Okay, let's look at something like Halo.
Many fans complained about the style shift in Halo 4.
It went from an almost "cartoon" style(basically not overly realistic) to a more photo realistic style.
I'm pretty sure a game like Halo would not suffer if it wasn't up to the standard it's currently attempting.
If it had kept the style of Halo 3(or even Reach as it was a step up from 3) but put more detail and resolution in there, no one would have complained.
And look at Gears of War.
Again, a game which isn't relying on photo realism, but is still a successful franchise.
Gears 4 isn't a huge leap from Gears 3, although you can see the differences, but it isn't trying to look like Battlefield 1 or CoD WW2.
Even GTA V hasn't gone all out for photo realism.
What I'm getting at is, life like games aren't what gamers are expecting.
Personally I'd take better immersion and more interactivity over photo realistic graphics.
In a game like GTA for example, I'd rather have decent physics, more missions, detailed interiors, more interiors, better randomisation for NPCs and their vehicles and a more immersive world, and sacrifice graphics back to a more GTA IV level.
As long as a game doesn't look like it was built for the PS1, graphics aren't the be all and end all.
There are games out there which were made 9-10 years ago(the first Dead Space is a good example) which still look great, even compared to todays games.
In a way you're kind of invalidating something you're trying to say here.
Yes, if we don't like something we can choose not to buy it. And this is the message so many outlets are trying to hammer home to gamers.
Vote with your wallet!
This too could negatively impact gaming.
Sure it's going to have positives, like showing publishers(because it's the publishers who push for MTXs, not the developers) we're not going to put up with their shady practices.
The negative is poor sales of a game meaning less revenue for more games to be made.
I guess that's the point though.
By gamers choosing to boycott games with MTXs and loot crates, this will negatively impact publishers, meaning they'll have to rethink their practices.
And as I've said above, I'm not against proper DLC.
Map packs and extra story content, e.g. the likes of Oblivions Shivering Isles are great. They actually add something to a game.
Loot boxes in general aren't adding anything. Unless they contain content linked to MP progression, as was the case with SWBF2.
MTX are pretty much just single use items which once used cannot used again.
This is usually in-game currency, which is used to buy in-game content, usually consumables.
These items, which can also be obtained in-game through other means, once used are gone and if you want more you're either going to have to grind to get the currency to obtain said items, or pay real world money for the in-game currency to buy more items.
There's really no grey area to these two types of monetising games.
Now, I'm also not against a kind of "games as a service" model. But a pretty specific type.
Take the latest Hitman as an example.
We were able to buy either just the base, first level at a cheap price, or pay for the full game which was drip fed over a number of months.
From what I understand(as I STILL haven't got around to starting it yet), that first level was still pretty big and had plenty of content for it's price.
By the time all other levels had been released it's supposed to be a pretty large game for what you paid for.
IO Interactive can't be doing too badly off the back of it because they've recently gone independent, buying out the rights to some of their games, including Hitman, from SquareEnix.
Now, take that model and apply it to a game like The Elder Scrolls.
Maybe start with a huge map like ESO has(the entire continent of Tamriel).
The base game is centred around one region and has the usual amount of content you'd expect from an Elder Scrolls single player game(maybe a little more as areas in other regions would still be accessible from the start).
Now, instead of Bethesda making a whole new game, they just release quest packs for different regions in the game, thus adding to and continually expanding upon the base game.
Development wouldn't be as intense as the bulk of the game is already out in gamers hands.
They could even release these packs more frequently(yearly?).
I know this is just one game type(open world/RPG), but a similar model could be used for other game types.
I mean, developers have been doing something like this for years already with map packs.
EA over compensated with SWBF2 by offering all future map packs for free as a goodwill gesture following the lacklustre content of the previous game and charging pretty much the cost of the game again for it's map packs.
It was a nice gesture, but as they were already offering 3 times the content of the previous game in SWBF2 base game, I'm pretty sure gamers would have accepted paying for map packs over the current situation.
There are ways to monetise games post release without pissing off gamers.
All these games are available and form the landscape of the industry now when comparing to 20 years ago. And taking this further, perceived AAA games will all have differing budgets too, eg, a quick google shows Destiny at $140m and Watch Dogs $68m back in 2014, yet they will be on the shelves at similar prices on release. Its further complicated by marketing costs dev costs licensing costs and that is down to each individual studio to tailor to their target audiences.
Take this further, we have expansions, deluxe editions and season passes that all flavours of game offer variations of to ensure they make up the shortfalls of inflation. To fully buy a game now costs exponentially more than it did 20 years ago, but its counteracted by far more choice.
I agree that gamer rage can cloud individual issues, but I think the core points on Battlefront have been highlighted correctly, are loot crates gambling? Is it pay to win? If EA have over stepped the mark, its definitely up for a review.
I've personally been aware of loot crates for a while, I recall Plants v Zombies with its seed packets for example, my view at the time was its a fun aside to the game when using in game earned currency, but wary of paying with real world cash. But sure enough, this system has made its way into lots of games in more aggressive forms and its starting to affect core gameplay negatively.
I will say I don't fully understand all systems, I see my lad playing Ultimate Team and not quite knowing what he's up to, but I know enough to make him understand the difference between in game currency and real world payments. Systems tempting kids into more and more cash purchases, especially blind purchases, definitely needs some form of regulation.
@Lostsoul 301281 I think you are somewhat confusing art style with production costs/values. Halo/Gears have always been big budget AAA releases. They were never cheap games to make. I also don't think the main H4 complaints were about the art style.
SWBF2 looks stunning. I don't want downgraded games, I'd rather have microtransactions.
Surely there's more work that goes in to making a game look more realistic than one which doesn't, and therefore translates into cost.
And I'm not disputing that both of the games I mentioned weren't big budget. But as @Toasty has said, you can have 2 games, released at the same time, sitting next to each other on the shelf with the same price, but one cost $140m to develop, and the other cost half that.
Also, I'm pretty sure there was some backlash with Halo 4's art style shift.
I have a £1600 PC to play Battlefield 1 on.I turn all the graphics settings down to min except Textures and Mesh to increase FPS to > 100. Graphics are nice but once you get used to them, what's underneath is far more important.
In the case of Battlefront 2 if EA cannot make money from one of the most popular game types with the Star Wars branding on it without doing micro transactions then they are doing it wrong.
They got greedy and thought because Star Wars fans quite happily pay for merchandise they can fleece them so put the most aggressive type of items in these loot crates because ‘Star Wars nerds will buy anything’ and they clearly misjudged it.
EA can do one and I hope they don’t make a penny profit on this game
this is how i feel about things
cosmetic items only
microtransactions are fine but loot boxes are not ok
if someone wants to buy a blue hat for their game character for £1 why not? but if someone buys £10 of loot boxes gets loads of stuff they dont want but still cant get the blue hat they want that is out of order.
loot boxes are gambling in my book any time you dont know what your going to get its a gamble.
Interesting, that @Cha1ky video states that EA development costs are falling and peaked a while ago. Since ultimate team they have switched focus to the cheap to develop, but more profitable, loot progression systems that you see all over their products, so no innovation here, or investment in better game content. I also remember the Dungeon Keeper fiasco, clearly EA talk at the time was lip service..
Yeah, if it is indeed true then that argument is clearly out of the window.
Lots of sweary as usual from his vids