Star Wars Battlefront 2 cuts top-tier hero unlock costs

Dice have boldly gone back to the drawing board once more to rework the progression system of Star Wars Battlefront 2, now making the high-end hero characters take less time to unlock. They’ve cut the unlock costs of fellas like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader by 75%, meaning players won’t have to grind for squillions of ‘credits’ to play as their playground heroes. This follows Dice reworking — but not removing — the progression system of packing upgrades into loot crates. Those crates can optionally bought with real money, which is a whole other stink.

Oh and for fancy-pants Star Warriors with cash to flash, Battlefront 2’s Deluxe Edition is out now – but not its regular edition.

“Unlocking a hero is a great accomplishment in the game, something we want players to have fun earning,” executive producer John Wasilczyk said in last night’s announcement. “We used data from the beta to help set those levels, but it’s clear that more changes were needed,” he added.

“So, we’re reducing the amount of credits needed to unlock the top heroes by 75%. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader will now be available for 15,000 credits; Emperor Palpatine, Chewbacca, and Leia Organa for 10,000 credits; and Iden at 5,000 credits. Based on what we’ve seen in the trial, this amount will make earning these heroes an achievement, but one that will be accessible for all players.”

Update: As some commenters have pointed out, this is somewhat counterbalanced by reports that the reward for completing Battlefront 2’s singleplayer campaign have been cut from 20,000 credits to 5,000. The campaign clearly isn’t how players are expected to unlock everyone, but it’s a shame players won’t have more creds to get them started on the grind.

Star Wars Battlefront 2 launches properly later this week, at 11pm on Thursday for us here in the UK, priced at £55 on Origin. Folks who refuse to wait a second longer can get in now if they buy the £70 Elite Trooper Deluxe Edition.

We have reviews coming as soon as we can, first for the singleplayer campaign then a look at multiplayer.

130 Comments

  1. Premium User Badge

    Mungrul says:

    Can you guys not call this out for what it is?
    I’ve seen many, many MMOs pull this over the years, and it looks like EA are now applying this to other genres.

    It’s classic bait-and-switch:
    Announce something that really shouldn’t have a price associated at it at an inflated price.
    Await public outcry.
    Reduce price and get a favourable response from the peanut gallery.

  2. ran93r says:

    They have also reduced campaign rewards by 75%, they have changed nothing, this is obvious deflection and they have not addressed any of the other Pay to Win concerns.

    Also, they had at last look removed the refund button from the storefront.

    • malkav11 says:

      The campaign only ever rewarded enough credits to buy the protagonist of the campaign as a hero, as a sort of gateway into real money transactions. That hero is now cheaper, so your payout is smaller. But other heroes were made cheaper as well so as long as the regular earn rate on the currency has remained the same it’s a real change and a net positive. In a still broken and exploitative system, of course.

  3. Bull0 says:

    Yeah no sorry it’s not worth reporting this. They’ve still added a huge amount of grind to try and lure people into buying loot boxes. It’s freemium mechanics in a premium game. EA are scum and the sooner the star wars license is taken away from them the better for everyone.

  4. Sakkura says:

    “Boldly”? Come on. It’s damage control, nothing more.

  5. Premium User Badge

    phuzz says:

    I generally don’t bother with multiplayer games, mainly because I’m rubbish at them, but at least I can add “don’t like getting ripped off” as an alternate reason these days.

  6. silvershine says:

    RPS, are you under some sort of legal threat to not be calling out how scummy this whole debacle has been? The pay-to-win stuff from the beta was changed a tiny, eensy, teensy bit and the 40 hours of grinding to UNLOCK DARTH VADER IN A STAR WARS GAME has been reduced to 10. I love this website but this article is waaaay too forgiving, you didn’t even mention the reports that rewards have also been slashed in order to account for the hero prices going down or that the response from EA is the most downvoted post of all time on Reddit.

    Please forgive me if I seem rude but this article makes out that EA is doing this “for gamers” when they haven’t actually made an concessions at all for a needless currency that they decided to put in the game in the first place when no one asked for or wants it.

    People reading this comment, take anything you’ve read about the progression and rewards system in this game and tell me it doesn’t sound like a free to play mobile game.

    • Alice O'Connor says:

      I don’t care about what’s “the most downvoted post of all time on Reddit.” I don’t see Internet outrage as surprising or a useful metric.

      I’ve said before that the progression systems sound daft. I think multiplayer games with progression unlock systems are daft in general, which is why I rarely buy them.

      I’d be mighty surprised if our upcoming review does not offer experience-based opinions on all this.

      You don’t need me to perform fury if you yourself think it sucks.

      • TerminalVeracity says:

        Isn’t the broken system at the source of that internet fury worth investigating and writing up independently of a review, so others can be made aware of the issue? RPS has a strong stance on preorders, and we all hate lootboxes. We have a chance to make some change, but only if publications like RPS advocate for the players and spread the message outside the bubble.

        • Premium User Badge

          Mungrul says:

          Yeah, that’s where I’d like to see more from RPS too.

          There’s an opportunity here to really shine a light on bad industry practices that no-one else seems willing to take up. Without anyone in the press offering a loud and consistent opposition to this kind of practice, large publishers will continue exploiting their customers as much as they possibly can.

          John’s good for the occasional bit of confrontational journalism, but I’d like to see the other writers here expressing their personal opinions a bit more loudly.

          Instead of tongue-in-cheek jibes littered here and there, I’d like to see some more investigative pieces that really put these things under the microscope.
          But while it’s constrained to simply regurgitating press releases with some jolly old “Whot-ho, aren’t they cads?” banter, it’s effectively nothing more than free advertising for the game in question.

          • SuicideKing says:

            Jim Sterling seems to be the only one going “Fuck you EA” in exactly those words…

          • ColonelFlanders says:

            Thank GOD for him. Seriously, Sterling is making some beastly waves right now, and he only has 500k subscribers. Imagine what RPS with their 11 million visitors a month could do!

          • Reefpirate says:

            I think some people, as well as some people in here, are getting a little wrapped up in the outrage. When there’s a mob with pitchforks I’d rather listen to someone who takes a more measured approach.

            Sure it sounds like a scummy kind of resource system, but it’s not like this would be the only game with unlockable content. In Civilization you can’t build nukes in the stone age. In FTL it can take ages to unlock new ships. I paid full price for FTL, surely I should be allowed to access all their ships right away? Or not? At a certain point developers have to decide what these systems are, what the player has access to and how much to price everything.

            It sounds like the progression in Star Wars is a bit crumby and buyers should beware, but I don’t think we’re dealing with a crime against humanity here.

        • crazyd says:

          RPS doesn’t. They put a TON of effort into justifying and excusing them all the time. See their Shadows of Mordor review for more. I’m shocked that they aren’t bought and paid for, because the articles written here now feel like they might as well be paid advertising.

          • Nibblet says:

            They are bought and paid for now.
            Gamer network acquired them right around the same time they started glossing over stuff like microtransactions/lootboxes etc.

          • falcon2001 says:

            “Someone disagrees with me, therefore they must be being paid for their opinion” is basically the laziest form of internet ‘stance’ to take on something.

            Shadow of War lootboxes are basically useless to the main game and only seem to ever be something you’d want to even buy after the game finishes. I’ve gotten some premium currency from the daily quests and it’s essentially useless – a couple weapons that weren’t any better than what I got from killing orcs, and some orcs that I could have gotten by killing orcs.

            Game’d be a lot better without lootboxes (but game monetization in this day and age is a tough discussion ANYWAY), but it’s not in the same league as what EA’s pulling here.

      • elevown says:

        This does seem just playing into EA’s hand by passing on their press release exactly as they planned. Have an initial level that was outrageous but they hopped they could get away with, then when everyone complains change it to be better but still utterly crap and hope people think that they got some kinda win when they were just tricked into accepting bullshit.

        It also seems most outlets pass these messages on without digging much deeper. For example – you did NOT mention that as well as the hero prices dropping, they are lowering the rewards rates! I didn’t see by how much but if they drop hero prices by 75% but you get 50% less rewards for example, it is nowhere near as good as it looks!

      • ColonelFlanders says:

        There is a difference Alice. The internet outrage machine is a stupid metric, yes; however you (and the outfit you write for) a professional journalist with a responsibility to public information and consumer protection. That’s why we come to you to read this stuff – we want to know if it’s good or whether someone is going to fuck us with their business practices.

        I have seen RPS writing articles covering a multitude of social issues at great length (which I applaud by the way). Yet the manipulative, scummy, shitty-arsed world of microtransactions/gatchaboxes is arguably far more systemic and inarguably far more harmful to potentially everyone at this time and needs shitting on from a great height, by all consumers. If you don’t want to write about it then that’s fine, but Graham should have his finger well and truly on the pulse of this so that someone else writes about it.

        We don’t come to you for the fury, this is correct. But every press outlet calling EA fuckheads is going to make a lot more noise than some downvotes on Reddit.

        • mike22 says:

          I’m sorry but you and the others replying to Alice seem to be misunderstanding what journalism is, what you want is commentary, a talking head.

          Alice is not Alex Jones, her job is not to swear and be angry and tell you want to think.

          To be honest, considering the ‘game scene’s (as another poster put it) propensity for unbiased, ‘objective’ reporting this reaction is doubly absurd. She has reported the facts.

          If what you want to read is Reddit outrage then stay on Reddit.

          EA have made a game that’s a bit of a rip off, they’re not poisoning your drinking water. Don’t buy it and move on, all this energy on outrage is patently absurd.

          • Tigris says:

            Well journalists are not obliged to report on each PR post of every publisher.

            Also the way the choose their title is not dictated by that.
            This title (and article) helps EA to spin their narrative to sell more games.

            They may not have poisoned wells, but this is a website about games not environment. Also if I can’t trust them to report about a game company screwing off their customers, than I also can’t trust them on reporting about poisoning wells.

          • TheButler83 says:

            Yes but she hasn’t reported the facts, she’s just chopped up EAs press release unto a quirky format and shoved it out as “news”.

            A casual observer will see this and think that EA have dealt the the Internet overreaction eg silly gamers, and everything is rosey. Why do we need an article from EAs PR but not spending 15 minutes expanding on the specifics?

          • Laurentius says:

            This is different, it is not a first people cried foul and see those practices as slippery slope of greed fueled mechanics. And answer was “chill, slpppery slope? not a chance and no one forces you to buy it”. It has been a slippery slope, it’s a big budget prompted with huge campagin game that uses predatory tactic. Already too many games ale deliberately constructed to appeal to addictive tendencies in our brain. This add another loop of gambling rush for real money and a “save from grind” bell and whistles. Sure people should not buy this game, many people should not have dabbed with heroin or steped into casino. Sometimes it was their own choice, sometimes their were guided into it and sometimes someone guiding them was doing it cynically for own profit.

          • ludde says:

            Except as several have already stated here, the accompanying slashing of rewards is not reported on, for instance.

          • crazyd says:

            Apparently, her job is just copying and pasting press releases and advertisements from AAA publishers, then.

          • ColonelFlanders says:

            Wait so because nuclear weapons and poisoned water supplies exist, I shouldn’t complain about bullshit business practices that are relevant to something I like and consume? I’ve never heard such bollocks in my life.

          • aepervius says:

            @mike22 I don’t care about EA, as for poisoning water , you are the one poisoning the well. When RPS reported about the supposed “sexism” of Rimworld and other similar article like the Peter Molyneux one, they were certainly far more biting in their critic. And yet we come to something which truly menace gaming, and YET , they report it neutrally, nearly in a forgiving way. Where is the bite ? This is what people in this thread don’t understand. And frankly I don’t either. Did they lose their bite with the buying out by the gamer network ? Are they afraid of criticizing such a big corp ?

          • Raoul Duke says:

            Respectfully, I think you’re missing what journalism needs to be in the 21st century.

            It should still be fact-based. But EA putting out a self-serving press release is not a significant ‘fact’ here. The actual, objective facts are their pattern of increasingly abusive, anti-consumer behaviours and the increasing negative reaction that those behaviours are generating.

            By reporting the EA ‘good news’ response as though it’s somehow a factual piece of information rather than pure marketing spin, RPS and other outlets give EA a free platform for their propaganda and obscure the reality beneath it.

            I say this as someone who doesn’t actually get that worked up about such things – I’m at a point where I simply don’t buy stuff like this. But the days of journalists being able to ‘just report the facts’ are gone – it’s critical to analyse and filter out the agendas at play in order to get closer to the reality of the situation.

      • Tigris says:

        Sure you care mostly for clicks, and an article with a big discussion like this one will naturally generate a lot of them…

        Clicks (and therefore the money generated by you) is the only metric which counts…

        “Our coming review will take care” well but until then, you only have this piece, which sounds as if EA are good guys. (Not even mentioning the 75% reduce in payout only mentioning the 75% reduce in cost). And you are playing 100% into EAs Marketing (as described in the link above: link to reddit.com ).

        So in the end you help EA to rip off people, for clicks.
        (Using a short post without doing any research, just repeating EAs marketing…)
        Journalism as its best.

        • TR`Ben says:

          If they wanted to generate huge amount of clicks they would only need to make a title “EA are pricks and that’s why” and then write a mediocre article that would coincide with the outrage. And that’s what lots of youtubers are doing right now.
          I don’t care about RPS’s resoning on that matter. Demanding an article from them and insulting them for not doing so is absurd. And I bet people expect it to prove the point of the demanders.
          EA ARE pricks and this progression system IS terrible. And sieging their castle is understandable. But collateral damage is getting out of control.

          • Tigris says:

            Not sure if they would generate more clicks for the article, and they would generate way less clicks on their “buy here” buttons, which gives them direct profit.

            If people buy games through links on this website RPS gets money. (Its even written under each article).

            And a “EA is so nice they listen to the fans” article will more likely make people buy the game though their links, than an “EA are just pricks” article.

            Also they will (later) most likely also make an “EA are pricks” article, after the game is released, when most people have bought the game (and there is not much to earn through buy links to the game anymore).

      • Bull0 says:

        You’re just playing into a cynical PR move to the detriment of the whole games scene though

      • Sirius1 says:

        “You don’t need me to perform fury if you yourself think it sucks.”

        Sorry Alice, as much as I usually enjoy your stories, I think you’re wrong here. I’ve gotten a better picture of what’s happening with this game from reading the comments, rather than your story. You’re a news site, give us the full story.

      • Premium User Badge

        subdog says:

        Finally a measured response. Thank you, RPS.

      • Wrathbone says:

        At the very least, this article should be updated to point out that the points you get for completing the campaign have also been reduced from 20,000 to 5,000. The fact that EA failed to mention this while smugly suggesting that they’ve listened to gamers and duly obliged to their feedback is arguably a story in itself.

      • dontnormally says:

        > I don’t see Internet outrage as surprising or a useful metric.

        Votes aren’t outrage; they’re a quantifiable metric in determining the community’s general opinion on something in purely binary terms.

        Outrage takes emotion and vocabulary – votes are data.

        • wackazoa says:

          What do we count as votes? The number of angry comments? What about the number of copies sold? I enjoy reading outrage comments saying “we”, when the number of people buying seems to almost always say otherwise.

          EA has done crappy stuff. Im not a giant fan of them. But they keep selling titles. Some people seem happy to spend money on their games. You can try to be a revolutionary all you want but if they keep selling, they will keep making.

          Buy the titles you want. Pass on the titles you don’t want. Be happy that you find the games you like and that others find the games they like. Why is that so fricking hard?

          • dontnormally says:

            > What do we count as votes?

            Votes in this context is referring to up/downvotes on the most downvoted comment in Reddit history:

            link to reddit.com

            > the number of angry comments?

            No, those are outrage.

          • dontnormally says:

            > Buy the titles you want. Pass on the titles you don’t want. Be happy that you find the games you like and that others find the games they like. Why is that so fricking hard?

            I would like to play a new Star Wars game that is not a slot machine. I think including gambling in entertainment intended in part for children is reprehensible.

            How is that so fricking hard to understand?

        • Premium User Badge

          subdog says:

          Anyone who thinks reddit upvotes and downvotes are a useful “quantifiable metric” for anything probably spends too much time on reddit.

      • kitten says:

        My god it’s like you’re an adult or something.

      • tavio says:

        Not talking about the massive backlash not just on reddit but all over the internet, and the massive number of people asking for refunds sounds exactly like being on a legal threat from EA, a question you dodged in your answer.

      • Merry says:

        "You don’t need me to perform fury if you yourself think it sucks"
        I think we need someone visible and influential to perform some sort of fury!
        I’m not asking you to be a representative of every gaming tribe out there, but you are clearly far from being either impartial or without influence. If you really don’t give a damn about the tilt that EA have put on these games then go ahead and write more benign words about how everything okay really.
        I’m not asking for "outrage", but if you genuinely think that EA are "daft" then someone has absconded with the real Alice.

      • icarussc says:

        Uh-oh, Alice … it appears you’ve failed to appropriately channel the zeitgeist of internet game persons. Prepare for Correction (in the form of long, grumpy, pedantic comments).

  7. Lord of Beer says:

    The game still does nothing to reward performance in matches. Every challenge is about getting kills or playing a specific class for a length of time. No surprise everyone is running around fighting, not playing the objective. Attackers win about 10% of games. Stupid incentives and progression system has ruined the game.

  8. Synesthesia says:

    Fuck EA. Fuck microtransactions.

  9. wombat191 says:

    I just want to leave this here: link to filfre.net

    A print advert EA made in the very early days.. compare that idealism to the monster they have become

  10. TheButler83 says:

    Very disappointed in RPS, I dunno I always used to read the site as it seemed to have a moral view of the little guy and the Indie developer. Articles like this make it sound like EA/Dice are doing Gamers a favour by just introducing a slightly less predatory business model than the truly awful one they tried to stiff us with. This is worse than review scores, and pre-order bonuses and quite frankly if we want our hobby to be less toxic in general then devs and publishers using gambling and exploitative practices at every opportunity needs to be tackled.

    • Syt says:

      I’m not blaming RPS – most gaming news sites are small teams (compared to network news sites) that have to keep up with a fast moving industry, which is why a lot of content (RPS less so than other sites) is reposting/quoting publisher press releases. The question often is: post now with little or no commentary? Or read, investigate, write well thought out response hours or days later when the caravan has already moved on?

    • puppybeard says:

      Maybe you missed a few articles, but if you follow the RPS tag for this game they’ve addressed it a few times, including this author, Alice.

      There’s also a few posts on the tag, loot crates

      • TheButler83 says:

        I think you just proved my point. There is not a single direct negative article and the headline text paints EA/Dice in a “positive” light playing directly into their hands. They may be a small team but it doesn’t take long to investigate the issue. Heck I signed up to EA access just so I could check myself as I thought £4 for the 10hour trial was worth working out if I should drop £50 on full release.

        From your link headlines of recent articles:-
        Star Wars Battlefront 2 cuts top-tier hero unlock costs

        Star Wars Battlefront II’s free December DLC revealed

        Star Wars Battlefront 2 reworking loot crates

        Loot box questions brought up in UK parliament

        EA respond to Star Wars Battlefront 2 loot crate concerns

        Star Wars Battlefront 2 open beta extended two days

        Star Wars Battlefront 2’s beta suggests a massively improved sequel

        Go boldly: Star Wars Battlefront 2’s open beta has started

        I could keep going here..

        • mike22 says:

          They read exactly how I’d expect news headlines to read, and are the content I would expect.

          May I ask where you get your general news?

          I gather what you’re after is something like ‘EA ripping off gamers with predatory microtransactions’, which is the kind of thing I’d expect on Reddit or the Daily Mail website, but not any kind of serious publication.

          Even when RPS discusses sensitive topics and games that really ask for it, they don’t write damning hit-piece headlines because they’re not a red-top or YouTuber.

          • TheButler83 says:

            I am somewhat surprised you can’t see the issue.

            What I would like to see is a balanced headline that acknowledges both the issue and the response, not just the response.

            I would then like to see at a later date an op-ed which takes some time to explore the issue.

            This whole furore started as a reddit user actually took the time to calculate with statistics the actual root of the problem. That is what I expect a gaming journalist to look into and either validate or disprove. Otherwise sites like this are of little value as there are many competitors who are just as capable of copypasta PR releases.

          • Vandelay says:

            Oh come on. You can’t get much more balanced than those headlines. They aren’t saying “Rejoice, our benevolent overlords at EA make it easier for us to play with Star Wars heroes.” They can’t be accused of being anything but factual.

            I do agree that I would like to see RPS acknowledge these issues more and write a piece really delving into this new trend in the industry (preferably backed up with actual numbers showing how successful it is, although I doubt companies actually release those figures.) If nothing else, these moves are obviously bad from a gameplay point of view and I think devs and publishers should be called out for it. This a news piece though and I don’t think it is picking any particular sides. Excluding the reduction in awards was an error that has been corrected. Besides that, I can’t see how this could be any more unbiased.

          • Laurentius says:

            @Vandelay

            But no one is taking a stance, which is incredible. There are so many writers, add freelancers and no gaming site run an article directly beefing with lootboxes. In recent years i read articles about gaming taking beef with evreything you can be critical of in games(and rightly so): sexism, racism, captialism, colonialism, whitewhashing, militarism, jingoism etc. I can’t belive that among writers there is no one to write a piece “Lootboxes in games are fucking terrible” and among sites no one to publish it but truth it there is none.

    • Mezelf says:

      I came to this website for one reason only: because of John Walker’s interview with Peter Molyneux.
      For a while I believed RPS was different from the likes of GameTrailers, Gamespot, IGN, Polygon, etc. A gaming news website not only willing to call out the bullshit in the industry, but also daring to let its own voice be heard at the risk of losing ‘access’.

      RPS showed a lot of promise to me. Unfortunately, the amount of well-written essays and opinions is overshadowed by the large amount of uncritical, lazy forwards of press releases and PR tweets. I can see the good intent, but shitty articles like this outdamage whatever help RPS is trying to offer to the industry.

  11. Premium User Badge

    Ninja Dodo says:

    I think we can all agree that this is bad and if there is a palatable way to do micro-transactions (cosmetics, I guess) this certainly isn’t it, but let’s also be a little more reasonable when we criticize things like this… “monster”, “evil” etc are not words to describe overpriced videogames and other questionable business practices.

    Also the people who are threatening and harassing EA devs (who obviously had no say in this and even if they did that would still not make it ok to personally attack them) should be ashamed of themselves. People who think harassment and threats are an acceptable form of communication are not real game fans and should GTFO of the games community.

    • thomas16632 says:

      from what i read, nobody sent threats to devs, only EA, meaning, the businessmen of EA. The men in black

      • Premium User Badge

        Ninja Dodo says:

        As I already pointed out, even if it was directed at the manager-in-charge-of-all-micro-transactions-and-F2P-policy at EA, threats would still NOT be acceptable under any circumstances. Criticism: totally ok and justified. Harassment and threats: NEVER OK *ever*!!! (do you need a diagram?)

    • TheButler83 says:

      So I’ll be honest I am still fleshing out this controversial thought and I am not saying it’s in anyway acceptable to personally attack devs. Rational people would all agree.

      But AAA devs games focus very highly on violent games. In fact their target audience are people who get enjoyment out of digitalized violence to other digital “people”.

      Games with loot boxes and grind mechanics are specifically targeted to make money from those same players who have the lowest impulse control and highest obsession and addiction to your product.

      Surely if you are purposefully designing a product to appeal to people with these character traits then you are deliberately attracting fans who act irrationally and find it difficult to control themselves acceptably.

      There is a social consequence to encouraging addictive behaviours. It’s why bookies have protective desks as unsurprisingly not all their customers are fine upstanding members of society.

      • wackazoa says:

        You could be onto something here. But of course violence in all our forms of media make us predisposed to violent outbursts. Or it could be evolution of the species, the most violent wins. It is thought provoking though.

      • Laurentius says:

        Not controversial at all. EA want a brand loyality for their tuned skinner box games/devices that already play for addictive tendencies in our brains. Thing is, games are also about violence and it turns out that playing these games are not making people docile but rather anger prone and still capable to see a dealer sucking up their money cacklingm results are predictiable, but of course this anger also predictable is misdirected.

  12. stringerdell says:

    £55, good lord.

  13. BobbyDylan says:

    Mhe. Don’t care, I have no intention of buying this. The fools that support this behaviour have only themselves to blame.

    • thomas16632 says:

      problem is, these fools seems to procreate, and the problem never ends.
      We need to educate those fool, and teach them how to be clever. Hard to do though. Even telling a fool : it’s bad for your wallet now, and it will be worse later, he is still a fool, and will answer “this is how it works in this time period”

      • wackazoa says:

        Is it really a problem if you don’t partake in it? Its not like substance abuse or even gambling where others can get hurt. It is a video gaming selling a product that makes people happy, that they then pay money for more happiness.

        Take MMO’s. I don’t play them. I prefer single player games or the occasional multiplayer FPS. I have no desire to play an entire story with others. I have no desire to pay monthly for the right to play a game. But others do. And Im happy for them. Why cant you let other play/pay how they want and avoid what you don’t want?

        • aepervius says:

          If you do not partake in it, but do not discourage it, then the problem *expands*. loot box were limited to some very grindy MMO, then it expanded to mobile game, then it expanded to AAA game… When will you react ? When the whole industry is based on them ? I don’t want to reuse the damn quote about “First they came for the socialist but I did not speak out because I was not a socialist…”, but it DOES applies. The more you stay neutral and do not feel concerned, the more this incredibly bad practice expands.

          • wackazoa says:

            The difference is, in your saying that is poltics which affects everyone. The other is video games, which only affects those that play that particular game.

            If you don’t like that AAA games have loot boxes don’t buy AAA games. There are lots of single player linear adventure game “experiences” out there to play. Those will sell lots and AAA publishers will go back to them. Or not. You’ll still have lots of games to play.

            Your not stopping the Communists, or the Fascists, or the Capitalists from ruining the world. Your choosing not to play certain video games in lieu of playing other games. People don’t need to be saved here.

          • Asokn says:

            The problem with your argument though is the expansion point referred to above. At the moment the ‘solution’ is not to play AAA games, in years past the solution was not to play certain MMOs. Tomorrow the solution may be to only play indie games, then just indie platformers and then nothing. By then it will be too late.

          • wackazoa says:

            My personal opinion is youre wrong. That there will always be games to play because the market will dictate so. But I suppose only time will tell.

        • Merry says:

          “It is a video gaming selling a product that makes people happy, that they then pay money for more happiness”

          You really think that compulsive players, gamblers, drinkers, whatever, get “happiness” out of what they do? You have a lot to learn. They get temporary relief, or maybe even the expectation of relief. And that’s a disgraceful basis for a business model.

          Take a look at Why do we spend time playing games we don’t like?

  14. Laurentius says:

    Yeah, it is bothering me that these things get such a small criticism from gaming sites. I understand that not wanting to fuel fires of toxic gamers and their frightening outbursts is one thing but totally lukewarm “it’s bad but it doesn’t affect me as I simply won’t be playing this” is really wierd. I don’t understand how for example Steam curators or review system, however flawed, can come easily under fire all over internet gaming sphere but this borderline predatory tactics for real money, using exploitative hooks of gambling on a top of already many addictive mechanics of modern video games is met with “don’t like it, don’t buy it but let’s be chill”. These things was bound to happen and gaming press was always too leniant for this. Gamers cried foul and slippery slope, RPS:just cosmetics, auction house, just don’t use it, just chill, etc. Sad.

  15. Zorgulon says:

    They still seem confused about the concept of an “achievement”.

  16. woodsey says:

    Also according to Reddit, the refund button has been removed from their customer, meaning you now have to go through support chat.

    link to reddit.com

  17. Bullfrog says:

    I must say I’m slightly disappointed that RPS are yet to cover this topic in a critical fashion, while news posts are probably not the place to do it I do feel this kind of thing could be better presented. It’s an obvious ploy to minimise the damage caused by publishers predatory business practices and I have come to expect a level of journalistic integrity from this site that is somewhat above simply playing into their hands.

    • citrusninja says:

      Same. I mean at the very least they could have mentioned the fact that EA’s response on reddit to the whole 40hr grind controversy was basically “we want earning Vader to be rewarding” and it has received the most downvotes ever on reddit (sitting at just under -700k). When I heard about that crazy stat, it raised an eyebrow, and I think that’s what good journalism is. As an almost decade long reader, it’s been a roller coaster ride for sure, but I feel like the last couple of years this site has dwindled in terms of quality content. It feels like RPS is a bit out of touch.

  18. thomas16632 says:

    best way would be for everybody to boycott all product with lootboxes, namely from
    EA
    Activision
    Ubisoft
    Blizzard

    i’ve been screwed once by Black Ops 3, never buying a cod again.
    ubisoft, i was cautious, waited for the lootboxes annoucment, then didn’t buy.
    Blizzard, got screwed once also, never again.

    my only failure is destiny 2 -_- (i never spent money in micro anyway)

    We must force them to go back to the specific unlock with specific achievment model.

    and paying DLC / extension, that’s ok (well not for cod, 15€ for 4 maps lol)

    • ran93r says:

      I have been pretty feral on Battlefront and to a degree Mordor but I feel that Blizzard are actually doing this correctly in Overwatch.

      Overwatch gets free maps and characters, everything else is cosmetic. Sure there are some holiday event skins I would love but I’m not going to buy them. I’m a bit casual so don’t really earn enough coins to buy more than a few every now and then but it doesn’t stop me playing and it doesn’t give people with money an advantage in-game. HotS potentially could be considered dirtier as characters are purchased and they can obviously affect gameplay but earning them doesn’t feel like a chore if you play.

  19. cardigait says:

    As usual, don’t like it ?
    Vote with your wallet.
    I’ll stick to single player, thank you.
    And no season pass, thank you very much.

    • Tigris says:

      If you just don’t buy it and do not state why, they will not necessarily make the changes you want.
      They may just kill the developer (as EA always does) and tries the same crap again with the next developer/franchise.

    • TheButler83 says:

      Loot boxes are introduced in the very first few minutes of BF2 single player game and are a regular part of at least the first 3 chapters.

    • MacTheGeek says:

      As usual, don’t like it ?
      Vote with your wallet.
      I’ll stick to single player, thank you.
      And no season pass, thank you very much.

      And wait for it to go on sale for $5 or less.

      I’ve saved a ton of money thanks to Activision’s miserly “sales”; I can wait out EA too. Game companies don’t make anything I need; they make things I may or may not want, and that value proposition is not always a strong one.

  20. Moonracer says:

    I guess I have to side with a lot of commenters here since I followed the facebook link just to see what the RPS response to the situation was. I think the fact that plenty of consumers predicted this “2 steps forward and 1 step back” tactic as well as the fact that you need to read the comments (not the article) to hear that EA cut points earned as well as point costs for unlocks says a lot.

    Considering that the topic is interesting, even to people not planning to buy the game, it would be nice if RPS dug deeper. I don’t think it is their responsibility to shout “don’t buy!” but certainly to share more details on the story. And perhaps both sides of the argument for and against EA’s behavior.

  21. skyturnedred says:

    The problem is not unlocking the heroes, it’s the card system that requires 4000 hours to max out.

  22. benzoate says:

    So, everyone wants ‘investigative journalism’ and ‘digging deeper’ into this, but isn’t willing to wait for the game to actually be released? Y’all want ethics in game journalism, but expect RPS to jump in decrying EA for things that are not even ‘real’ (game is official getting released on the 17th) yet?

    How does that work?

    It’s been very clear from all the stories about SWBF2 that they switched from the season-pass/DLC model to the loot-crate model and ALL that brings with it. Why the outrage now? Where else did anyone think EA was going to go with this?

    • Bull0 says:

      There’s no logic in saying the business practices of a publisher should be off the table for discussion until their game has released, and RPS have been more than happy in the past to pillory publishers for various things (sexist marketing campaigns, for example) long before the related games were released. This is nonsense.

    • Asokn says:

      Yeah, right? I mean Brexit hasn’t happened yet and so no one is talking about what it might be like. I wish games would be the same.

  23. Gray Geist says:

    Come on. After 5 years of watching this awesome site do it’s thing I created a profile to comment just this: EA has lowered the cost but also lowered the rewards as well. Be aware of this, they are playing games with you. I wish this was highlighted in the article.

  24. mac4 says:

    Am I the only one who with each piece on a Star Wars: Battlefront now (and presumaby until all foreseeable eternity) finds themselves wondering or googling or carefully reading between the lines, which Star Wars: Battlefront?

    It’s a pita, is what it is. (Yes, yes, I know: Assume the latest, unless otherwise mentioned. Still.

    btw To specify, this isn’t directed at journalist reporting. Rather exasperation at stupid game titles.)

  25. Freud says:

    I don’t mind the monetization model they’ve chosen if it was a F2P game. For a full price game it’s disgraceful. Anyone supporting EA by buying this game is helping this cancer to spread.

  26. Merry says:

    It’s my guess that EA are still mad at losing out to Comcast in Consumerist’s Worst Company In America contest.

  27. Freud says:

    EA even embraced the shittiest of mobile game mechanics.

    If you play too much Arcade Mode, you will get locked out from earning credits there for x number of hours.

    You can’t even play the mode you enjoy most and earn rewards for it in a full priced game.

    Fuck EA.

  28. puppybeard says:

    I am bemused by the indignation of some people on here about RPS’s not writing 40,000 words on this.

    I’m here for the critical thinking about games, and not for deep-dives on shitty profiteering that has been more than adequately covered elsewhere.

    I’d even go so far to say that this utterly generic and gormless license skin of a game has taken up more than enough column inches here already, and I’m happier to read about interesting games.

    • Premium User Badge

      subdog says:

      The Internet must have its pound of flesh.

    • Merry says:

      “this utterly generic and gormless license skin of a game has taken up more than enough column inches here already, and I’m happier to read about interesting games”

      I have to assume that this is your idea of trolling? If you’re happier reading about other games then why did you click Read the rest of this entry » on a story about Star Wars Battlefront 2? You know you have a choice, right?

      • puppybeard says:

        I’m happier to read about interesting games”

        This still makes me a little bit happy.

        I’m being a little bit of a hyperbolics but the previous title left me cold, and this is a sequel to something that left me cold.

  29. Merry says:

    It’s genuinely worth taking a look at the original officially-titled STAR WARS™ Battlefront™ II (Classic, 2005).

    It won’t stress your 1080Ti, and the control scheme takes some getting used to, but it’s a solid game for the £7.59 that GOG are currently charging.

    For what it’s worth, it gets 4.5 stars out of five, and all of the non-100% reviews complain about surprisingly varied aspects of the multiplayer experience.

    Most refreshingly, there are no addons, DLC, expansion packs, microtransactions or loot boxes. You buy the game, you play it. And wouldn’t it irk the financial sociopaths at EA if the older version came close to competing with their new shiny cash cow!

  30. Throwback says:

    This is a huge, huge issue and I’m really disappointed RPS hasn’t bothered to comment on it. You comment on preorders but not this? Come on guys. Until this article I had considered you as doing a great job of providing an unfiltered view of games and gaming.

  31. LNO says:

    Im also in the camp that is surprised at the quietness of RPS on this issue. Take a look at a former RPS writer and how he addresses it. That is the kind of topic and engagement Im used to see on RPS
    link to polygon.com

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>