-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Battlefront IIs review copies needed a lower amount to unlock heroes (Update: false info, check OP)
- Thread starter Chairmanchuck (另一个我)
- Start date
- Status
If it's abundantly clear in the review that unlocks were shorter than in retail bought copies of the game I can see the justification maybe with short deadlines and embargoes etc but um well it's not a good look overall is it. It's not the game that people buy. No I have talked myself out of the hypothetical scenario I put forth. It's a dirty trick is what it is.
The Youtubers spreading misinformation unintentionally are going to get a shitstorm of abuse once people find out they've been deceived by them.
What a utter mess of a game.
What a utter mess of a game.
Not so much the real question, a super valid part of it though. Will be interesting to see who's honest.
I think there's a point where, if publishers are giving different versions of games to reviewers, there may even be a legal line being crossed. They need to clarify this immediately, and if they're acting in good faith, that should be an incredibly simple thing to do. Even giving them the benefit of the doubt that this was an accelerated progression for a review event environment, they need to say that, and show official written notice they gave to those reviewers indicating as much. Every single on of those reviews would need to note that in their reviews to corrolate the explanation.
I think even if some review copies were given for assessment while the value was different, and later ones will reflect the launch game, that's a serious accusation.
I think even if some review copies were given for assessment while the value was different, and later ones will reflect the launch game, that's a serious accusation.
Last edited:
Hahahahaha
It's because of people like you that these companies are doing slimy and exploitative shit to users with this lootbox garbage.
The only reason it costs 10k for reviwers is so that they dont notice theres a big grind pushing you to buy lootboxes
Good job for defending a corporation that does not give a shit about you, is doing stuff that is against your interests and wants you to pay up to unlock heroes quickly ( or grind for 10 years to unlock them instead)
This may actually be worse than leaving microtransactions out of the review copies entirely and patching them in later, because instead of a review that can't say anything about the game's economy, you get a review that actively misleads the consumer about the game's economy.
Do not buy this game.
DO NOT BUY THIS GAME.
Do not buy this game.
DO NOT BUY THIS GAME.
Yup its a sad state of affairs. Reviewers dont have the balls to call this shit out.
After finding out about this, my gut reaction was to be kind of angry. Now that I've had some time to think, I really don't have a problem with this practice as long as reviewers are upfront about it.
I'd definitely find value in reviewers being able to experience end-game stuff as early as possible so that it isn't excluded from the review. At the same time, I'd also expect outlets to give us a "review in progress" until they have a chance to see whether the amount of time to normally unlock these things seems like it detracts from the experience.
I'd definitely find value in reviewers being able to experience end-game stuff as early as possible so that it isn't excluded from the review. At the same time, I'd also expect outlets to give us a "review in progress" until they have a chance to see whether the amount of time to normally unlock these things seems like it detracts from the experience.
Mods, this is false and has already been disproven. The gameplay and screen caps are from a capture event that happened about a week ago where this thing is normal due to the time constraints. I've already confirmed that this isn't the case with other reviewers who have copies.
It's 60k for anyone who has the game right now, review copy or not, it was only 10k at the build at the capture event at DICE office which is pretty normal for any review/capture event.
They didn't tell us about the high cost in the full game though which I wish they would have. https://t.co/nklY9lM4oA
— BattlefrontUpdates (@SWBFUpdates) November 13, 2017
Incorrect. This 10,000 credit value was present at the launch capture event a couple of weeks ago. The value then changed for launch.
Current review copies are all set at 60,000 for those heroes that cost that amount. https://t.co/5STW7xhIdz
— Westie (@MrProWestie) November 13, 2017
It's 60k for anyone who has the game right now, review copy or not, it was only 10k at the build at the capture event at DICE office which is pretty normal for any review/capture event.
They didn't tell us about the high cost in the full game though which I wish they would have. https://t.co/nklY9lM4oA
— BattlefrontUpdates (@SWBFUpdates) November 13, 2017
Incorrect. This 10,000 credit value was present at the launch capture event a couple of weeks ago. The value then changed for launch.
Current review copies are all set at 60,000 for those heroes that cost that amount. https://t.co/5STW7xhIdz
— Westie (@MrProWestie) November 13, 2017
The mass of reviewers won't say anything like usual. Reviewers aren't typically transparent when it comes to this kind of stuff. If it they were you would get a whole opening paragraph of how publishers wine and dimes them before the actual review starts.
You and people like you are why companies like EA and 2K get away with this predatory bullshit.
OP
OP
Interesting. I think EA should still come out and clarify this before it spreads on the internet.
On the other hand, why even lock the Heroes in this case if it was just for an event? Why not have them unlocked from the start for this event?
Just like NBA2K it's super scummy giving reviewers shortcuts on the grinding hook.
If the "grind" is suppose to be a sense of accomplishment and/or fun to do let reviewers experience it so they can relay it to the consumers accurately
If the "grind" is suppose to be a sense of accomplishment and/or fun to do let reviewers experience it so they can relay it to the consumers accurately
Thank you.
If anyone has questions regarding press copies of games, please feel free to respond or message me, I'm happy to answer.
Cheers
Does this even address anything I brought up? It's dismissive, and worthless. Actively seeking to shutdown discussion that disagrees with you.
Fun fact: I'm not even buying this game. I don't have a ton of interest. I know they're a big bad corporation. I know they want to get my money in any way possible. You know who is ACTUALLY responsible for why they "get away" with stuff you don't like? Because there are people who still buy the games and enjoy them. Making money for any gigantic corporation is always a practice in "how do we make the most money from our customers while also not pissing them off in some way so they don't stop buying our products."
My argument is that these issues aren't a huge deal and this game is probably going to do well. Definitely better than the first. These practices are not particularly heinous or terrible, and if it was a smaller company behind practices like this for a smaller game, I highly doubt people would be on this heavy of a witch hunt. If it's truly terrible, then guess what: the game is going to come out, people are going to be mad and stop playing it, and EA will either address the issues, or the game will not be a great success for them. There will always be people who aren't happy with a piece of entertainment, but in this scenario I'm willing to bet that those upset will be far outweighed by those who enjoy the game and make it a success. As long as, you know, the other 99% of the game itself that no one cares to discuss (singleplayer, multiplayer, graphics/content/bugs/etc) is good.
To be fair to them, individual (but still official) responses from figures in the company are the first step when you're trying to get a statement out there. A more formal press release does take some time/effort to draft.
I think you're 10000% right though.
Were the previous progression values specifically for a [media capture event], or was it also partly characterized as a review event?
If it's made clear that the unlock system has been shortened for review copies, I don't even think it's that big of a deal. I think part of the issue I have with these types of games is that the reviewers don't even play long enough to give a good idea of the systems in place. When is the last review you've read that addresses weapon balance or map design. Even in multiplayer only games you get the smallest of information from these reviews.
Hopefully the title can be updated to reflect the new info.
Mack will.
He buys his own shit so that he's not beholden to any corporation. He's probably one of the few decent skins on YT these days. Not saying everyone else is untrustworthy but let's be honest here ... when you're depending on the success of a videogame for your next paycheck you're not going to bite the hand that feeds you. There is a serious incentive problem when it comes to Youtubers. I just feel sorry for younger audiences who are far more impressionable and can't see they're being manipulated by marketing mouthpieces and corporate representatives.
Honestly I find having a thread open accusing something of something, which then hours later is only corrected (and won't be seen by most people) is pretty shitty as well. Less detrimental when people have an abundance of issues with BFII anyway but it's still something I really dislike when I see it. Especially when the title it stated so matter-of-factly.
Probably gonna take a lot more to stop the rage train. Thread should be deleted, honestly.
thats not how the press game works for publishers.
first let the problem manifest, then come up with a statement saying "we hear you! we are making changes! we love you!"
so that the last thing mass media transmits about the problem, is that the company "is making changes", so that people that said "not buying" but are still looking for excuses to buy it, will do so, without the other party changing anything significant, maybe trim a 1-2% of the "work" needed for unlocks... but the problem we are discussing right now, even thought it will mainly remain the same and unchanged, it will be handled as "old news".
its not even a new trick, or a trick that works only for videogame publishers and media...
The fact the original title remains as-is is embarrassing, honestly. It's completely false, and yet it's running completely rampant as news. Even Reddit's mods gave the story a 'misleading' tag once the facts emerged.
I feel like this thread is a proving ground for how ERA will handle big controversial news stories, and it is failing tremendously.
OP
OP
Think twice before starting another thread based on a tweet + video. If you think there is a potential important discussion to have on stuff like that, make sure to check other sources as well. Ask reviewers, influencers etc., don't take a single tweet as gospel.
Oh gosh
Oh gosh
- Status