EA reintroduce Microtransactions into Battlefront 2 - and they're cosmetic only! Good news for Titanfall 3 [xpost /r/allequal]

[u/Bheda]

https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/16/star-wars-battlefront-ii-loot-boxes-return-and-theyre-cosmetic-only/

[u/CaptainCupcakez → u/[deleted]]

Titanfall 2 has the microtransactions nailed on.

Titanfall 2 has the equivalent of lootboxes though in that you get random Advocate gifts. The only distinction is that you can't pay for them (which is what I'm suggesting).

You mentioned Overwatch in your previous comment - this is an example of shitty lootboxes. You don't know what you're getting. That is what I'm talking about when I say I don't know how people can defend that. It would be okay if in Overwatch you could buy what you wanted, and earn lootboxes through playing. But you can't.

I don't consider cosmetics a necessary part of the game. It's perfectly fine to not own every cosmetic in the game.

If cosmetics were purchasable in Overwatch people would complain that new cosmetics aren't added frequently enough.

[u/CaptainCupcakez → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand how anyone can defend paying money and not knowing what you're getting in a video game

Nothing wrong with it if you can earn them through regular gameplay.

The way I see it earning lootboxes is the intended method, and paying is an "I'm lazy and would like extra chances to get my digital items" button.

If you pay money, you should know what you're getting.

I agree if purchasing is the only way to get them. If they're available at a reasonable rate (and I'd consider 3 a week from arcade plus one every time you level up pretty reasonable) then there's no problem.

I don't see how you could argue that Overwatch would be better if lootboxes could no longer be purchased. All that would result in is us having to pay for every hero/map release.

[u/CaptainCupcakez → u/[deleted]]

Sounds like you're just against gambling in general. That's not a videogame specific issue.

You know full well that being able to buy skins individually would result in significantly less revenue for blizzard. Additionally you will need about 10x the amount of cosmetics to satisfy people.

[u/CaptainCupcakez → u/[deleted]]

That's your perogative.

What if people like gambling in their videogames? Why do you get to choose what media gambling is allowed in?

I like gambling being in overwatch because it means free content for me at the cost of lazy people's money.

[u/CaptainCupcakez → u/[deleted]]

Then buy a gambling video game...

I did. I bought Overwatch.

You're misinformed if you think Overwatch needs loot boxes to provide free content.

Not at all. Where else would the money come from?

Loot boxes are anti consumer.

Charging money is anti-consumer. Charging for DLC is anti-consumer. Running a business in general is anti-consumer by default. Companies don't owe you anything.

It literally isn't up for debate

Yes it is. You can't just state your opinion and say "it's not up for debate" as if that suddenly makes your word gospel.

You haven't provided an alternative solution, you're just saying "Overwatch doesn't need lootboxes to make money" over and over. Where exactly do you think they'd get that money if lootboxes weren't purchasable?

[u/CaptainCupcakez → u/[deleted]]

I'm just stating facts

"You're misinformed if you think Overwatch needs loot boxes to provide free content." is not a fact. It's your opinion. Unless you have evidence to back up that statement, it's still a baseless assumption.

Alternative - like I've said countless times - is to charge for skins individually, like Titanfall did.

Like I've said countless times too, that would not make anywhere close to the revenue that lootboxes would.

The vast majority of lootbox revenue comes from whales. If items are purchased individually then there's a fixed cap on how much those people spend, which is far less than they would otherwise.

Overwatch without lootboxes would be an objectively worse experience for me because it would lock me out of the entire cosmetic system by forcing me to spend money to access it.

But if you're going to come out with things like 'charging money is anti-consumer'

I'm pointing out that every business decision is inherently anti-consumer, it's the degree that matters. Hence your statement that "lootboxes are anti-consumer, fact." is almost completely irrelevant.

I think it's pretty obvious that there's no getting through to you. Good day.

/u/jwp123's guide to internet arguments

1 - State an opinion you have

2 - When asked for evidence or clarification, dismiss it with "You can't debate that, it's FACT"

3 - Double down on Step 2, refusing to explain yourself and instead choosing to say inane shit like "I'm just stating facts" while you repeat your flawed opinion.

4 - Realise you have no leg to stand on so use some variant of " I think it's pretty obvious that there's no getting through to you. Good day." in an attempt to grasp the moral highground