Star Wars Battlefront II has had an interesting history and needless to say, EA has been making an effort to make things right with the community. To that end, EA released a year in review for Star Wars Battlefront II, a statement recapping 2018 and plans for the future. EA acknowledged that the launch of Battlefront II did not go as well as it had hoped and reminded us that it removed the randomized progression system back in March 2018.
EA also added that the company has been humbled with the response to the post-launch support, stating that the team is inspired to keep making the game as great as it can. In fall 2018, we saw the release of the Clone Wars DLC, adding General Grievous, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Geonosis, and the AT-TE into the mix.
The post closes with a look ahead for Battlefront II, noting all of the upcoming content EA has planned. At the beginning of 2019, we will see the introduction of Count Dooku, Anakin Skywalker, more Clone Troopers, and a new mode. You can also take a look at a road-map EA has put together, showing all the DLC you’ll be able to play at the start of 2019. Considering how dense the first couple months look, 2019 could be fantastic, in terms of post-launch content for Battlefront II.
Whatever your stance is on how EA handled the launch, it’s nice to see the company try and make things right with the community. You can look forward to the next piece of Star Wars Battlefront II DLC when it releases in January of 2019.
[Source: EA]
Star Wars Battlefront 2 microtransactions
-
Thoughts on Battlefront II Microtransactions?
-
Cameron Teague
I am on the side of none of this bothering me really, so I don't really mind if this was done just to save face. This is a business and as such, things will be done to make money. I also don't have any problems with loot boxes and I have loved leveling up and opening new boxes in Overwatch every time. -
Chandler Wood
This is the breaking point. It's a culmination of many things, from gamer outrage, to publisher overreach, to Start Wars being a massive franchise owned by an even more massive corporation. Other developers are bound to take notice of the fallout though, and will likely opt not to toe that line.
It's a bit of both. Of course EA wants to save face as they launch one of their biggest properties. Is that so surprising? But I've talked to the DICE guys. They are passionate about the community and taking feedback to heart. Star Wars is a franchise filled with passionate fans, including the people making the game. They want it to succeed, and honestly, more success means more people buying into whatever microtransactions they put back in there. It's a two-fold operation.They've already admitted that the paid currency is coming back, so it's not a matter of then being gone. The games industry isn't sustainable in its current trajectory. Post-launch revenue streams are a must. But we will see them fix it to become far less predatory and pay-to-win. Dial it back to cosmetics and gamer rage will subside until the next great ridiculous controversy that seems from gamers forgetting that gaming is simply an expensive hobby. -
Elizabeth Henges
I really think it's just an attempt to save face, because... Well, it's Star Wars. The new movie is coming out next month, and Disney probably doesn't want bad publicity involving the series so close to The Last Jedi. I doubt EA would have changed their microtransaction policy if it weren't for Disney's CEO calling and having a chat with EA. While I don't doubt that when the microtransactions come back they'll be better than before, I don't think this will be a lasting change of policy with EA.
-
Keri Honea
Eh, another reason why I'm glad not to be a fan of multiplayer. Not that single-player titles don't occasionally have their own pay-to-win or pay-to-finish models... -
Louis Edwards
I'm not sure I understand what all the fuss is about. Paying for better equipment and/or characters has been implemented in sports games like Madden's Ultimate Team and MLB The Show's Diamond Dynasty for years. It's always a gamble when buying packs and you're better off saving those points or Stubbs for use in the marketplace, but still, you can have the greatest offense and defense in Madden or the greatest pitching staff and batting line-up in The Show and still get your butt handed to you by a more skilled player. Do I like the pay-to-win model? Of course not, but why all the whining about it now? It's not a new concept.
-
Michael Briers
Given Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader were locked from the beginning, it's difficult to see this U-turn as anything other than saving face. And that's okay. As Zarmena so rightly says, implementation is the key here, with Battlefront II being the textbook example of cultivating a pay-to-win environment. -
Paulmichael Contreras
I've been saying this since day one: they should have followed Titanfall 2's post-release DLC plans. Launching free content such as maps, and only asking for payment for new cosmetic items as a sort of tip doesn't piss off any sane person, keeping the game fresh while also creating an avenue for additional revenue for the retained player base. You could see this kind of fallout coming a mile away, but the question was whether Star Wars as a gaming franchise was big enough to weather the storm. I think we now know the answer.
-
Tyler Treese
I get the feeling that we'll see similar microtransactions added back in a few months from now after Disney isn't worried about an upcoming film, and Battlefront II is no longer the hottest topic in gaming. I feel this is just a way to save face, and I really doubt we'll see any meaningful change in how AAA gaming operates. This is a business after all. -
Zarmena Khan
I'm going to go with what one of our comments said: this might just become a case of Mortal Kombat and the birth of video game ratings. It's not microtransactions or loot boxes that are a problem per se, but rather how they're implemented. One could argue that gambling is also a choice and going out to a casino is also a choice. My personal take is that if these microtransactions are starting to cross the line between harmless cosmetics/minor items and games of chance, then I think authorities have every right to look into these practices. I don't consider a total lack of governance a good thing either. Is this backlash going to lead to meaningful change? Maybe. I hope so.
