Star Wars Battlefront 2 turns off microtransactions, but don’t get cocky


EA’s fully armed and operational microtransaction station has fallen, for now at least – but in-game payments will return to Star Wars Battlefront 2. The sci-fi FPS has been making headlines for all the wrong reasons over recent days, due to the inclusion of a paid loot crate system that, many felt a) gave people who paid an unfair advantage and b) was arranged in such a way as to unduly coax people into repeatedly paying.

It’s a story that has eclipsed the release of the game itself. And that’s apparently the reason behind EA’s unexpected announcement that they’re turning off SWBF2’s microtransactions.

In an update posted last night, EA DICE wrote:

“We’ve heard the concerns about potentially giving players unfair advantages. And we’ve heard that this is overshadowing an otherwise great game. This was never our intention. Sorry we didn’t get this right.

“We hear you loud and clear, so we’re turning off all in-game purchases. We will now spend more time listening, adjusting, balancing and tuning. This means that the option to purchase crystals in the game is now offline, and all progression will be earned through gameplay.”

It’s nice to hear a straight-up “sorry” – that’s a rare thing for a big games corp to do. But I guess they know that community goodwill is an essential part of a successful multiplayer game, and they need to change the whole mood around SWBF2 if it’s to be the mega-hit they expected it to be.

However, “all progression will be earned through gameplay” is a double-edged sword – a lot of the complaint has centred around the fact the unlocking stuff the old-fashioned way in SWBF2 involves a hell of a lot of grind. No changes to that are mentioned, so we have to presume that it will remain a long-haul to get all the kit and characters you want. At least it’s a level playing field now, but it might remain a somewhat grim one.

Also in the mix is Venturebeat’s report (unverified as yet, but they’re not a site that tends to be spurious in their reporting) that Disney boss Bob Iger yesterday called EA boss Andrew Wilson to talk about this specific controversy.

I’ll admit to having been guilty of a degree of fatalism about this stuff – that this was one of those oncoming storms that online protest couldn’t stop, as it didn’t (or at least not until a year later) with SimCity’s always-online DRM, and more broadly the likes of pre-order bonuses, season passes, dopamine-exploiting unlock systems, non-random microtransactions, hats and every other Big Videogames sinister monetisation strategy that we’ve worried about over the years.

I’m very happy to have been proven wrong in this instance. But let’s not lose sight of the fact that, as I’ll come to in a moment, this is a suspension, not a withdrawal, of SWBF2’s in-game payments. And, I am quite sure, EA flipping the microtransaction lever to ‘off’ is more to do with concern that SWBF2 won’t meet their lofty sales target unless the story around it changes than it is a heartfelt realisation that they went too far this time.

Where I shall allow myself to be optimistic is on the matter of precedents set. The fear was that a successful microtransaction-infected SWBF2 would only inspire other big publishers to adopt similar stances. The hope now is that a disastrous launch week (in terms of buzz – no idea about sales) will send other firms’ money-folk back to the drawing board on this stuff.

Paid loot crates are a doubly pernicious concept – both the element of paying extra for boosted power/abilities/progress within a game you already bought and the blind bag element which means you never know what you’ll get.

That latter is something which has had online commenters, politicians and experts alike expressing concerns that loot boxes could be uncomfortably akin to gambling – though, both legally and ethically, that’s a question which will likely continue to be explored over the months and years to come. EA have insisted that the crates “are not gambling”, saying they’re not necessary to succeed, they can be earned without spending money, and they are guaranteed to contain something. As the father of a young child, I have spent far too many trips home from the supermarket listening to wracking sobs and desperate begging because the £1 random toy machine outside the checkouts coughed out the wrong plastic dog – so I certainly consider paid crates to be manipulative, at the very least.

It is heartening to see that paid loot crates are not going to get a free pass after all. However, this is not the end of microtransactions in SWBF2. Write EA DICE:

“The ability to purchase crystals in-game will become available at a later date, only after we’ve made changes to the game. We’ll share more details as we work through this.”

(Crystals are one of three main currencies in the game, and the one that can only be bought with real money). What they don’t specify is whether, when they return, they’ll be used to buy random loot crates again, or as a means of more directly buying some in-game thinger you’re craving.

Of course, the question now for EA is whether this is enough to change the messaging around what was intended to be their biggest game of the year. When a celebrity makes a fulsome apology for past misbehaviour, does the story then go away? I’m not convinced that SWBF2 now has a clear run to the thermal exhaust port.

If you just want to steer clear of all this nonsense, there’s always solo campaign mode, but, as Matt found in our Star Wars: Battlefront 2 singleplayer review, it’s pretty middling.


  1. Greg Wild says:

    Why is there a Star Trek image instead of that new one with the guy with the hair?

    • demicanadian says:

      Alec, what’s Battlestar Galactica picture doing in Star Wars post?

      • FurryLippedSquid says:

        It’s a running joke to show sci-fi images of anything but Star Wars when writing an article about Star Wars.

        • GAmbrose says:

          Look at the photos used in this article, then think about that the previous posters are getting at…

  2. HoboDragon says:

    Will be interesting to see where all this leads to. Especially in terms of balance…

    I guess though most people who complain haven’t played on mobiles the “Star Wars Heroes”. Admittedly for free, but the way EA tries to get you into paying and what you get in return for that…

    • BooleanBob says:

      I think most people are aware that mobile freemium games and East-Asian MMOs are the petri dish from which this all sprang.

  3. demicanadian says:

    Well played. Given how grind in battlefield games since BF3 is made to force people into buying advancements with real money, it won’t be long till people ask EA to bring microtransactions back.
    Because hype’s too big for Battlefront 2015 II to flop at this point.

    • BobbyDylan says:

      I disagree. All it has to do is not be wildly successful, and that would likely be enough for EA to classify it a flop. This is an industry where sales of 5 million units is considered poor these days. Personally, I wont be buying it, and I don’t know anyone who is.

      • BooleanBob says:

        Sadly it’s shiny, it’s Star Wars and there’s a new film out in a month. It’s going to do the gangbusters on the strength of this alone. I’d be surprised if Joe Public was even aware of the furore, and given the success of similarly slimy monetisation in the likes of Fifa Ultimate Team over the years, I’m not sure he’d see what the fuss was all about.

      • MrLoque says:

        It will sell like hotcakes. BF1 sold 13M copies despite being an absolutely “meh” videogame. Having Luke, Vader and blasters is always a key to success.

        • Baines says:

          Having Luke and Vader turned into part of the PR disaster. EA had decided to lock them behind an absurdly high grind period, very clearly just to “encourage” people to pay extra to unlock them earlier.

      • PseudoKnight says:

        While that was somewhat true of the old market strategy. Microtransactions throws that out of the window. They make the majority of their money from 0.5% of the players. (though that’s probably somewhat higher on a game that people have to pay full price for, but there’s a lot of flexibility on that price when you have a long tail)

    • adammtlx says:

      “Given how grind in battlefield games since BF3 is made to force people into buying advancements with real money”

      Still not the same. The XP boosts you can buy in the Battlefield games, while not my favorite thing, do not confer an objective advantage upon players. Progression in Battlefield games does not occur as a straight upward power curve, but rather as additions that increase your available options for a given situation.

      In other words, a max-rank player in a Battlefield game would not (necessarily) have an inherent advantage over an equally-skilled player of rank 1 in a random situation. This is decidedly NOT the case with Battlefront II, where a player with maxed Star Cards has a measurable, material, numeric advantage over any player with non-max Star Cards.

      • Titler says:

        I would have agreed with you until recently; Battlefront 1 was praised upon launch for the lootboxes only having cosmetic skins in them, and only the basic one being purchasable. They also later removed the random chance at the end of a round and changed it to a simple bar that you filled up through gameplay, so making them more certain. And this was good!

        Now however they’ve slowly started squeezing the player again. They’ve started adding new “Puzzle” weapons, that can only be gained through the boxes. These were re-models of previous melee weapons in the past, which was ok… but now these weapons are coming with “Codexes”, or what can roughly be described as Achievements, which prior weapons didn’t have. Now it’s impossible to “100%” your character without getting the lock box weapons.

        In the scale of things, it’s not much. But again it’s the betrayal of trust that bothers so much. The game is nearly at the end of it’s DLC period now, they’ve earned plenty of money from it already… and people were happy with it as it was, so they had good will too. But it’s not enough, they always, ALWAYS have to go back and start squeezing just that little bit more.

  4. dahools says:

    Think you will find they have had a phone call from heads of sheds at disney.
    Most likely a one way conversation saying what is all this bad star wars press hitting, the not just gaming news but mainstream news too and why are the Netherlands and Belgium looking into it also.
    Not what we need just days before we launch our blockbuster movie for Christmas. SORT YOUR SHIT OUT!

    Knee jerk reaction, “we’ve been listening to our fans” bla bla bla. . .
    We will pull it until the movie has made its profits at box office.

    • brucethemoose says:

      This is exactly what happened.

      EA may be used to it, but Disney does NOT like bad internet PR.

    • wombat191 says:

      I’ve heard a similar story and apparently some clever cookies latched on to the idea of spreading around “Disney is promoting gambling to your children” hahaha

  5. Gothnak says:

    I think i’m one of the old-school style of players that likes to earn & grind in Single Player. My fave old game that did this was Shandalar for the Microprose MTG game, you start with a crap deck and then go around killing things and unlocking cards, it’d be awful if you started with everything.

    Similar with SP Ultimate Team, i love it, crap team, taking on other crap teams, earn some packs, improve the team, i try and play it without ever using the auction house, it’s great fun.

    However, i reckon most players don’t want that any more, they just want to jump straight to all the content and have everything day 1.

    I understand the anger for allowing people to buy access to the cool stuff on an MP game, but still being angry when the buying has been removed and now you grind to unlock new stuff, isn’t that just old school levelling up in any game?

    I don’t have an issue with it in Shadow of War either, i’ll only play it SP and grinding was the whole point of the last game too which i loved, so i’ll be fine again.

    • dahools says:

      I agree, I also like to earn progression. Nowadays I don’t get the time to so I am forever never going to see the later stages/unlocks etc of most games as progression takes so long. I am mature (I hope) realise that and it doesn’t bother me.
      Reading your forth paragraph what they have done now is put everyone on the progression track having let many pay to skip it before. So if people were well ahead before from paying extra you can’t pay to catch them up now.
      I am happy with having the option to pay to skip progression as many people don’t have the time to invest nowadays.
      But the gambling, loot box thing I have already winged about and am not going there again.

      • Gothnak says:

        So that loot box thing, what if you couldn’t pay for it, but had to gain in game currency? I quite like it then, it’s just more exciting than buying a specific item isn’t it?

        I’m just finishing Far Cry 4 on my Xbox One, and progression is fine, if it had allowed people to pay to buy all the weapons when they booted it up, i couldn’t have cared less, i wouldn’t have done it.

        • stevex says:

          So you would want your progression to be tied to lootboxes, which give you random items that you may not even want? Why?

          • Gothnak says:

            Because i LOVE roguelikes. I love the idea of opening a treasure chest in an RPG and finding a frikking amazing bow and then going, ‘oh’, i’ve been a sword wielder up until now, but this bow pushes me on another route.

            Playing a game as a rigid character class and knowing exactly how i’m going to unlock skills at every level is a lot less interesting for me. Loot boxes are fun.

            Then again, i played a lot of Angband/Moria/TOME etc in the 90’s and i think it’s been built into me.

            Even old awesome games like Master of Magic would throw a new random hero, item or spell at you halfway through the game and suddenly open up new strategies, which is why i liked them way more than Civilisation which after one game i never played again.

            Having an ever changing set of abilities and equipment keeps a game fresh for me.

          • Gothnak says:

            It’s also like the Fifa UT analogy. Let’s say i have one good Argentinian striker, but no one to play him with, so i use my less good German striker as he allies with the guy on the right wing. Then i open a pack and find a great Togo striker, but he plays in the same team as the Argentinian, i now have to decide how best to use it, do i go for the partnership up front but not teamwork with the rest of the team or what?

            If i just went to the store on day 1 and bought Argentinian midfielders, defenders and a goalie then every pack opening for me from then on is boring unless they are Argentinians. It ends up being a totally different game, and one i find way more fun. However, you simply can’t play that in MP as you’d get destroyed.

          • BooleanBob says:

            Because dopamine.

    • Dewal says:

      MP & SP are different.

      In one you are progressing through a set content, and discovering it piece after piece is the point. So getting everything from the get go would spoil the fun.

      In competitive multiplayer (as FPS are), the fun is not in the discovery but on the competion with other people. And for you to have fun the game need to be balanced, so that a win is due to skill and just not better stuff.
      If you played football with friends and that you had to play 20 matchs before having the right to use studs, you wouldn’t really enjoy the first 20 games slipping at every turn while your friends run past you easily.

      So in my eyes, unlocks are okay if it’s about style or just a bit variety (maybe lock a few special weapons, which are not better but just different) but most of the content should be available from the start.

      • Gothnak says:

        Yeah, i entirely agree paying for progression in MP is annoying, hence why i don’t play MP Fifa and also why i think paying for progression in SP is absolutely fine.

        A lot of people who comment on stuff get it mixed up, which is why there was so much anger at Shadow of War which i didn’t have a problem with.

        • TheButler83 says:

          I cannot even comprehend this point. You’ve already paid for progression in SP games. It’s called buying the bloody game!

          If the game is designed around getting to a certain point, reaching a certain level, completing a certain quest, kill x number of bad guys then that is a perfectly reasonable progression system and one that’s been successful for decades now. If the reward for doing that is a random sword or a bow that’s also how games are designed.

          Why on earth anyone could be happy with paying additional cash, on top of the box price, for the chance to randomly progress in a SP game is so far beyond my brain to compute I am now going to have a lie down in a quiet room.

          • dahools says:

            I think it’s acceptable when there is a particularly long time investment required otherwise.
            We are always complaining games are not long enough but some don’t have the time to invest. Depends on the cost and what you get for said cost.
            If you want to play a multi shooter with your friends who get to play 50hrs a week and you get to play one evening so let’s say 5. They will be much further along some unlock/achievement ladder which may or may not affect your experience. Having the option to skip 10 levels (or what ever) I think is a fair option to purchase. Paying to roll a dice to see if you can maybe get there however not so much.

            It’s the same in SP haven’t got all the time to grind for exp. A simple unlock to put you at the level to progress quickly while still enjoying the content could be available.

          • Gothnak says:

            Ok, let’s look at two different players.

            Susan is time rich, cash poor, she buys Far Cry 4 (For want of a better example) which plays out exactly as it does now, except you get random weapon drops as compared to what they actually are in the game. She doesn’t want to spend any more money, so plays Far Cry 4 exactly as it is now and is happy.

            Ian is a cash rich, time poor Player. He boots up Far Cry and wants to get to the good stuff NOW, he wants the rocket launchers, MG32, sidearm grenade launcher, he doesn’t care about balance. He pays £X to get access to everything. He’s happy.

            So, you say, why not just allow everyone to do what Ian does for free?

            The reason is that if it was free, Susan would do it too, and Susan isn’t time poor, she enjoys gradually unlocking weapons, taking over bases and levelling up. However if it was free, why wouldn’t she just do it an skip the whole game? It’s like powerful weapons in pre-order bonuses of the 90’s, they just made games worse.

            Without locking the speed up behind a cash wall for SP, how do you appeal to Susan and Ian without either ruining Susan’s experience (Because she can’t help unlocking it for free) or not giving Ian the best quick fix for him as he only wants to experience the game for 5 hours to Susan’s 20?

        • dahools says:

          With what you said before. About not being able to pay for it. That’s fine as having randomised rewards is necessary in some games. If it’s a card deck building game for example. Giving everyone all the best cards straight away would mean there is no skill to using what you have well. Everyone would have the same set and there would be no game. It would be boring I don’t know how FIFA works haven’t really played it in probably ten years or more so I can’t comment on the exact mechanics it has today.

          Randomised rewards so players get different experiences yes. But in the end they should all get to the same point where most is unlocked for them after a roughly similar amount of time

          • Gothnak says:

            Yeah, so for me, randomised drops are a more interesting game function than static drops as long as they drop at the same speed.

    • theslap says:

      Shandalar was such a great game. I agree with you. I like to grind a bit especially in a single-player game. My favorite part of the MTG Planeswalkers games was gradually unlocking each deck until you could squash the opponent that was giving you problems with early on. I never understood the draw to pay to start the game with fully unlocked decks.

  6. Meat Circus says:

    1) They will turn them on again, as soon as the internet’s chronically short attention span moves on to something else.

    2) The progression in this online shooter is still tied to an enormous and baffling succession of material grinds for reasons that look even more stupid now that their primary reason for existing has been (temporarily) removed.

    Oh what a tangled web EA weave. Don’t forgive, don’t forget, and don’t fucking buy it.

  7. mungo says:

    If the grind is still the same, then this doesn’t really help. They still waste hours of our lifetime to unlock stuff that is only locked for the reason to force people to play their game longer.

  8. N'Al says:

    Re: sales, I found this article interesting: link to

    Now, loads of caveats around this one (some mentioned in the article, but I’m not even sure whether the data isn’t for the US only), but it would suggest sales being impacted. Then again, the game that’s the biggest seller has had its own loot crate controversy, so make of that what you will.

    Most importantly though, EA already went through a big outcry over microtransactions at the time of Dead Space 3 (although at least not tied to random loot boxes at the time), so either

    a) the nice interpretation – they’re just utterly dumb and didn’t learn a thing from previous shambles, or

    b) the nasty interpretation – they’re just doing this to feel out how far they can push the consumer, the maximum acceptable level of pain they can inflict to still get away with it and make the most money.

    If it is b), though, they seem so EXCEPTIONALLY BAD at doing so.

    • mungo says:

      b) would be my guess. Maybe they thought if they do this with Star Wars, it will be easier to get away with it because people will buy it either way?

      • N'Al says:

        And you know what, at the end of they day, they’re probably right. EA will still get boatloads of sales from ‘casuals’ and mums buying games for their kids who aren’t aware or that interested in these controversies.

        Problem is, they’re losing sales from ‘gamers’ at the same time, so they’ve certainly shot themselves in the foot.

    • dahools says:

      It only came out today did it not? So it won’t appear on October’s sales.

      Everything people have been playing has been Digital, preorder exclusivity or what ever else has it not?

      • N'Al says:

        That’s true, I guess. So, uh… hey, behind you, a three-headed monkey!!

        Joke aside, I think the rest of my post should still be valid, I hope.

    • Dewal says:

      I once worked in a company that offered a service locked behind a subscription.
      The monthly one was 30€/month, for 6 months it was 28€/month, and for 12 it was 25€/month.

      To help selling the monthly subscriptions, they created another daily subscription. In order to make the monthly one cheap in comparison, anybody else would have just made the sum of 30 daily subscriptions more expensive than buying a full month from the start.

      But there, they decided to sell it at 40€ the day. 40€ a day VS 30€ a month ! This screamed “marketing pscyhological trick” so much, making it insulting to any consumer with a brain.

      So my point is, you can absolutely have both a greedy company policy AND very stupid product designers who make obvious PR mistakes.

      • N'Al says:


        Let me guess, though, you still got people opting for the daily subscription offer regardless, am I right?

  9. Herring says:

    Like most of the other gaming scandals on the Internet this has conflated loads of different issues to one big rage-ball;

    1) Should games have gambling elements?
    2) If they should, should they have gambling elements for real money?
    3) Should games have “P2W” elements where progression is bypassed by cash?
    4) Should full-price games have gameplay locked away by additional cost / loot crates?

    Then you get elements of “is it gambling even if there’s no value to the possible outcomes” (like Overwatch skins but unlike CSGO skins).


    • GrassyGnoll says:

      In SWBFII they are all rather knotted together as issues, from what I gather. Overwatch not so much. Overwatch is simpler because it has the whole loot box system in it’s least negative form, with the rewards being cosmetics. It would be helpful to separate the reward of Loot Boxes in games from the Loot Box reward system itself. For example, in Overwatch you get your XP and reach a new level, as a reward you receive your Loot Box, you then play a new game within Overwatch called Opening That Loot Box. I doubt there isn’t some item you would like to win more than another, and we know some items are rarer than others. Once you click to open that box your brain is in gamble mode, its releasing dopamine in anticipation whether you have money riding on the result or not. Is this gambling&gt? I’m interested in what the Dutch enquiry will investigate and how far reaching it will be, let alone it’s conclusions.

  10. Someoldguy says:

    It’s great to see that community push back has had at least a temporary effect. Of course you are right that it hasn’t slain the beast. Publishers are determined to find the sweet spot that allows them to milk the maximum profit from successful games, in part to offset the big losses from those that fail to launch. They may be encouraging their customers to gamble on random loot packs, but their own stakes are much higher.

    A high one-off purchase cost dampens sales and encourages piracy and regional pricing opens the door for criticism and creative types to get around the system. Monthly subscription has proven increasingly unpopular. It’s no surprise that companies are exploring all sorts of other options to keep the buy in price low then extract more revenue from their players down the line. Here there’s no one approach that works for all games. If loot crates that provide a perceived advantage become anathema for competitive multiplayer games, they’ll soon find something else.

  11. Laurentius says:

    Yeah i’m pessimistic as next reader troubled by that microtransaction stuff in full-price game. EA is not going to change their way. It is still interesting development even if only temporary. The system designed for gearing people to spend money shows itself now completely naked as ridiculous as pointelss grind for three currencies can be.

    I wonder why tbh, it is just quick spin for demage control for freshly launched game? Or is it that it actually is being investigated by gambling committee in Belgium, that could start a precedent? Or is it just Disney calling shots to quit negative press towards top franchise? Interesting.

    • ZeroWaitState says:

      If you do a Google search for “star wars”, above-the-fold search results for me has a Washington Post article titled “How a Star Wars video game faced charges that it was promoting gambling”. That’s not just page one; that’s at the top of page one. IGN’s article about microtransactions is a little to the right of it. Another WaPo article is hit number 6, which puts it on the first page of results. This is one month before release of the movie; at this very moment theaters are selling advance tickets at IMAX, etc. for December and Black Friday for parents getting Christmas gifts is….next Friday. When the parents get on Google to figure out what this Star Wars thing is their kids want, the gambling stuff is the first thing they see, whether they are searching for the movie or for the video game.

  12. zulnam says:

    They can suck all the metaphorical penises they want and call it ‘not gambling’, i am still not buying any game with gambling mechanics, no matter the developer or franchise.

    Tell you what, though. In these dark times, g2a has become the unorthodox weapon that we need. I am using it to buy any game published by a scumbag corporation in the hope that the don’t get a dime.

    • thomas16632 says:

      totally agree, i’ll never buy starwars BF2, nor COD WW2, and all future product with lootboxes.
      lootboxes are 100% guaranted to bring RNG microtransaction, and to make a progression system bad / false / dumb.

  13. Rich says:

    PC GamesN is reporting that this was triggered by a conversation between Disney’s CEO and EA’s. Perhaps Disney was worried that it was damaging the brand(?)

    • wombat191 says:

      Hey don’t mess with the mouse, He will come around your house and murder all your kids

    • ZeroWaitState says:

      I found it pretty hilarious that there was even a bad review of the game on NPR’s website.

  14. Crimsoneer says:

    I hope this doesn’t lead to a total “giving up” of lootboxes. I’ve always found it quite a satisfying way of paying for MP games (far more than the map packs of BF1) and in the long run, tend to spend quite a bit more without feeling ripped off – when they’re well designed. I don’t feel any particular need to be able to unlock all the heroes or similar.

    I appreciate this was a difficult path to tread for EA. They need to maximise profits, but can’t actually sell cosmetics (because it’s Star Wars, so no hats or costumes). So…yeah.

    • Menthalion says:

      Buying specific cosmetics worked for LoL for quite a while, and would work for Overwatch as well. I don’t see how EA couldn’t find a comparable solution.

      That publishers got used to ridiculous prices being paid for a minimum of effort is the same as people profiting from a sale, or banks profiting from subpar mortgages; you can’t expect something like that to last forever.

      To do so as a company is just as irresponsible as consumers paying their loans for objects they can’t afford by taking out new ones.

    • PseudoKnight says:

      How could you not feel ripped off with lootboxes when there’s a chance you’d get nothing you’d want and maybe some redundant items?

    • ZeroWaitState says:

      I don’t like the fact that video games have turned into internet slot machines, especially since the target market includes a lot of adolescents who don’t understand the psychology of gambling and don’t have much disposable income. I remember when collectible card games first got big, and the reward system built into those games brought out the worst in people I knew. This stuff is supposed to be fun. Raging about the loot box drops isn’t fun, nor is being on the losing side of a fight because some kids blew a month’s wages on chocolate bars to get Willie Wonka’s golden ticket.

    • ludde says:

      Is paying for the box not enough? It should be.

  15. Lobotomist says:

    So they are going to remove microtransactions for the period everyone is reviewing the game, and most of the first sales are made. And than they will simply turn it back on ?

    Even for scummy marketing scheme, its pathetic.

    What worries me though is that yesterday in one of RPS articles on this game, I wrote RPS should not write about the game anymore.

    RPS removed my comment.

    Since this is very first time something like that happened ( to me at least )I can only imagine RPS is being pressured by EA. Which is something I seen reported before.

    • Alec Meer says:

      I’ve just checked – your comment was caught by our spam filter, I think because it false-flagged your dollars reference as one of those ‘I earn $xxxx working from home’ things, and is now restored.

      There is no collusion, no pressure, no fear, no nothing other than your fevered fantasies of corruption – which it is time for you to keep in check, otherwise you will be banned.

      • Lobotomist says:

        So, as even you admit, my comment was removed. How was I to know it was due to “spam filter” and not because I suggested that you stop covering Battlefront 2 and boycott EA on this game ?

        As for me connecting it with pressure from EA. I never said RPS got money from EA. But was it not big news just a year ago how big companies pressure game journalists by denying them review copies, rights, invitations, if they write constant negative reviews ( or similar )?

        I am glad it was not you that removed my message, but a threat of ban, just for me putting 1+1 together ( even mistakenly ) Was it not enough that you just explained what happened ?

        In any case. We are seeing here EA testing waters to introduce full F2P monetization into full priced games. If the sales and reception of the game will meet their internal goal. This will mean a dawn of new age of games : 60$ F2P.

        I think we as gamers and people passionate about gaming should do everything to send clear message that this will not be tolerated.

        And since I wiew RPS as passionate gamers, I think you too should simply stop covering the game. Perhaps even not review it at all.

        We must stop this all together ( if its not to late )

        • Alec Meer says:

          I dunno, man, you claimed to magically “know” that we were being pressured by The Man. So: don’t do that sort of thing! It’s really rude and counter-productive for everyone!

          • Lobotomist says:

            I drew a conclusion from what happened. Many big review sites are under EA boot. This is something that was widely reported, not less than a year ago. RPS is nowadays certainly one of the big sites for gaming. Is it really that far-fetched that there is some business pressure on this site too?

            Ultimately I am glad to be reassured that this is not the case.

          • Lachlan1 says:

            I love how you responded to a reasonable conclusion with a threat. Now even RPS commenters are feeling EA’s wrath.

          • OmNomNom says:

            I blame religion

    • dangermouse76 says:

      You should go listen to the Podcast where they spend about a hour saying Need for Greed and Stars wars are not great and have many issues.

      ” Since this is very first time something like that happened ( to me at least ) I can only imagine RPS is being pressured by EA.”

      It’s easy to find a conspiracy when you don’t look to hard or try to find evidence for a narrative you have already decided upon.

      You have no evidence of pressure or collusion.

    • Talsted says:

      Wow. Yep, some guy at EA was like “Curses! Sure, RPS posts critical coverage of us all the time, and they left up these dozens of other comments tearing into us but…we can’t allow Lobotomist to speak! He’s far too persuasive, too dangerous! Call them and demand his words be removed at once! After all, he suggested RPS stop covering us! They’re under no obligation to do so, or even notice his comment, but he’s so influential and well-known we can’t take that chance!”

      Did you really think that’s what happened? Because that’s super-dumb.

      • Lobotomist says:

        Well yes. Especially after the exact things happened and were reported not more than year ago on Gamespot and some other websites.

        I dont say EA targeted silly me. But if my comment was deleted, it was surely not the only one.

        But I regress. I am just trying to validate my line of thinking.

        Alec clearly explained it was spam filter, case closed.

        • Talsted says:

          Except you ignored both the number of critical comments that weren’t removed, as well as RPS’s own extensive history of criticizing EA.

  16. Bull0 says:

    I’ve had a go on the “play first trial” and it’s genuinely crap.

  17. N'Al says:

    Also interesting in light of this, imo:
    link to

  18. Bullfrog says:

    “This was never our intention”

    What you tripped, fell, and accidentally built a system of microtransactions into the very dna of your full price game?

  19. Relenzo says:

    Holy cow! I, for one, am expressing unbridled optimism at this news. This is FAR, FAR more impact than I thought internet outrage could ever have on a game as large at Battlefront. Even if it DOES get turned back on eventually–and I think that’s actually a little pessimistic–this has set a moving precedent for lootboxes.

  20. Freud says:

    They’re in full damage control mode, but keep the pressure up.

    The gouging of gamers is built into the foundation of this and many AAA games these days. Boycott this husk of a game. Teach them a lesson.

    • aircool says:

      Life is to short to boycott something that’s fun. I don’t like random loot in exchange for cash, but that’s why I don’t play that part of the game.

      I’ve only recently discovered that Shadow of War gives you chests for completing those online revenge missions. I would never have clicked on the marketplace until someone told me that I have free stuff to claim.

  21. Marclev says:

    I.e. Disney threatened to pull the license to wash their hands clean of the PR disaster ahead of movie VIII in a few weeks.

    EA don’t care about bad PR, but they do about a cash cow being taken away from them.

  22. aircool says:

    Ahhh, the younger generations; complain about loot boxes until the EA apologises and gets rid of them, just so they can then go and complain about the grind.

    There’s no doubt that unlocks keep people playing, even if it’s vanity items. It’s the simple work-reward system that keeps us playing one game.

    Ignoring loot boxes for the moment, PC games are more value for money than ever before (in fact most are still at a similar price point to those games released back in 1992). I used to buy one or two games a month and multiplayer was either split screen or hotseat. I’ve bought about 5-6 ‘big’ games in the last 18-24 months and half of them were on sale or had some sort of discount, so developers and publishers aren’t getting much of my money.

    Which is why ‘in app’ purchases are a thing. I’m not a fan of the random nature of loot boxes (in all their forms… card packs, mystic chests and all that crap), but I do support micro transactions for vanity items. I’ve probably spent the same amount on those AAA titles as I have on vanity items in other games.

    I remember dropping a significant amount of cash on the Halloween skins for mounts in GW2 as soon as they were released. I then spent the evening with a crowd of other ‘fashion victims’ sitting around Lion’s Arch and complementing each other on how ‘bad-ass’ we looked. I also remember buying the ‘shemagh’ in Planetside 2. It was worth every penny knowing that whomever I had just killed got to see my really ‘bad-ass’ shemagh wearing character with personalised outfit badges.

    Planetside 2 really did get it right. A few of us were happy to pay a sub for extra XP and a stipend of Smedbucks every month, just to support the F2P players who filled up the servers. Players who couldn’t afford to pay, or didn’t want to pay got access to the full game that was funded by those of us that were happy to part with real cash; it was a great community.

    • Hmm-Hmm. says:

      I am quite honestly baffled by some of what you wrote.

      PC games more value for money than ever before? Now, some modern games provide good to great value but at the same time there are plenty of grind, sub-based and/or microtransaction-filled games we certainly didn’t see when I was younger. It used to be that you bought a game once and it a) worked b) was complete and c) additions were generally expansion packs with good value as well.

      Then again, I never bought two games a month back then and I certainly played games with lan or multiplayer capabilities.

      So, er, well.. let’s just say I disagree.

    • OmNomNom says:

      Planetside 2 implants RNG is a shitfest

      • Silas7 says:


        Planetside2 has the implants, but they are now passive perks. A much friendlier system and less exploitative. You should check it out again.

    • ludde says:

      Yeah I bet it was as great for all those free-to-play, second class citizens of Planetside 2 as well.

      It’s weird that you think loot boxes and unlocks are valid replacements for fun gameplay.