51 days 16 hours
Age of Wonders III
4 days 16 hours
2 days 23 hours
Tales of Zestiria
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
22 days 19 hours
20 days 22 hours
8 days 8 hours
I'm not trying to defend the decision to put statistical buffs behind micro-transactions. They made BF2 the literal definition of pay-to-win (the main reason I haven't considered buying the game).
The decision to drop loot box sales (and income) to repair the community backlash though? I'll give credit where it's due. This was the best scenario possible for gamers at the moment. This is the end of my complements for EA though, and the beginning of my skepticism.
If you read my original comment you'll notice I still think they'll put themselves first in the long run, but they won't be as blatant as they were on release.
The entire idea of loot boxes over DLC is a good way for them to earn more money. More people will start to invest if the first barrier is lower (1, 5, I assume 10 loot boxes are still cheaper than an average DLC these days). The lower the price and the greater the reward, the more likely people return and pay more. Addicted investors will keep buying the loot boxes till they have everything (far more income than DLCs) whilst those that previously didn't want to invest £40+ on Expansion Passes will now be tricked into spending more slowly through £2-£10 packages.
Statistically speaking its a flat-out win for EA. It would have been a win for customers too, if only they hadn't imbalanced the game to give payers a literal advantage. Give them skins, or let them unlock kit faster. But don't allow their rockets to shoot further, to come off cool-down faster, or deal more damage. By giving abilities 'levels' to progress through forces people who dont want to invest to either specify into 1 roll or to be at a disadvantage to others. The ideal way to remove satisfying competition from the game.
We can hope customer complaints continue to the point that they re-balance to remove the stronger P2W aspects, but odds are against it. Either they find a way to earn their money, or costs will be cut with DLCs being shortened/rushed out the doors.
Somebody calculated that to get everything you would have to spend thousands of hours or 2100$. How is that a better deal than 50$ for last year's season pass?
They aren't putting the gamer first. If they were putting the gamer first they wouldn't have to try and put out this dumpster fire in the first place.
Exactly. They're quite literally putting the Gamer last in this scenario. They've been pushing it more and more each year, discovering just how much they can get away with. Well now they know, and I hope they pay dearly for it.
Vanilla zones only scale 1-60, BC and Wrath only scale 60-80, Pandaria and Cata 80-90. You're not going to go into Elwyn forest at lv. 120 and get ganked by a Kobold.
Even some of the examples were more toned down than that with some zones only scaling up til 20 or so, so that the world would be broken up more and give you a choice when leveling. Then other zones have a leveling floor so you aren't going straight from Elwyn forest directly into Blasted lands.
Nothing was ever mentioned about scaling dungeons or raids up to 120 outside of specific timewalking events where you have to specifically que for that timewalking dungeon or raid.
Pvp in wow has been a mess since after we left vanilla which was the only time when it was more or less balanced. All this pvp gear and fancy new stuff they did is just fubar. If it aint broke dont need to reinvent the wheel.
Work on really basic things like the worst in class mouse issues if you turn on Vsync that have been around since TF2.
That's an easy enough fix. Just turn off v-sync. If we're gonna talk engine level shit they may as well work on the netcode which has been pretty mediocre in Source engine since the start. Hopefully they do that with Source 2
No, Microsoft said they weren't going to support new CPUs on legacy operating systems and lo, it has come to pass.
Just funny timing with the Ryzen performance differences.