, Game developers would save face with gamers, and still be able to get their whales.

aegix drakan:

Adam Jensen:
How fuckin' dumb would one have to be to think that?

Ahahahaha. :P

You underestimate the human capacity for stupidity and self-harming actions.

I'm sorry, can we just take some time to realize how Ironic it is that someone said this to Adam Jensen? Aegix is a smart guy, I'm going to say it's planned and I'm going to give you a golf clap.

Forget "casuals", how many "core" gamers will shit all over EA on social media, and still buy the game anyway? I'm just glad I'm not a Star Wars fan or a fan of EA games in general, so I can look at this and just go welp, that sucks.

The worst part is it's just another shooter. A dying genre, so gamers have to subject themselves to these horrible conditions, right?

Meh. Might have still happened without a currency system. These new multiplayer games are all about grinding. You know how long it takes to unlock all the multiplayer characters in Max Payne 3? A long fucking time. That came out five years ago and doesn't have purchasable currency. Getting all the Max models requires going Legend (Rockstar's version of COD4's Prestige) ten times.

I don't care anyway. The beta sucked.

Wintermute:
Forget "casuals", how many "core" gamers will shit all over EA on social media, and still buy the game anyway? I'm just glad I'm not a Star Wars fan or a fan of EA games in general, so I can look at this and just go welp, that sucks.

The worst part is it's just another shooter. A dying genre, so gamers have to subject themselves to these horrible conditions, right?

I would estimate roughly, oh I don't know, all of them.

I've had my eye on this game since it was announced. Even the loot-boxes didn't really turn me off of it, because I just shrugged and decided I wasn't going to buy any of them. I'd just play the game, and if someone had a better weapon than me, so be it. I'd still enjoy it.

But this? I have to say, this makes me hesitate finally. 60,000 didn't seem so bad to me at first, but that was because I was going by the old credit system from the first game. 'Okay, so sixty rounds of me being at my WORST in Walker Assault, and I'm not at my worst, so probably forty rounds, give or take. No big deal.'
But no. Credits are no longer exp. points. And the idea that such a small amount is given out at a time makes my head hurt thinking about how much I'd have to play just to unlock one character--never mind all of them.

And it pisses me off. I REALLY want to play this game, but now I'm going to wait for either a sale or finding a used copy (which I'm sure GameStop will get plenty of). I am watching a franchise I love slowly die due to greed, from Disney and their constant need to announce new movies while the current ones aren't even done, and EA and their just all around "Screw you, ha ha ha!" attitude toward their customers. Could the Star Wars license have gone to a worse company at this point?

And it's killing me. I want George Lucas back at this point. I was so looking forward to that space combat, but not for this steep entry fee.

EA has now edited the post and hidden its score. does anyone know what it's final tally was? Last thing I heard it got down to over 435,000 downvotes.

image

ObsidianJones:
Ok, I ask you all this.

Would you all be ok that everything that's developed from now on goes to a paid and free to play business model?

Let's take a game. Tekken 8. There's two models. a 60 dollar experience and free to play. Sothat if you buy the full 60 dollar experience, every dlc and item is always available to you through massive amounts of grinding and/or luck, and you can only play with others who paid for the 60 dollar experience. But there is NEVER a time that you can buy one single item. If you want to be able to buy, you have to just start with the free to play client and not have your progress be able to be transfered over (If you have the 60 dollar version, you'll still have all your saved data, but you can just never use it in free to play_

Free to play has randomized characters you can play with for a season, you earn no experience and you can only buy new items/characters/stages/dlc, and you can only play with free to play players.

That way, Game developers would save face with gamers, and still be able to get their whales.

Just let me pay $60 upfront for a fully packaged game. It's not that hard to comprehend. In fact prior to around 2002, everybody got that.

So with all this hoohaw and malarkey, what are the chances any of this actually mattering? I saw that they knocked the credit price for Vader down by 75%, which good for them, totally missed the point, ie YOU HAVE TO UNLOCK DARTH VADER IN A STAR WARS GAME!

Fuck me, its like having the Star Wars soundtrack locked behind a paywall, then given a discount. That's not the point.

Still, I think this game will be a roaring success and that most people will happily pay for the most basic of elements.

Meiam:
Meh, game will sell a shiton anyway and the loss of revenue from the controversy will be more than matched with the gain in revenue from people buying that stuff.

The game is selling to casual, people who buy 2-3 games a years (it's right before Christmas, what do you think parent will get for little Timmy?), they don't know about this. Heck for people who primarily game trough mobile stuff this is just business as usual and they might even see it as a positive ("Now kid who don't have anything else do to but play won't have an advantages on me").

it's also called Capitalism. EA has the incentive to put all this tuff in becuase it has and will earn them big bucks. They would be literally stupid not to.
Until there is an economic reason not to put in loot boxes, they will stay. Unfortunately, a few whales can counteract hundreds of thousands of average users.

I can only shake my head in frustration and say that apathetic buyers that haven't said no until now deserves this.
Where did they think it was going? Some people doesn't even say no now...
This will most likely result in a net positive profit gain, and so the practices continue and the ante gets upped yet again.

Squilookle:
EA has now edited the post and hidden its score. does anyone know what it's final tally was? Last thing I heard it got down to over 435,000 downvotes.

When I checked it just now it was at -525k points and 48 reddit gold. (48!)
I had to open the link in the hidden post in a new tab, but it was still there.

And that's another 10k downvotes in less then half an hour. Guess one has to keep that reputation as worst company going.
Personally, I would not mind micro transactions if they, you know, were actually micro. At this point I think we really need to come up with a new term, or just change it to macro.

Squilookle:

ObsidianJones:
Ok, I ask you all this.

Would you all be ok that everything that's developed from now on goes to a paid and free to play business model?

Just let me pay $60 upfront for a fully packaged game. It's not that hard to comprehend. In fact prior to around 2002, everybody got that.

Obsidian's question was an incorrect one. Let me phrase it correctly using Squilookie's year as the base point.

Would you pay $83.62 (which is $60 adjusted for inflation) for a Playstation 2/Xbox 1/N64 game?

thepyrethatburns:

Squilookle:

ObsidianJones:
Ok, I ask you all this.

Would you all be ok that everything that's developed from now on goes to a paid and free to play business model?

Just let me pay $60 upfront for a fully packaged game. It's not that hard to comprehend. In fact prior to around 2002, everybody got that.

Obsidian's question was an incorrect one. Let me phrase it correctly using Squilookie's year as the base point.

Would you pay $83.62 (which is $60 adjusted for inflation) for a Playstation 2/Xbox 1/N64 game?

Lol, inflation.

It's not about breaking even, it's about making more money. They didn't NEED to do it.

Also, most of us didn't ask for photorealistic graphics that are ridiculously expensive. Photorealism doesn't make BF2 any less boring.

Why is all of this on EA? Titanfall2 was mostly praised for its progression system and that was published by EA.

How much of the blame lands on Dice's shoulders? Knowing there would be lootbox/microtransactions they went for no custom charecter stuff? What are we left to buy but charecters when there are no cosmetics to get?

You cannot tell me war paint/battle damage/markings/tinted visors wouldnt be cool on storm troopers. Anyone remember Republic Commando? Equally, who wouldnt want to pimp their Tie-Fighter? Think of the rims...

Squilookle:

ObsidianJones:
Ok, I ask you all this.

Would you all be ok that everything that's developed from now on goes to a paid and free to play business model?

Let's take a game. Tekken 8. There's two models. a 60 dollar experience and free to play. Sothat if you buy the full 60 dollar experience, every dlc and item is always available to you through massive amounts of grinding and/or luck, and you can only play with others who paid for the 60 dollar experience. But there is NEVER a time that you can buy one single item. If you want to be able to buy, you have to just start with the free to play client and not have your progress be able to be transfered over (If you have the 60 dollar version, you'll still have all your saved data, but you can just never use it in free to play_

Free to play has randomized characters you can play with for a season, you earn no experience and you can only buy new items/characters/stages/dlc, and you can only play with free to play players.

That way, Game developers would save face with gamers, and still be able to get their whales.

Just let me pay $60 upfront for a fully packaged game. It's not that hard to comprehend. In fact prior to around 2002, everybody got that.

The truth is that Microtransactions make companies a grip of money. And given the fact that companies are in business to make money, they are here to stay. So we need to think up ways that you and I can get our complete experience spending our 60 dollars for games.

thepyrethatburns:
Obsidian's question was an incorrect one. Let me phrase it correctly using Squilookie's year as the base point.

Would you pay $83.62 (which is $60 adjusted for inflation) for a Playstation 2/Xbox 1/N64 game?

How is my question incorrect if I'm asking something from my own curiosity? The dollar amount isn't the important part. I'm asking if the general public would be ok if each new game would come in a retail/free to play fashion.

One could choose buy a game full price and would get all the upcoming dlc for free but it would have to be ground out, or one could get the free to play option of the same game with a changing roster of characters per season, meaning you would have to buy a character if you always wanted it available, no experience and every dlc, item and map could never be earned, just bought.

And that the paid players would never meet the free to play players. So if the Paid players got killed by the super awesome mega weapon, they would know that the person who killed them earned it through grinding and wouldn't be as upset.

EA knows what they are doing. They have lowered the hero costs AND lowered the REWARDS.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2017/11/13/wheres-our-star-wars-battlefront-ii-review.aspx

And whatever you do. DON'T preorder.

Gergar12:

And whatever you do. DON'T preorder.

Here's something I'm still trying to figure out: why do people still pre-order shit in 2017? We're well past the point there's a chance the game in question will be sold out the day of release, and I've yet to see a pro-order bonus that was actually worth it.

Ezekiel:

thepyrethatburns:

Squilookle:

Just let me pay $60 upfront for a fully packaged game. It's not that hard to comprehend. In fact prior to around 2002, everybody got that.

Obsidian's question was an incorrect one. Let me phrase it correctly using Squilookie's year as the base point.

Would you pay $83.62 (which is $60 adjusted for inflation) for a Playstation 2/Xbox 1/N64 game?

Lol, inflation.

It's not about breaking even, it's about making more money. They didn't NEED to do it.

So, looking at cost of goods sold, I guess that must mean that Activision is releasing the same amount of games and spending less on the COGS. Let's take a look at Activision's release list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Activision_video_games

In 2010, Activision released 18 titles and 54 versions across multiple platforms.
In 2016, Activision released 2 games and 9 versions across multiple platforms.

Hum, it doesn't look like COGS went down by 8/9 or even 5/6. Failure 101 is blindly taking a Youtube video at it's word without looking at the numbers that make up those costs.

There's quite a few failures in this video that only work because he's preaching to a choir that not only don't have degrees in finance but also haven't worked in both finance and IT. I give him points for including Ubisoft's balance sheet but take those points away when you see that he is trying to present his case in a vacuum. In fairness, there are a few comments under the video that point out other failings in the video but, by and large, he is preaching to a choir who WANT to believe that it's all about the profits that those mean ol' game companies extort from them.

Ezekiel:
Also, most of us didn't ask for photorealistic graphics that are ridiculously expensive. Photorealism doesn't make BF2 any less boring.

HAHAHA....no.

This is a common counterargument that is consistently proven false by sales figures. This is even funnier because this is the Escapist, home of Yahtzee videos which consistently made fun of Nintendo's graphical limitations and found a very receptive audience for that sort of repetitive humor. Gamers flock to the better graphics. If they weren't, the game companies would happily cut corners on an aspect of the game that is costing them money But, despite their protestations, when push comes to shove, gamers will race for the prettier game. Saying otherwise is a lie on par with the average tweet that Donald Trump makes.

ObsidianJones:

thepyrethatburns:
Obsidian's question was an incorrect one. Let me phrase it correctly using Squilookie's year as the base point.

Would you pay $83.62 (which is $60 adjusted for inflation) for a Playstation 2/Xbox 1/N64 game?

How is my question incorrect if I'm asking something from my own curiosity? The dollar amount isn't the important part. I'm asking if the general public would be ok if each new game would come in a retail/free to play fashion.

The question is incorrect because it creates a false choice. And, yes, the dollar amount is very important. The amount of people who would pay $60 for a full game is less than the amount who would pay 83.62 for a 2002 game to say nothing of what people would pay for what a 2017 game actually costs.

Hell, if you think price isn't important, why stop at 60? Why not ask how many people would buy the full game at 50 or 40? Price point is important in these conversations. It's like how I wasn't willing to pay $60 for Sacred 3 when it came out but I was willing to download it and play it when it was free on Games for Gold. In order to ask the correct question and get a meaningful answer, you have to pose the correct conditions for your question.

thepyrethatburns:

ObsidianJones:

thepyrethatburns:
Obsidian's question was an incorrect one. Let me phrase it correctly using Squilookie's year as the base point.

Would you pay $83.62 (which is $60 adjusted for inflation) for a Playstation 2/Xbox 1/N64 game?

How is my question incorrect if I'm asking something from my own curiosity? The dollar amount isn't the important part. I'm asking if the general public would be ok if each new game would come in a retail/free to play fashion.

The question is incorrect because it creates a false choice. And, yes, the dollar amount is very important. The amount of people who would pay $60 for a full game is less than the amount who would pay 83.62 for a 2002 game to say nothing of what people would pay for what a 2017 game actually costs.

Hell, if you think price isn't important, why stop at 60? Why not ask how many people would buy the full game at 50 or 40? Price point is important in these conversations. It's like how I wasn't willing to pay $60 for Sacred 3 when it came out but I was willing to download it and play it when it was free on Games for Gold. In order to ask the correct question and get a meaningful answer, you have to pose the correct conditions for your question.

Before I answer anything else (I'll just copy and paste this later), I need to understand how it would be a false choice.

I'm presenting a hypothetical scenario here. That's the essence of the question.

The Paid Game of the game.
-If there's an multiplayer component, it can only be played with other people who bought the same Paid Game as well. No cross play with Free-To-Play gamers.
-All of the DLC content will be uploaded into the paid game, but will be earned with massive grinding.
-Set price from the start.

Free-to-play version of the game
-If there's a multiplayer component, free to players can only play with other free to players.
-Rotating set of characters you can play with, and the only way to secure them is by paying for the characters you want.
-No experience, so you have to pay for dlc, new items, new characters, etc.

I'm asking if people would be ok with this model going forward. That Battlefront 3 would have this Paid and Free-to-play model, Street Fighter 6, Starcraft 3, all games going forward. That way the whales can continue to make the companies rich while we players who just want to buy a full game from the start can do so, and the dlc will be paid for by those who will want it.

Where is the false choice? You can either pay for the whole game in this scenario, or pay for the parts you want.

ObsidianJones:

thepyrethatburns:

ObsidianJones:

How is my question incorrect if I'm asking something from my own curiosity? The dollar amount isn't the important part. I'm asking if the general public would be ok if each new game would come in a retail/free to play fashion.

The question is incorrect because it creates a false choice. And, yes, the dollar amount is very important. The amount of people who would pay $60 for a full game is less than the amount who would pay 83.62 for a 2002 game to say nothing of what people would pay for what a 2017 game actually costs.

Hell, if you think price isn't important, why stop at 60? Why not ask how many people would buy the full game at 50 or 40? Price point is important in these conversations. It's like how I wasn't willing to pay $60 for Sacred 3 when it came out but I was willing to download it and play it when it was free on Games for Gold. In order to ask the correct question and get a meaningful answer, you have to pose the correct conditions for your question.

Before I answer anything else (I'll just copy and paste this later), I need to understand how it would be a false choice.

I'm presenting a hypothetical scenario here. That's the essence of the question.

The Paid Game of the game.
-If there's an multiplayer component, it can only be played with other people who bought the same Paid Game as well. No cross play with Free-To-Play gamers.
-All of the DLC content will be uploaded into the paid game, but will be earned with massive grinding.
-Set price from the start.

Free-to-play version of the game
-If there's a multiplayer component, free to players can only play with other free to players.
-Rotating set of characters you can play with, and the only way to secure them is by paying for the characters you want.
-No experience, so you have to pay for dlc, new items, new characters, etc.

I'm asking if people would be ok with this model going forward. That Battlefront 3 would have this Paid and Free-to-play model, Street Fighter 6, Starcraft 3, all games going forward. That way the whales can continue to make the companies rich while we players who just want to buy a full game from the start can do so, and the dlc will be paid for by those who will want it.

Where is the false choice? You can either pay for the whole game in this scenario, or pay for the parts you want.

I ..... kinda flat out said that the choice of price point is what makes it a false choice.

thepyrethatburns:
HAHAHA....no.

This is a common counterargument that is consistently proven false by sales figures. This is even funnier because this is the Escapist, home of Yahtzee videos which consistently made fun of Nintendo's graphical limitations and found a very receptive audience for that sort of repetitive humor. Gamers flock to the better graphics. If they weren't, the game companies would happily cut corners on an aspect of the game that is costing them money But, despite their protestations, when push comes to shove, gamers will race for the prettier game. Saying otherwise is a lie on par with the average tweet that Donald Trump makes.

I think it's kind of bullshit. Plenty of games do well without having amazing graphics. Nier: Automata didn't have very good graphics, yet it sold 1.5 million copies by the end of May. Dark Souls never had great graphics, yet it was a very successful series for Namco Bandai. Call of Duty for a long time had dated graphics, but that didn't stop it from topping the charts every year. Gamers, most of them, don't buy games because they look pretty. I mean, that's one part of it, but there's a lot more to a purchase than that. Good gameplay and content sells through word of mouth. Crysis wouldn't have kept selling like it did if it just looked good. Ryse, a very good looking game, failed Crytek's expectations because people found the actual content mediocre. Personally, I'd rather have the depth of MGS3 than the pretty, repetitive, expensive emptiness of MGS5. I'd rather play something dated looking but soulful like Nier: Automata than something hyperrealistic but boring like Battlefront 2. You shrink your potential market a bit by doing that, but you also save costs and need to sell fewer copies.

Adam Jensen:
So much for the idea that microtransactions won't impact game design.

At what point did someone claim that micro transactions wouldn't impact the game design of Battlefront 2?!

The loot box based card system that they're using ALONE is enough to keep anyone who is at all serious about game balance from touching this thing with a 10 foot poll. We've known for months that the design of this game was totally borked for anyone not willing to pay out the nose for unfair advantages. I don't know why this is the thing breaking the camel's back when LITERALLY EVERYTHING about the balance of this game that we know of was awful. This is just one more thing in a long list of problems this game has with micro transactions.

Xprimentyl:
I?d want to say this is a textbook example of a publisher being out of touch with their consumer base, but then I consider that this is EA, and it?s woefully obvious they simply thought they could get away with pissing in the consumer base?s collective face and calling it rain. Those Reddit comments are harsh, accurate and well deserved. EA knows it has a sizeable monopoly on gaming, that?s why it insists on buying up any and everything even remotely popular so they can turn it into an ethically questionable (at best) cash vacuum and leave the consumer with little to no viable option otherwise. It?s going to take a failure of a major IP (and a BIG failure,) to convince EA they?re anything other than invincible and beyond reproach.

I'm not sure you know what a monopoly is, because EA definitely doesn't have one.

In fact, I haven't bought a single EA game since they announced Origin years ago (though I've been tempted by 2) and I've been perfectly fine with all of the TONS of other options available to me.

Someone ran the math when the downvotes were around 300k or so, and if each of those downvotes equaled one canceled preorder, EA would lose something like 2.3 million dollars.

It's shit like this that makes me hope and pray for another gaming industry crash like the one in the 80's. Pretty much every major publisher has come out and admitted that they don't give a fat flying fuck about making games that people actually enjoy, their primary concern is making games that people have to continually pay for after the initial purchase...if the game turns out to be any good then that's just a happy side-effect.

So let it all crumble to the ground and burn. Sure, it means we'll get a few years of a post-apocalypse industry, but what rises from the ashes has to be better than the crap we're seeing now.

bjj hero:
Why is all of this on EA? Titanfall2 was mostly praised for its progression system and that was published by EA.

That's because they didn't actually own any part of the Titanfall IP. Now that EA has officially bought out Respawn, they do own the Titanfall IP, which means that Titanfall 3 is sure to be a shit-show.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here