Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
16 days 18 hours
Dark Souls III
4 days 23 hours
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
4 days 9 hours
Sid Meier's Civilization V
3 days 5 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.
As far as I can tell, the 'random champion' token can only sell you champions you don't own, much the same as the re-roll system could only roll you champions you didn't own. It seems like a pretty good idea, especially for people who'll only want to buy the newest champ, but it's definitely annoying that they've removed re-rolls.
They left a note in the warning panel 2-3 days ago saying they raised the price of the mystery champion token, also raising the minimum IP value of these mystery champions. Whilst I can't remember the exact wording anymore, they said it in such a way as to clarify it's limited to champions you don't own. Good news.
The way league has worked before with these deals (previously if you re-rolled 3 champs when you owned all champs) is to give you an unlocked champion shard of a random champion that you do own. I've assumed it's the same with the mystery champion token in the store now, but after a BE spending spree I don't have enough to mess around buying champ tokens (Riot have previously stated champ tokens and boxes content are decided on moment of purchase, so buying a token now wouldn't get me Zoe come her release).
I feel more confident now that champs will still be cheap enough to keep unlocking on release, but I'll return and say for certain come her release.
Apologies but I’m not entirely sure if I follow you correctly, I presume when you talk about gameplay-less DLCs you mean patches/updates that add micro-transaction content to the game?
Whilst technically speaking skins or updates are a form of content, I’d argue that these micro-transactions are nothing more than that, places for people to invest into the game. These would include things like Destiny 1 (and 2 I believe)’s Silver, Star Wars: Battlefront 2’s loot boxes, AC Origins shops weapons/armour and League of Legends skins. It’d also argue they’re not DLC, as rarely do you have to download any files to open/use the microtransaction items (instead being locked files already in the game).
I’ve never really worried over these micro-transactions either, as I’ve managed to resist purchasing any packs I regret. There are always prices you look at and question ‘why’, but others who love the game decide they want to invest that much into the title they really enjoy. For purchasable rewards to exist at the higher boundaries makes sense for me, so long as they don’t disadvantage those that don’t pay (something that the community has recently picked up on and started to complain about).
I believed that the community (and gaming companies) had reached a consensus in this decision, and had also adjusted their usage of the term ‘DLC’, reserving it to cover ‘Expansion Packs’ only. Am I wrong in this assumption? Off the top of my head I can’t think of any companies that are happy to name their small updates and skins as DLCs, but I’m all-ears to titles or names.
I'm just going off that it's all categorised as "DLC" under Steam, and I know I've read news releases that will say "New DLC for [game]" and it's a skin pack (Rocket League is an example of this). I'm not aware that there's been some sort of official categorisation.
As to whether it 'actually' has to be downloaded or not is up to the developer, really, there are plenty of games that download the content regardless of whether you've paid to 'add' it, so I wouldn't think that's a good metric for classification. I believe Forza Horizon 3 does this with its expansions (could be wrong, I'll find out tomorrow), as an example.
Cracks bypass features. Being encoded in binary there's no way to literally remove the DRM (short of hacking into Ubisoft's servers and stealing a DRM-free version of the game). Instead it'll do the same as all the rest of the Denuvo-cracked titles, avoid the security switch from picking up the copy is stolen. It'll still run in the background and slow down the PC just as much as it does in a legitimate copy of the game. Whether or not that is the suggested 40% is hard to tell.
Entertainingly Ubisoft replied saying there's no problems for frame-rate when accounting the games goal of a steady 30fps experience (which is true, most CPUs rarely hurt the frame-rate further than an average 30fps). At the same time they posted on the Bugs post that they're researching into the CPU consumption and are looking into/working on a fix.
Not sure why it's setting out to contradict itself, saying there's no problem but we're working on it anyway. Their approach feels like a car mechanic telling the owner that the tire hasn't got a puncture, the car still drives perfectly fine at 30mph. We'll send out a mechanic next week to take a look anyway, but I don't see any problems.
I Guess we have to wait for physical decacore processor, this optimisation is a shame. Ac origin is one of the few recent games that can crash your entire pc (personnally it happened to 4 or 5 times mostly because I was playing a video at the same time) , so Ubisoft's post is a really bad joke