Not only is it reportedly a much better game (if it wasn’t for the predatory bullshit), but it came with an entire singleplayer campaign to boot. They put a ton of money and effort into this game. EA must be desperately unhappy right now. Serves them right.
Much Kylo Ren, I don’t really care if they’re redeemed.
If they wanted to have the predatory free to play style rewards in it then it should’ve been free or nearly free to play out of the box. They got greedy and they’ve certainly paid for it.
Agree completely. You get predatory lootboxes OR full priced game. They flew too close to the sun.
I don’t begrudge companies making money. Their purpose for existence is to do that (well, along with providing a product and/or service). But there’s always a balance that I think should be struck between consumer and corporate needs, or else the relationship between them gets strained and eventually severed. EA has for some time been swinging that balance further and further toward their side, and this crisis seems to be the natural result of just going too far.
Correcting it, however, seems trickier.
Many consumers view companies almost as people, with personalities, consciences, and motivations. That’s not a crazy thing; it’s a mental shortcut which simplifies the relationship and allows for us to process decisions and interpret data more efficiently. However, this dynamic works against companies such as EA in these scenarios. People feel “wronged” and expect an apology. That apology is assumed to come with “fixing” whatever was “wrong” and then an act of contrition/ good faith to try and make up for the indiscretion. In short, just fiddling with the numbers and making the rewards system a bit more player friendly won’t win a lot of people over. EA needs to do something more dramatic to meet that goal.
If I worked at EA, I’d hate to be in that position. They can follow every reasonable consumer request, and it still wouldn’t be enough for many, so I’d want to throw my hands up in the air in pure frustration. So eventually, I expect an over-correction as an attempt to salvage the consumer base. I don’t know if it’s workable within the confines of Battlefront II, so it may be in the next big title they pump out.
With this, the negative reaction to Mass Effect earlier this year, the cancellation of a Star Wars game and a whole studio closing along with it, and the disaster that Need for Speed seems to have turned out to be, Electronic Arts has had an awful year with anything that’s not sports related. Heads should probably roll over there.
I don’t feel wronged or want any kind of apology. I don’t begrudge them making money, either. The method they have chosen is too rich for my blood, so I’m out. There’s really nothing more to my feelings than that.
That assumes digital is constant, which is it is not; according to other sources digital grew by 40% year over year in 2017.
Right. I’m still going to assume that they didn’t hit 2.1 million for launch month, and I’m going to also predict they won’t match Battlefront’s 12 million NPD total for 2015.
Possibly; but if digital is growing 40% year over year that’s a sizable jump:
| 2015 | 10,000 |
| 2016 | 14,000 |
| 2017 | 19,600 |
At a 40% yearly growth rate, in two years you’ve doubled.
Who knew that poisonous launch publicity would have a negative affect?
Seriously, if EA is going to sell people the right to play their games early, they had better be DAMN sure that these games can stand up to the scrutiny. Both ME:A and SWB2 were devastated by this cool idea that EA had but didn’t think through all the way to making games that worked right on day 1. (and Sims 4 would have been similarly beat up if anybody gave a hoot about it, that got uninstalled before I even got one achievement)
I got the impression that ME:A fundamentally wasn’t a very good game. That’s not true of SWB2.
You would be mistaken. Not of the impression you’ve received, that does seem to be the word on the block. But it is actually fundamentally a pretty good game. Definitely a lot of fun to be had in a flawed package.
Dunkey, the only reviewer who ever mattered, disagrees.
He called it the Battlefield Earth of videogames. QED.
Well, a) I don’t know who the hell that is, b) I don’t much care and c) I’ve played the game myself and formed my own opinion. If you’re happy with second hand knowledge, it’s your dime dude.
Well let’s check metacritic:
Mass Effect: Andromeda – 72%, 4.9 user
Mass Effect 3 – 89%, 5.7 user
Mass Effect 2 – 94%, 8.8 user
Mass Effect – 89%, 8.6 user
I’m pretty confident Andromeda is the worst game in the series by a sizable margin, in terms of actual gameplay. Critics and gamers agree. There are no evil external lootboxes to blame here, just a badly designed game.
Battlefield Earth (the book) was WAY too long and had some weird ideas about psychology due to being written by L Rob Hubbard but ultimately enjoyable in a trashy sort of way. Battlefield Earth (the movie) was godawful, and not in a so bad it’s good sort of way.
Assumes facts not in evidence. Metacritic is just an averaging system that gives no insight into WHY the scores are what they are. It’s also entirely possible that it was an adequately designed game that failed to live up to its predecessors. And had really lame character animations that lended themselves to internet goof videos.
This should be fun.
What is this supposed to tell me? Is there some golden threshold at which, once a game’s aggregate review score dips beneath, it becomes bad? Or just badly designed? Or maybe just shitty cover art?