This Game is a Star Wars Themed Online Casino

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
54,464
..."Designed to lure kids into spending money. It's a trap."

Yeah, as if every gamer in the world did not hate EA enough, Hawaii State Representative Chris Lee is piling on the Star Wars Battlefront II hate machine.

Check out the video.


The State of Hawaii announces action to address predatory practices at Electronic Arts and other companies. November, 2017.
 
Glad someone in government is ready to start taking about this.

Maybe if enough get talking AAA publishers won't like the negative attention and make changes.

I just hope it's handled delicately enough to not gut the industry.

Good luck to us all and may The Internet come out on top.
 
mbelue said:
Glad someone in government is ready to start taking about this.

Maybe if enough get talking AAA publishers won't like the negative attention and make changes.

I just hope it's handled delicately enough to not gut the industry.

Good luck to us all and may The Internet come out on top.
Click to expand...
Dammit, they will be forced to make games that give us gameplay and stories that actually sell on their own merit at $60 a pop.
 
Either higher prices-per-game or less content.

When I say "gut the industry" I'm referring to the thousands of people employed by the ridiculous budget these AAA publishers outlay. I could care less about the corporations like EA and Zenimax.

Crunch time is already bad enough for some of these folks. New budget constraints could negativity affect the way these people are treated.
 
Jim Kim said:
Without that sweet filthy lucre from lootboxes AAA game prices will now be $120 to appease Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Fine, let EA raise the price to $120 as per that insane 'undervalued quote' from an analyst idiot. Even more people will just download a cracked version a couple of months after release (which co-incidentally is roughly the amount of time it takes to patch AAA titles so they actually work properly these days).

I personally just wait for stuff to become available on my Origin Library, at least the games are patched properly by the time the game is covered by my cheap yearly subscription.
 
In all honesty a slight price hike wouldn't be that bad, provided it would keep publishers honest - no more microtransactions and season pass sheananigans.
At the same time I'm not that concerned - I own about two games published by EA younger than 5 years and a big fat zero by Ubisoft.
 
Come to think of it I don't even really have a problem with season passes, in theory anyway. It very well might be just another way of delivering expansion content (like with Dishonored 1), problem is that it's often times abused to instead nickle and dime you for stuff that used to be free not very long ago (such as map packs for MP games).
 
Nukester said:
In a way this is dumb. Once again it's about personal responsibility. Nobody is forced to buy anything. If someone doesn't like it, don't buy it. I don't care for EA either, but jeez.
Click to expand...

Say you have a 5 year old and you purchase them a video game. You don't realize it but after level 3 there are loot boxes for a chance to unlock a carrot outfit. You go into the kitchen to prepare dinner while your kid is smiling from ear to ear enjoying the game. You come back and your daughter has spent $2,000 on loot boxes that are nonrefundable. Now your bank account is completely drained. You can't buy gas to go to work. Your bank is giving you the cold shoulder and telling you that you can't get a refund. After talking all night to them you finally get them to release enough funds so that you can go to work, but you have to wait 3 - 5 business days before the funds will show up in your account. You can't pay your electricity bill and have to get a waiver to pay it late. Other bills are now behind.

That's the story of my nephew and his daughter. He left her playing a mobile game on his phone while he went to make some dinner. She could read the word "Yes" when it popped up to accept the terms of service to link his Google Store account to the game so that meant he was on the hook for all of those purchases.
 
stashix said:
In all honesty a slight price hike wouldn't be that bad, provided it would keep publishers honest - no more microtransactions and season pass sheananigans.
At the same time I'm not that concerned - I own about two games published by EA younger than 5 years and a big fat zero by Ubisoft.
Click to expand...
As if pricing a game at 100 won't stop publishers from injecting microtransactions and season passes and dlc in to games.

They can't be trusted with a plastic spoon afaic.
 
Master_shake_ said:
As if pricing a game at 100 won't stop publishers from injecting microtransactions and season passes and doc for days in to games.

They can't be trusted with a plastic spoon afaic.
Click to expand...
Sure, but base game prices have stayed static for years, while budgets have exploded. Microtransactions and lootboxes are in part a reaction to that IMO. Which isn't to say that pricing games higher would magically get rid of them - the Pandora's box has been opened already, but it may help.
Already you're often paying more than 60$, it's just hidden somewhat by splitting content.
I'm just saying that I wouldn't really mind paying say 80$ for a game I'm interested in, dependent on what I can get in return. AAA pricing seems much too rigid to me.
 
stashix said:
Sure, but base game prices have stayed static for years, while budgets have exploded. Microtransactions and lootboxes are in part a reaction to that IMO. Which isn't to say that pricing games higher would magically get rid of them - the Pandora's box has been opened already, but it may help.
Already you're often paying more than 60$, it's just hidden somewhat
Click to expand...

they'll just look at it as you making a BIGGER initial investment so you'll likely support the game longer than if you paid a sub 60 dollar price.

so they can then really slow the gameplay down so you'd pay to make it go back to what it was originally.

they have this shit planned out way before a game hits the shelves and no matter what if the price is 10 dollars 100 dollars or pay to win you'll pay even more it is guaranteed.

so no keep the plastic spoons away from them please.
 
I dont mind lootboxes or an unlock system so long as it isnt for sale. I still dont consider them PTW since i can win fine without them, and it is kinda fun when you grind out a few hundred kills to finally get some upgrade you've been looking forward to giving you a new angle to approach a battle. I think calling it gambling is a stretch and I still dont see how children are paying for these things in the first place so whats all the hooplah really about?
 
Jim Kim said:
Without that sweet filthy lucre from lootboxes AAA game prices will now be $120 to appease Wall Street.
Click to expand...

Games are currently more profitable than they ever have been in the past, and the large publishers are making more than ever. It is not a trade-off between up-front content and up-front cost.

Also, not having DLC in games is not going to increase what the average gamer is willing to pay to play a game, and so game prices should not be expected to increase. AAA games have been $60 for a long time, and $50 before that. There is no reason why not having gameplay locked behind DLC would cause the prices of games to increase. These uber-monetized games are a new trend, of the previous couple of years.

Also, this isn't merely about content. Games have been becoming balanced all around the concept of paywalls, which has degraded the gameplay and the experience of the game, regardless of the amount of content that is presented within it. If gameplay cannot be locked behind paywalls, then the base game experience will improve.
 
cageymaru said:
Say you have a 5 year old and you purchase them a video game. You don't realize it but after level 3 there are loot boxes for a chance to unlock a carrot outfit. You go into the kitchen to prepare dinner while your kid is smiling from ear to ear enjoying the game. You come back and your daughter has spent $2,000 on loot boxes that are nonrefundable. Now your bank account is completely drained. You can't buy gas to go to work. Your bank is giving you the cold shoulder and telling you that you can't get a refund. After talking all night to them you finally get them to release enough funds so that you can go to work, but you have to wait 3 - 5 business days before the funds will show up in your account. You can't pay your electricity bill and have to get a waiver to pay it late. Other bills are now behind.

That's the story of my nephew and his daughter. He left her playing a mobile game on his phone while he went to make some dinner. She could read the word "Yes" when it popped up to accept the terms of service to link his Google Store account to the game so that meant he was on the hook for all of those purchases.
Click to expand...
Was linking to a bank account a requirement to play the game?
 
Back in the mid to late 90s, I recall buying AAA games on release day for $20-30 (when regular price was $40-50) at my local brick & mortar, then the one or two expansion packs for it trickling out every couple/few months at $10-20 a pop.

Side note: Rewind the clock even further...back to the late 80s, and I clearly recall some games going for as much as $120-130 back then. Granted, these prices were found in Computer Shopper ads and local software specialty stores, before chains like Walmart, Target, or Best Buy really allocated space for PC software/games.

Then something happened...a game company started taking the expansion pack to the extreme. $30-50 for the base game, and a metric fuckload of rapid release expansions coming in at $25-40 each. And it was successful beyond anything the developer dreamed of. The Sims made history.

Many other companies soon followed suit, but they were even more unscrupulous when the digital download era was born. Instead of offering a variety of added content consisting of new items, weapons, locations, missions, character skins (or whatever the game was based around) in each expansion pack, they started making each item, weapons, skin, mission, etc their own individual expansion and called it "DLC". And people kept buying them.

I see these loot boxes as just the next step in the "DLC" evolutionary chain. Instead of having to stop the game and go buy it through the digital download storefront, it allows the content to be obtained on the fly without so much as pausing the game...
 
cageymaru said:
Say you have a 5 year old and you purchase them a video game. You don't realize it but after level 3 there are loot boxes for a chance to unlock a carrot outfit. You go into the kitchen to prepare dinner while your kid is smiling from ear to ear enjoying the game. You come back and your daughter has spent $2,000 on loot boxes that are nonrefundable. Now your bank account is completely drained. You can't buy gas to go to work. Your bank is giving you the cold shoulder and telling you that you can't get a refund. After talking all night to them you finally get them to release enough funds so that you can go to work, but you have to wait 3 - 5 business days before the funds will show up in your account. You can't pay your electricity bill and have to get a waiver to pay it late. Other bills are now behind.

That's the story of my nephew and his daughter. He left her playing a mobile game on his phone while he went to make some dinner. She could read the word "Yes" when it popped up to accept the terms of service to link his Google Store account to the game so that meant he was on the hook for all of those purchases.
Click to expand...

He quoted it correctly, personal responsibility. I’m sorry, why does his 5 year old have access to a phone that is unlocked and has a credit card loaded? Mine paints, colors and goofs around with her toys while we make dinner . In the event we let her touch a tablet or phone (these are very very rare circumstances) it’s setup with an app lock - so you can’t launch extra sites to confirm or whatever - and biometrics that don’t match her. Now, if your Nephew is a single Dad, 18 hour days and no one in the family to watch his kid...dude I’m sorry about that and it can change the narrative, although I may also ask why he isn’t spending more time with her either, why not teach her to cook, our 4 year old helps out each night in some capacity. Enough backhanded comments though! After all of that, I totally agree with these predatory pratices being a problem by greedy publishers.

Not just in video games; while the wife was making dinner a couple days ago, our land line rang, it’s always telemarketers so I thought it would be funny to let the 4 year old answer. I have video of this! She says Hello, they get into wanting a vacation in Mexico (4 yold is all DUH of course I do!) TM: oh thats great sweety do you have access to a credit card? 4 yo: uhm yeah! TM: oh wonderful let me transfer you to an accelerated account manager. We then hung up.

Alrighty then. Either they are preying on children, this lady was so burned out she was just reading the script or it was AI, I’m not sure which but leaning toward the first. Hell if game publishers can get even a couple hundred kids to buy 5.99 loot boxes and hope the parents dont see or care to cancel it, they win. We also need go watch our kids though...
 
mbelue said:
Either higher prices-per-game or less content.

When I say "gut the industry" I'm referring to the thousands of people employed by the ridiculous budget these AAA publishers outlay. I could care less about the corporations like EA and Zenimax.

Crunch time is already bad enough for some of these folks. New budget constraints could negativity affect the way these people are treated.
Click to expand...

Plenty of people make good $20-$30 games without loot boxes or pay to win. Maybe if they simplify their game a little instead of thinking of ways to gouge their customers, they wouldn't need as many developers.
 
Lenard said:
Is the game any good?
Click to expand...

Battlefront II? It’s the most beautifully scored, best looking and enjoyable game I’ve played since I was like 15, I’m also a star wars nut and biased a little. I get heavy Dark Forces vibes when running around with then E-11, if they had redone DFII with this engine it would sell off the shelves. The starship fights are fantastic. So far I’ve only purchased a couple loot crates with credits, these you get from completing Skills (50 MP kills with a certain weapon), boxes or SP/MP games. It may take a while but I’m not paying real momey for anything in this game.
 
How is Star Wars Loot boxes any different from how Overwatch or TF2 does them outside of unlockable characters?

I know EA sucks (Hated them since the Sega Genesis Days. REALLY hated them when Westwood Studios Sold Out to them) but this isn't just an EA thing. Just about everyone in the gaming industry is going down this path.
 
stashix said:
In all honesty a slight price hike wouldn't be that bad, provided it would keep publishers honest - no more microtransactions and season pass sheananigans.
At the same time I'm not that concerned - I own about two games published by EA younger than 5 years and a big fat zero by Ubisoft.
Click to expand...
Considering how much publishers are making off micro-transactions, I'd imagine it'd have to be a pretty big price hike to make the shareholders satisfied :(
 
Didn't watch the video, heard that the senator kept stating Star Wars and not the whole battlefront 2 name. This by proxy is now equating Star Wars (Disney) with Gambling NOT EA.

Getting Disney pissed off is a great way to make change as we've seen. Disney can claim it's not them it's EA, most parent's won't have any idea and tie star wars to gambling, their new movie tanks, EA gets bought out by Ubi-Soft, and we have Assassin's creed mass effect crossover fighting game.
 
Deathlizard said:
How is Star Wars Loot boxes any different from how Overwatch or TF2 does them outside of unlockable characters?

I know EA sucks (Hated them since the Sega Genesis Days. REALLY hated them when Westwood Studios Sold Out to them) but this isn't just an EA thing. Just about everyone in the gaming industry is going down this path.
Click to expand...

The difference is with this you either have to put in an insane amount of hours to unlock an iconic character from Star Wars or pay around $80 for the unlock. Overwatch has cosmetic items but nothing that has such a huge draw as Darth Vader......lets face it everyone wants the ability to play his character because he's so popular. Star Wars is a generational link people who are 60 years old know who he is, and 5 year olds know who he is. Overwatch.....my dad doesn't know what that is, hell I hardly know because I've never played it. I sure as hell know Darth Vader and so does my dad. My son may or may not know but I haven't really introduced him to the Star Wars universe, but I know he's see the character before.

They are profiting on the this aspect of the game.
 
86 5.0L said:
All good til that "gamer" started talking :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

Yeah, if they really want this to get some traction here in U.S. they're really going to need to get their act together for press and media coverage. Got to give people a sense of value and just money or numbers in order to show the greater effect this is having. As others have mentioned practices similar to these have been going on in the gaming industry for nearly 40 years. If they don't find better focus it will be like the fight with the tobacco companies and probably take another 40 years to achieve anything meaningful.
 
With all this good conversation and points made, I'm still a bit disappointed that nobody has commented on the fluff thought I had when reading this quote (and hearing him say it):

..."Designed to lure kids into spending money. It's a trap."

He did it with such a straight face, idk if he knows what that line means in the Star Wars franchise, come on fellas, It' a Trap!

K now, back to the serious discussion.
 
this is incredible and awesome news. This is a HUGE HUGE win for video gamers.

Micro-transactions are horrible. Games are designed in such ways now they they don't want $60 dollars from you, the want $1500 and $2000 so on and so forth. And the hide content behind pay walls.

Other states are sure to follow.
 
Is it really this hard to not buy something? Yes, I think micro transactions are stupid like every other gamer. How do I respond? I don’t buy them. Publishers are adding these because they make insane profits from them. If they stop making profit, they stop creating them, it’s really that simple. As long as a market exists, they will serve that market. Eliminate the market and you eliminate the problem.
 
I still stick to what i said before, the "analyst" just torpedoed the gaming industry. He got the attention of a lot of people for sure but its a lot of negative attention. The only way anything will change is to stop paying for garbage.
 
basically "don't fuck with our star wars." remember we grow up and are a part of the rebel alliance.
 
HockeyJon said:
Is it really this hard to not buy something? Yes, I think micro transactions are stupid like every other gamer. How do I respond? I don’t buy them. Publishers are adding these because they make insane profits from them. If they stop making profit, they stop creating them, it’s really that simple. As long as a market exists, they will serve that market. Eliminate the market and you eliminate the problem.
Click to expand...
Sad thing is it got to this point to which its a Pay-to-win and not simple cosmetics. They want you to pay more for the content to unlock the games full potential, which is why DLC and micro-transactions are so polarizing. I play free to play games on my phone and don't buy crates and other "in game currency". I don't except to get the same treatment from a game I paid 60$ for to play on my PC/Console. That is just silly to me.
 
HockeyJon said:
Is it really this hard to not buy something? Yes, I think micro transactions are stupid like every other gamer. How do I respond? I don’t buy them. Publishers are adding these because they make insane profits from them. If they stop making profit, they stop creating them, it’s really that simple. As long as a market exists, they will serve that market. Eliminate the market and you eliminate the problem.
Click to expand...

"Is it really this hard to not buy heroin? Yes, I think heroin is stupid like every other normal person. How do I respond? I don’t buy heroin. Dealers are selling heroin because they make insane profits from it. If they stop making profit, they stop selling heroin, it’s really that simple. As long as a market exists, they will serve that market. Eliminate the market and you eliminate the problem."

FTFY
 
Nukester said:
In a way this is dumb. Once again it's about personal responsibility. Nobody is forced to buy anything. If someone doesn't like it, don't buy it. I don't care for EA either, but jeez.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. Loot boxes are designed to hit the same addiction triggers as gambling does. Buying something here and there, that's personal responsibility, being psychologically manipulated into getting addicted is not quite the same. Publishers pay psychologists to help design these systems in order to make sure to trigger that response in the highest amount of people they can. And it's not just loot boxes that are designed to trigger addiction, all forms of microtransactions are designed that way, from mobile phones to stuff like GTA Online. Pretty much every single game released with some form of recurrent paying model is designed to psychologically manipulate the player into spending more and more money. It doesn't happen to everyone, of course, but it happens to enough that it makes billions of dollars for the game industry every year.
 
Azrak said:
Was linking to a bank account a requirement to play the game?
Click to expand...

If you have your card on any of googles services it's automatically linked. Google Play, Google Wallet, Youtube Red, Google Music, Google Photos, etc.. But there is a setting to require a password for every purchase. It's why I don't feel bad for parents who give their unlocked no password requiring phone to their kid to shut them up and play apps, they did it to themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top