Loot boxes may look good on paper as a way to generate extra revenue from a game but in reality they are incredibly unpopular with those who buy games. Originally EA had set the price of unlocking your first playable hero at 60,000 in game credits. According to the math done in the article Slashdot linked to, that would entail around 40 hours of gameplay assuming you never used any for the various other unlocks EA charges credits for. As EA limits the amount of credits you can earn at one time in arcade mode, most of those hours would need to be spent in multiplayer games as opposed to enjoying the game in peace and quiet. Of course, you could always pay money for them, $450 or so would unlock a hero.
In this case EA actually listened to their prospective customers, dropping the credit requirements for heroes by 75%; the loot boxes remain of course.
"Most importantly, Electronic Arts today announced that they are reducing the number of credits needed to unlock top characters in the game by 75 percent. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader will now cost 15,000 credits. Emperor Palatine, Chewbacca and Leia Organa will now cost 10,000 and Iden will cost 5,000."
Here is some more Tech News from around the web:
- OnePlus has left a huge backdoor exploit app in Oxygen OS @ The Inquirer
- ARM emulator in a VM? Yup, done. Ready to roll, no config required @ The Register
- Thousand-dollar iPhone X's Face ID wrecked by '$150 3D-printed mask' @ The Register
- Firefox Quantum finally launches to the world with double the speed @ The Inquirer
From what I understand, they
From what I understand, they also dropped the earn rate of the credits, still forcing players to grind a long time to earn enough credits for one character, even at the reduced character cost.
Yes, they reduced the earn
Yes, they reduced the earn rate by exactly as much as they reduced the price.
Not to be an apologist but…
Not to be an apologist but… I heard on the Giant Bomb podcast players also earned credits by doing other stuff (e.g. kill 50 with a weapon) were those reduced also?
If they weren’t it may not be an issue.
not to be an apologist,
not to be an apologist, but…
so basicallly you are apologising for being an apologist!
Also, until this crap is COMPLETELY removed from the game, it is an issue.
NO matter how they “tweak” or “change” these LB/MTs, THE UNDERLYING INSIDUOUS SYSTEM IS STILL THERE!
Well you could help this by
Well you could help this by simply refusing to buy games that do this. I didn't buy the first one because of similar, though significantly less disgusting reasons and no way am I buying this one either.
absolutely don’t buy the game
absolutely don’t buy the game and neither will I. Awhile back I was actually thinking along the same lines as this other guy that I responded to. Then one day I woke up and realized just how shitty this situation is and will become even worse.
It isn’t about just this game, it’s about a set of shitty, i mean obscene levels of shitty-ness business practices that are in place to not just sell a product, but to psychologically manipulate and wring every last cent they can from us via turning games into “games as a service” which includes “turning players into payers”
My apologies Jeremey, I don’t mean to come across so mean or harsh on others, they are after all free to do what they want adn enjoy things the way they want to. It just totally sucks that so many are ignorant and/or just don’t care that such a satisfying and great hobby is being turned into shit.
You might want to go lookup
You might want to go lookup the word apologist, you don’t really understand it.
Most games have some sort of progression (though pay2win in multiplayer is absurd), you don’t start an RPG at max level. If the game developers want to offer players a way to skip ahead I don’t have an issue with it, I do have issue if the game has been designed in such a way that players can’t progress in a reasonable amount of time.
Personally I think loot boxes are predatory and should be legally required to show the odds.
apologist definition: “a
apologist definition: “a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.”
and I quote:
“Not to be an apologist but…”
this is a common practice used to be excused for something they are about to do, basically admitting in advance to something so whoever it is directed towards would be more willing and understanding and excuse said action about to take place.
“I heard on the Giant Bomb podcast players also earned credits by doing other stuff (e.g. kill 50 with a weapon) were those reduced also?
If they weren’t it may not be an issue.”
The first part of this last quote by itself would be a question about how something was implemented in the game, but when you added that last line, it means you are supportive of the shitty system they have in place.
The reason is this, you fully admit to what EA is doing is shitty, yet you are ok with parts of it being tone down?
AT NO POINT is what EA has done with this game ok, NONE AT ALL. It points to an even bigger issue with the game industry as a whole – they want to push games into a “games as a service” situation which include turning players into payers via reoccuring shitty psychological tactics.
If you are alrady agreeing to that parts of what EA has done is “ok” since it may or may not be toned down, then you are an apologist.
If your intention was to not come across as an apologist, next time don’t include a “Not to be an apologist but…”
I’m not racist but … is
I'm not racist but … is never followed by a good statement either.
Incredibly unpopular with
Incredibly unpopular with hardcore gamers but popular enough that companies are making a fortune off them so obviously somebody likes them.
If its anything like the
If its anything like the model mobile games and the old facebook games followed they were looking for whales who’d get sucked into spending huge amounts of money on it.
I’m always concerned that these people can’t afford it, or that they’re sucking money out of kids allowances.
Ea has not “fixed” anything.
Ea has not “fixed” anything. They are using very common marketing practices of:
Spend time and effort to find out how much shit people are willing to put up with, we’ll call this X. Then they pack an obnoxiously higher amount of shit into the game. Call this X+Y+Z. Release game with X+Y+Z and once the anticipated outrage starts, then back the shit level down to X+Y and look good to audience for listening and people feel good about being listened to and give in and buy the game with X+Y when initially X was barely tolerable.
The underlying system is still there.
Have a good read of just how insidious this all really is:
And also another good video pointing out and condemning all of thos scummary:
This is what they are using. They make you feel they retreat and that you win something, meantime they are selling you exactly what they wanted from the beginning. So they make you feel good by reducing by 75% the cost for heroes, while the true problem with this game and EA in general, is microtransactions.
Its like big box stores that
Its like big box stores that raise the prices of stuff in October so it seems like a deal when Black Friday finally rolls around
They are doing exactly what I
They are doing exactly what I do when I list something on Craigslist or on a Facebook Market page…..I decide what I want to get out of it, post it for higher, and when someone “talks me down” to what I wanted in the first place we both win. I got what I wanted, they felt they got a deal. And if I get above what I originally wanted its all gravy.
Well this sucks. I was a bit
Well this sucks. I was a bit pumped to get this game at some point but I just don’t like paying for a mobile game scheme on a PC platform.