Oh, nice... It's time again for the inevitable "wait and see" that always end up the same way.
So... Just wait and see. When it's too late for the game.
There's a chance you'll get them in the loot boxes.
You are trying hard to fool yourself if you think they care that you will WAIT to give them more money for content they intentionally make lack in the base game.
But but but... Microtransactions doesn't affect who doesn't purchase it.
Are these guys/codes legit?
Yeah, I agree with you. Why do we have laws and all these rights?
The invisible hand fixes everything. Only good and respectful companies survive.
smh
As if the smaller sites wouldn't love to receive bribe offers.
Generally, they're even worse: in their eternal quest for a bribe offer (or contract, if you prefer to call it that way) they are even more in favour of big companies.
Well, whatever. Gaming bloguism just sucks.
"Can you imagine the shit storm that would follow if they took them out just to reimplement them the exact same way?"
Obviously. Can't you?
Well, surely EA can. They know that they implement the same exact system in a few months and it will be all old news. This is a PR stunt, a bad one, as only idiots felt for it, but there are too many people warning gamers about it.
The problem is: this is just one move in a very carefu...
Hope what is true? It's just another obvious PR stunt. FFS!
So, instead of selling 2.000.000 copies, it will sell 1.990.000 copies and make trucks of microtransactions money?
Such a loss!!!
It really reminds me about how people are stalking EA stock and, everytime it drop 0.01%, a new thread arises about "how investors are pulling their money away" or whatever people try hard to believe.
They are winning, easily. The AMA bought them time and, as I told even before the AMA, IGN and Gamespot are p...
But mostly:
"The speculation is wrong..."
"Ok, so how long does it take to unlock everything, on average?" (Real question on the pathetic AMA
"I don't know" (Can you believe the design director actually used this lie on the AMA???)
Seriously? It's a Star Wars game. There are iconic characters to the franchise, which were locked behind a 200+ USD tag price. How is this ok to you?
Gamespot spent 100 USD on microtransactions. Ended up with ~40% the credits needed for unlocking Darth Vader. Considering you don't spend the credits on anything else.
So it was ~260 USD to unlock Darth Vader. Now it is "just" ~65 USD.
For Darth Vader.
In a Star Wars game.
Which costs 60 USD upfront.
Is it bad enough for you?
PS: Gamespot spent 100 usd in their loot boxes. Ended up with less than half credits needed for Darth Vader.
Think about it for a moment...
240 USD...
For Darth Vader OR Luke Skywalker...
In a Star Wars game...
Talk about "sheep".
BTW, EA has another record now. ^^
Morgan, the difference is probably on the magnitude. It takes a lot to actually ruin a game through greed and we all know EA is first in line for such a feat.
Mts in a 60 usd game is ridiculous, always, for anything. It is just worse when it relates to actual mechanics. And even worse when they are barely obtainable through normal gameplay.
"Everything can be unlocked without microtransactions."
I think we should name this the...
The game is 60 usd. Even if one doesn't buy MTs, everyone who buys the game will be supporting this crap.
BTW, 220k downvotes now.
A month?
It is inevitable. Simple as that. But it might crash in a few years, when games get SO bad design/progression-wise, that it might collapse over itself.
He basically bought tons of premade assets and put it together.
That's his main ability, so I doubt he can pull out an actually good game.
It is a good trailer for asset stores, though.