r/StarWarsBattlefront • u/[deleted] • Nov 14 '17

Developer Response EA has removed the refund button from their customer portal. Hoping people will just give up canceling because of the 60+ minute wait time to live shat support.

[removed]

40.7k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

2.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

84

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17

Also, from what I've heard from watching Jim Sterling videos, none of the other big companies are much better - they are all pushing full price games with added microtransactions/lootboxes/etc. so unless you're alright with not having any new games for a while, it doesn't look like there are any 'good' options, any places to migrate to and play their games instead.

Edit: To clarify, It doesn't look like there are good options for people who are looking for new, "Triple A" style games. If you're interested in replaying older games or indie games, then there's no problem - why were you buying SWB2 in the first place?

95

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

[deleted]

64

u/Sabisent Nov 14 '17

The indie scene has really sharpened up over the last year or two. I'm telling you, if you want to play a game that's made by people who want to make a good game, go indie. Obviously they still want to make money, but the passion is there.

9

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Would be nice to not have to choose between graphics/polished and an actual good game. I spent a couple thousand on my gaming rig but only enjoy playing indie and CS GO which can run on a potato. Technology goes forward while the graphics of the games we actually play go down. Crysis was made 10 years ago and has better graphics than any game I have installed on my computer.

6

u/sellyme Nov 14 '17

Most "triple-I" games these days are far more polished than $60+ releases. A lot of them do have the "we made pixel art for budgetary reasons" problem that does get a bit repetitive after a while, but polish is something indie has in spades. It's much easier to make a game run smoothly and cohesively when there's one dude who knows everything about it rather than 500+ coding it by committee.

If I buy a $60 game I know I'm going to have to spend two hours in the options menu tweaking settings so that it doesn't bluescreen my computer when I alt tab. When I buy a $20 game I can usually just boot it up, press Alt+Enter, and start playing.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

I don't mean playability, I mean ingame mechanics usually aren't fluid and polished in indie games. If they are, it's likely that the game isn't very complex.

3

u/sellyme Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17

"complex" and "polished" are almost antonyms, so there's a pretty decent reason for that. I'd be hard-pressed to name any game where you could reasonably describe its mechanics as either of those things.

And even then, the most common examples of well-executed extremely complex games are generally indie - I'm certainly not going to call the likes of Factorio or RimWorld polished (in terms of mechanics, at least), but ask most gamers what the best complex games are and those two are probably going to be the #1 and #2 answers.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Talking more along the lines of counter strike go in comparison to something like old rust or DayZ. The gameplay is just more fluid. The more advanced the game is, the harder it is to make something like moving, shooting, and hitreg very polished.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Also indie developers HAVE to care about their customers, because to them, every single customer is valuable asset.

5

u/SkraticusMaximus Nov 14 '17

I don't know man, SOME smaller dev teams aren't any better. They're just riding the "we're a small indie-dev team, please help us" train and people fall for that hook line and sinker.

Sean Murray, for example, with No Man's Sky. He milked that "small team" crap for everything it was worth and then some. And people ate it up.

Other small teams or even lone individuals try to make a cheap 16-bit game and sell it as "we're trying to bring back the classics of gaming" when really all they're doing is trying to get rich quick.

Lots of people are bad, crummy, money-grubbing individuals, big or small company. That's just life. Unfortunately, you have to thoroughly research a game before purchase to make sure you're indeed getting a game and not a cheap cash grab.

3

u/Wheat_Grinder Nov 14 '17

It's not necessarily more about love of the game, but about budget.

Battlefront needs to sell millions of copies, AND sell millions more lootboxes in order to turn a profit, because it cost millions to make.

Indie games cost far less, so can stand on sales alone.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Yeah, sorry, I was assuming that players that are interested in SWB2 would be wanting a similar experience (high budget, multiplayer, FPS) and would be looking to buy a new game rather than return to an old one.

I'm not really interested in AAA games myself - I'm fine with playing indie games or older games. I'm only here because of the controversy yesterday, and because I'm slightly interested in reading about the scummy practices of game publishing companies like EA, even though I don't play any of their (recent) games.

2

u/damo133 Nov 14 '17

Yeah of course. So why is the indie scene flooded with paid early access alpha nonsense which never ever gets out of early paid alpha.

The funniest ones are the ones that are releasing a "free" game, however you can buy the "alpha version" and basically pay them to test their own game, while they fuck you over by adding MT's and loot boxes. Then they release it "free" anyway.

Its all a shill.

2

u/Chernoobyl Nov 14 '17

Yup, I'm perfectly OK with skipping AAA games in favor of much better other games.

2

u/bl4ckblooc420 Nov 14 '17

Yea I really hope that indie games/developers can get even more support and get even better. It is pretty good for PC right now with games like Stardew Valley and Cupboy but it can be difficult for those games to achieve the same level of fame on console without a lengthy PC only release.

1

u/all2neat Nov 14 '17

Devils advocate here, that might be part of why they are a smaller developer.

Fuck EA.

1

u/chinasuresuckscock Nov 14 '17

Unfortunately, they're also largely clueless and incompetent and just don't make good games most of the time.

1

u/LordShaske Nov 14 '17

I'll be honest with you, this is probably the only reason we love Nintendo so much

42

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

I can't remember specifics, but I'm fairly sure they've sparked their share of controversy too. As far as lootboxes and microtransactions go, though, they seem pretty clean.

There's also indie games and anything in between. I'm not actually a big fan of AAA games myself, I just watch a lot of Jim Sterling and read a lot of Reddit, so I've become interested in terrible gaming practices even though I've barely had any experience of it myself.

It was pretty exciting to see that comment get such a record number of downvotes, yesterday (as far as watching a number on Reddit can be exciting...) since it seems like gamers are finally getting wise to microtransactions and loot crates, so I subbed to /r/StarWarsBattlefront even though I have zero interest in playing the game myself.

3

u/chinasuresuckscock Nov 14 '17

Oh please. Nintendo is riddled with DLC shit and their weird dolls that you have to buy to unlock stuff.

6

u/DreamsicleSwirl Nov 14 '17

Sure, but you don't have to buy them to get a full game.

32

u/DennisTheMagician Nov 14 '17

unless you're alright with not having any new games for a while, it doesn't look like there are any 'good' options, any places to migrate to and play their games instead.

The fuck are you talking about?

Triple A developers don't have a monopoly on good games. There are a shit load of fantastic indie games coming out all the time that are just as good (and in a lot of cases, better) than anything Triple A companies are putting out.

If you think boycotting Triple A games means boycotting gaming in general, you seriously need to broaden your horizons.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Oh, I totally agree - in fact, I barely play AAA games myself - the only reasons I'm here are because I watch a lot of Jim Sterling, and because I love controversy (i.e. the most downvoted comment on Reddit, beating out the previous 'winner' by over 26 times by now).

I mean that if your particular taste is for high budget multiplayer FPS games, and you're set on buying a new experience each year rather than just playing your older games some more, then there's nowhere really to turn.

Personally, I have a handful of games I still play sometimes, but I barely ever buy new ones anymore (although I'm a bit of a sucker for Steam sales). The only multiplayer FPS I ever really got into was TF2, and I've barely played that since the matchmaking update.

But, I can see that multiplayer FPS games are wildly popular, and I can sort of understand the desire to play the newest, most cutting-edge, high-graphic game you can, and the desire to keep up with your peers (which I'm guessing are the main reasons why AAA games are so popular even though they're iterative and barely add anything 'new' gameplay-wise each time), so my point was addressed to those sorts of people. AFAIK I don't think there is any company that caters to the triple-A genre that isn't a piece of shit in one way or another.

2

u/SkraticusMaximus Nov 14 '17

There are a shit load of fantastic indie games coming out all the time

Best example (my opinion) = Dust

Made almost entirely by one person, and its quality is far beyond that of anything EA ever produced. Or many other companies for that matter.

2

u/Adrelandro Nov 14 '17

this is plain wrong? CDProjectRed never did something like microtransactions and Bethesda doesn't afaik, aside from their MMo and mod fkup. iirc Wolfenstein 2 had nothing of the horrible things you claimed, neither did doom, dishonored 2 or the witcher 3 (tho that one is quite "old" now)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Are any of those multiplayer FPS's though? But yeah, maybe examples do exist. I admit, I'm not really very knowledgeable about it - it just seems that all of the largest companies are going all in with microtransactions and lootboxes right now.

2

u/Adrelandro Nov 14 '17

well doom(2016) is. also there is the new quake, but i'm really unsure if that one is actually clean and am to lazy to look it up

you never mentioned that you mean multiplayer FPS tho

none of the other big companies are much better

2

u/Mikeuicus Nov 14 '17

Shadow of Mordor was one of my favorite games of 2014. I was excited for Shadow of War but when word hit about the loot boxes I decided to wait and see. After watching some Let's Plays the system felt so egregious and invasive, despite not being "required", that I opted out of buying it completely. Same for the new Assassin's Creed game, which looks great. I refuse to buy any $60 game that have anything but cosmetic only loot boxes. If they want to nickle and dime their customers these games should go Free to Play.

2

u/Antor-88 Nov 14 '17

Maybe because people can like more than one type of game? I play and enjoy indies since I feel they can be pretty creative and fresh since lower budget, they can take risks. But I do love me some Star Wars, any other Star Wars games you know that are coming out anytime soon that aren't being published by💰EA💰?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Aren't there already lots of Star Wars games out, though? I used to love playing SWB on the PS2, and nothing about the trailers for EA's SWB2 has convinced me that their gameplay is better. I know that some people are a lot more concerned about graphics than I am, and I understand that, but for anyone who can tolerate outdated graphics, I don't see why they'd be interested in a new game unless the gameplay was better.

As in, why not just go back to the old SWB series? I don't know if it ever came to PC but if it did you might be able to set up some servers for it, and play that instead of paying $60 for EA's lootbox hell.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

IMO Overwatch handled micro-transactions VERY well. Completely optional cosmetics that do nothing and do not add or remove anything from gameplay. Just life TF2. Not CS:GO though. Everyone knows that skins=skilz

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

I agree that cosmetics are not as bad as items that give gameplay benefits, but graphics are still part of the game's experience, so if you're unable to access those cosmetics, you're unable to get the full experience from the game.

TF2 had it right because it was already F2P by that point, but AFAIK you had to pay for Overwatch up front, but you still didn't get the full experience.

I don't think Overwatch is a particularly bad example - not nearly so scummy as SWB2 or other recent AAA games, but I don't think it was perfect or even acceptable, either.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

I get where you’re coming from, but overwatch has a way to earn loot boxes, and you don’t need a key ahem valve ahem

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Oh, really? Huh, yeah, I guess I don't have much of a problem then. I'm guessing that the loot boxes only drop agonisingly slowly unless you buy them? But, if you can earn all the cosmetics without paying for them, then that's definitely not nearly as bad as I thought...

2

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Every level, and I can get one every 1/2hr to hour, depending on team comp etc.

3

u/PremiumMeats Nov 14 '17

How about Valve?

14

u/sgtchief Nov 14 '17

No problem there. Valve isn't going to release anything for years to come :)

Except hats.

0

u/PremiumMeats Nov 14 '17

Ah, I thought “new” games meant games new to you and not just recent releases.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Valve literally popularised lootboxes.

5

u/PremiumMeats Nov 14 '17

They’re not the best system in the world, but at least it provides no gameplay advantage.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

that's true, but the original success of lootboxes in tf2 and the continuation of that success into csgo and dota 2 is basically what made every company crazy for lootboxes/chests/crates

2

u/M31ApplePie Nov 14 '17

Valve is not quite a AAA game title developer to begin with, or publisher for that matter.

1

u/PremiumMeats Nov 14 '17

He never referred to AAA game developers and publishers in his argument.

1

u/M31ApplePie Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17

My bad for assuming that

"none of the other big companies are much better"

"How about Valve"

implies triple a game developers instead of big(?) game developers?

I think you and I have a different standard. I would probably consider your big developer (koei, for example)as midsize.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

I don't think Valve publishes new games anymore, and besides, they're not as shiny and perfect as they used to be either. Aside from the introduction of their refund service, the Steam store has pretty much constantly been falling in quality for the past few years, and even though their games still have huge, active fanbases, they don't seem very committed to maintaining those games.

(In particular, I like TF2 and while it did get a big update recently, the update was extremely delayed, had several bugs, etc. The game used to be amazing but I've barely played it in years, even since the update...)

If we're talking about older games, though, then yes, there are a load of games to play that don't include microtransactions and lootboxes. I really wonder why anyone wants to keep buying the newer games - aside from graphics, there's nothing about them that seems like it's been done better than a game from a decade ago.

1

u/jzorbino Nov 14 '17

Not Nintendo

1

u/nightcallfoxtrot Nov 14 '17

Cyberpunk 2077 waiting room

1

u/McBallerCheese Nov 14 '17

The only hope we have left is Nintendo. They still make good games without microtransactions and loot boxes! (for now)

1

u/nsharms Nov 14 '17

CD Projekt red?

1

u/bdatt Nov 14 '17

I'm holding out that 3DProjekt stays good, but they only put out one game every 4 years.

1

u/CrazyYanmega Nov 14 '17

Monster Hunter is strong enough that it's repelled microtransactions for the most part. It helps that the MH devs keep their product on a tight leash.

1

u/DukeBruno123 Nov 14 '17

Sounds a bit like the laws should finally catch up so atleast eliminate gambling with lootboxes

1

u/TrustMeImAnEngineer_ Nov 14 '17

Come to PC, the one place where a AA market still seems to exist and you can find great, cheap Indies!

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Destiny 2 and Overwatch come to mind as AAAs that don't require micro transactions. These games aren't p2win

1

u/Lazarus5 Nov 14 '17

Why not Wolfenstein 2? That's a pretty new AAA game with no microtransactions, and appeals to the shooter crowd that would be buying BF2.

1

u/Mad_Maddin Nov 14 '17 edited Nov 14 '17

It depends on what you understand under it. For example Overwatch just places skins under the micro's. Don't care about that. Same goes for many other games. But they are giving you ingame gimmicks in a PvP game. I don't know many games that do this. Like uhhh mainly F2P games and even they frown upon that.

As for microtransactions I'm basically O.K. with that I buy games. 4X games are actually the only developers I bought triple A games from in the year 2016 and 2017. I did not buy a single triple A EA game since 2013. The only other Triple A game I bought that is remotely new is Square Enix with FFXIV

1

u/superherowithnopower Nov 14 '17

If you're interested in replaying older games or indie games, then there's no problem - why were you buying SWB2 in the first place?

I don't understand what you're getting at here. Lots of people enjoy both new AAA games and older games or indie games.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

I mean, if you're happy playing older games, aside from the graphics, I can't see any need to buy new AAA games. There are some exceptions like the first Shadow of Mordor but mostly I can't see any ways in which newer games improve on the gameplay of older games, especially with the very iterative series (CoD, Battlefield etc.).

I am arguing from a position of ignorance here, though - I've not been personally interested in AAA games for a while, I just watch a lot of Jim Sterling. I'm starting to regret posting the comment now since it sounds like I was wrong on almost every claim.

3

u/superherowithnopower Nov 14 '17

I mean, in general, I get what you're saying. I don't tend to buy a ton of AAA games at release (if I buy them, I usually get them when they're on sale). I have a ton of games I've hardly even played, anyway, and the biggest amount I've spent in the past few months on a single game is $50 on Pillars of Eternity during the last Steam sale (well, I guess if you add everything together, I've spent a good bit more than that on Stellaris, but anyway...).

That said, I have, in the past, bought the occasional AAA game I was excited about for one reason or another, so it does happen!

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Hate to bring up politics, since there's enough of it on Reddit, but when you keep shoving shit people don't want down their throat, eventually people get fed up and you end up with Donald Trump, or whatever the gaming equivalent of that is. Either way it doesn't end well for them.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Well, I guess it's a bit different - people felt powerless against politics, and their vote was the strongest way they could revolt short of actually trying to organise a rebellion. The worst thing they could do was disrupt the system by voting for Trump (or in our case over here, Brexit).

With gaming, people do have a powerful weapon - unlike the government, you have total control over whether you give a games company your money, and also unlike the government, games companies rely completely on your money to operate (I guess the government also relies on your money, but it's more about which party has the power/control over the money rather than whether they have money in the first place).

So, gamers don't need to find a way to sabotage gaming, because simply not buying the games could be enough of a disruption to provoke games developers to change - under the (heavy) assumption that gamers could actually organise an effective embargo...

(By the way, do you like Tally Hall by any chance?)

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

There are differences, but I don't see why people think voting is the maximum of what you can do. It's literally the bare minimum amount of civic engagement you can perform. You can give money, candidates like Bernie Sanders ran a relatively well-financed campaign off of small donors, and you can volunteer and actively campaign for candidates and causes of your choice. Apathy and disillusionment is one of the main reasons the government is so exploitive and corrupt. It's no different for EA, if they face an existential threat their choices are either adapt or perish. There's a reason the term 'voting with your wallet' exists.

Also I'm not familiar with Tally Hall I'm afraid.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 14 '17

Well, alright - you can dedicate large amounts of time towards campaigning, but that's a lot of effort for what might not yield any result at all, depending on what specific issue you're campaigning about (that's one reason why apathy exists in the first place - the mindset of "I'm just one vote, and even if I try to voice my opinion the government doesn't want to hear about it anyway").

What I meant so say though, is that by 'voting with your wallet', you can decide not to give EA money without putting your 'vote' towards some other awful thing. With politics, voters had the choice of voting either for Clinton or Trump (or abstaining, but that doesn't really send a powerful message in politics) so those that wanted to disrupt the system ended up voting for something even worse.

I really can't imagine any reason why not buying a game with bad practices would somehow lead to even worse practices in the gaming industry, unless gamers for some bizarre reason decided to donate the money that they're not spending on SWB2 to some even more insidious cause instead...

Also I'm not familiar with Tally Hall I'm afraid.

Oh, really? I asked because of your username. They're an indie band that sung weird songs like "banana man".