Star Wars: Battlefront II (The villagers are outside with pitchforks and torches)

Because EA just sat idly by twiddling their thumbs until one day the angry mob just happened to decide to target EA? You don't honestly believe that do you? EA has been constantly pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable and what their consumers are willing to pay for always trying to sneak a few dollars more they can squeeze out of their consumer base with every new product, this backlash is not because EA did "nothing that really matters", if that was the case there wouldn't be a backlash however they just couldn't help themselves and this time pushed the boundary to breaking point and now they are reaping the consequences.

I don't consider EA a victim they are big boys i am sure they can take care of themselves. I am more worried about the long term effects this could have on their business and games because if people can get what they want by yelling loud enough and banging their rattles together either rationally or irrationlly then what's next? I do have to wonder.

And this is about being morally and logically consistent. I had no problem with loot boxes and microtranactions when they were introduced in ME 3 (my first experience with them) I'm not going to raise a fit now.

Well I did see the Loot Boxes in ME3 as pretty scummy and predatory but even so even if you felt that they weren't as big a problem I am pretty sure lootboxes and microtransactions have only gotten worse and more predatory and a line has to be drawn somewhere, just how far does EA have to push it before enough is enough? Where would you draw the line? Do they need to start charging by the bullet before you say this is unacceptable?

To be fair, we aren't in a place with microtransactions where we were when they were introduced to ME3. I have no issue with mts/crates on their own, but I do have issues with how they are utilized and the way they've done it for Battlefront 2 just doesn't seem to work for it, nevermind some of the really problematic ways they were injected into progression.

Also... none of this is new, colfoley. I wonder if people remember how much crap Microsoft got for their 'always-online' policy with then-new Xbox One console? People already call EA's reaction as 'pulling Microsoft' because of what happened. Or how about flack EA (for Simcity) and Blizzard (for Diablo 3) got for 'always-online' requirement in their games. But hey - industry was going in a certain direction and pushing their luck, ultimately people expressed their anger with how things were shaping up and companies have adjusted. I expect the same happen now... until we find another trend that will grow into the issue sometime in the future.

It has been a while since Mass Effect 3 and even when I tried the multiplayer I thought it was pretty crap so I did not play a whole lot of it, basically only enough to get my Alliance readiness rating up or whatever it was called, and even though I could see that the loot boxes were predatory and that the multiplayer was designed to be a grind for the mere RNG chance at getting gear to incentivise spending on lootboxes I believe the most common defenses of the practice that it wasn't pay to win due to there being no competitive aspect (even though you did need higher quality gear to be successful in higher difficulty raids), that of course has changed since Battlefront 2 is a competitive game and you do get a clear advantage over other players with better starcards and higher quality versions of those starcards all of which have to be unlocked via lootcrates.

Also based on what little I did play of ME3's multiplayer mode I don't remember player progression being so closely tied to the lootboxes as it is in Battlefront 2, I believe in ME3 the class you played was the one you leveled up but in Battlefront 2 even that is tied to the number of starcards you have for that class and the only way to get starcards is through lootboxes, as much of a grind ME3's multiplayer was Battlefront seems to be 10x worse.

I've been playing ME3 MP since launch and I can say that besides platinum, the hardest difficulty, it's not a 100% definition of best gear that ensures successes. It's comprehensive understanding of the different classes, the skills that the player defined for each, the weapons and the cooperative efforts in the matches. I've seen players with low kits / gear for gold matches who could hold their own against those with better gear. For those who want a challenge, they would rely on the class biotic powers to set off in tandem with other players or within the class itself.

ME3 MP is unique in that players do not totally rely on the weapons. They're only half the story.

As for the boxes, it's up to the players. If they understand how the game is played, they don't need to spend any $$ just so they can have better gear or for winning; which isn't gauranteed. I for one, never bothered to spend any real money on them. It's all in-game credits earned in successful matches. Even if players fail, they still get some credits. After so many years, I've accrued so much I hardly spend it. It wasn't a grind for me since I enjoy the ME3 MP.

Yes that is technically true however games with lootboxes are designed to be a grind specifically with the goal of frustrating player to the point that they are willing to spend money to get the items they want quicker. Many of the design decisions you see in these games are designed on purpose to incorporate lootboxes and incentivise players to buy them at the expense of player enjoyment and when a game is no longer designed to actually be fun then it defeats the whole purpose of a game to begin with.

While it is technically true that you can still earn items through ingame activities and while those who defend ME3 would claim it isn't as much of a problem since the game was not competitive I don't think it would be quite as fun trying to grind through matches in a competitive setting trying to get the items you need to remain competitive while the players on the opposing team who already have those items keep trouncing you, and if you think there is no way these corporations would do anything as insidious as deliberately matching low level players against high level players with top notch gear in order to incentivise the low level player to spend money on microtransactions to remain competitive think again

There is a difference, yes. On platinum, the mobs' resistance are tripled. It's always best to have at least grade 7 weapon and above, equipped with ammo and knowing who you can partner up to bring about the attack combinations. In gold matches and below, the weapon tier only plays a part in successes. I had a match earlier with a player who went in with tier 1 weapon, kit out in 2s, in a gold match against Reapers. He did well as he was playing a biotic class; the biotic combos did most of the damage. That showed he knew how to play on the strengths of his class skills and to cooperate with the other players. Not all players are like him however, there're inevitably newbies who are inexperienced and go down every few minutes; some just quit after too many deaths. Either due to inexperience or to lag.

Oh they actually changed that? During the beta you had to unlock the weapons and attachments through loot crates as well, or craft them with a large amounts of scrap (a resource you have a chance of getting small amount of in loot crates).

Incorrect. When you reach the milestone needed for unlocking weapons and their attachments, you get credits as well. There are lots of Milestones that grant you hundreds of credits. 

You never needed the best versions of the guns to be fair...I completed a few platinum wit level 4 and 5 black widows in my day, it was doable with a well coordinated team.

Ye, it's not gambling in the exact sense, but it's playing with chances. And since you cannot trade the duplicates with others, the incentive to buy more is the insidious part in it. A bit unfair to compare it to normal collectible random chance purchases. The trading is a big part of those.