Star Wars Battlefront II Microtransactions Now Live

Star Wars: Battlefront II Microtransactions Now Live

39
Dean Abdou

Microtransactions are now live once again in Star Wars: Battlefront II and as stated last week, players will now only be able to purchase cosmetic items with the Crystals.

From today, gamers can find a variety of cosmetic options to buy either through purchasing more Crystals or just grinding the game and earning them. Options range from different looks for alien soldiers to the more expensive alternative hero outfits.

If you're not one for grinding and you've still got some birthday dollerydoos laying about then you can find multiple different Crystal bundles starting at £3.99 for 500 with the highest bundle costing £32.99 for 4400 Crystals. To give you an idea of what exactly that would get you, the scarred Kylo Ren look from The Last Jedi costs 1,000 Crystals so you'd be looking at spending quite a fair bit just for a new look.

The microtransactions are now live for players to purchase in Star Wars: Battlefront II on PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC. You can read more about them along with the Ewok Hunt game mode here.

Comments
39
  • Is this a F2P game? No? Then fuck this, even "cosmetic" microtransactions are bullshit. Fuck EA. Fuck the assholes who will defend this.
  • @1 I completely agree with you. All mircotransactions are bad for gamers. Companies should aspire to give free content to gamers as a thank you for purchasing their products. EA took one step forward removing their pay to win system but now I feel they have taken another step backward.
  • ?Wasn't there a recent article about what they did wrong with the first one and still they use this micro system? Mmm, smells a bit like hypocrisy...
  • Haha go away
  • So, 1 skin costs £8? How long would you need to play to grind out 1000 crystals ingame? [I wanna see what value they have decided to put on our time ;3 ]
  • @1 I agree in so much as I never purchase micro transactions but you've got to look at it from another perspective, by putting them into the game rater than making content like this free it means they make more money and the base cost of the game can remain the same. cost of buying games hasn't really increased in the past 20 years but cost of making them has so either they need more sales or they need additional income. as I've always said if they don't effect gameplay and are purely cosmetic, let the morons spend money on it
  • At least you know what your buying unlike lootboxes. Lootboxes are the worst.
  • £8 for a new costume? Ha, great to see EA are listening.
  • @6 I totally agree. I'm not a fan of loot boxes or MTs but game production has increased so much the past generation or two and we are still paying the same, maybe less if you factor in inflation. They need funding from somewhere and I don't mind loot boxes if the drop rates are OK. In my opinion Overwatch has got it about as right ad I could imagine it being.
  • No Pink Darth Vader No playing when it comes to EA Access
  • @6, your actually wrong, over the last decade games have risen from £30 releases to £50, with some places such as game pushing that up to £60... customers over here are just getting screwed over even more...
  • #11 Amiga games were £30 25+ years ago. SNES/Megadrive games from around the same time often hit £50-60 for the UK PAL releases. Game prices have not gone up. UK Supermarkets selling them as loss leaders at £29.99 for years doesn't mean that the rrp wasn't £39.99 or more. This is why many indies have closed as their trade price from GEM/Centresoft was often more than the supermarkets were selling it for
  • @6 & 9, Don't kid yourselves... Most of the time when you pay $60, you're usually getting half a game, or a half-baked game. They fix the problems months after release, after you've paid them, and they feed you the rest of the game in season pass/DLC bullshit that you pay for (in a double-dipping) sort of fashion, not counting MTs. Even if we adopt your theory in that the price hasn't changed, when they give you half a game, they gave you less for more in a sense, and when they want you buy season pass/DLC bullshit, it's like they're making you pay twice.
  • So #1 may call me an asshole but I don't give a crap, these are cosmetic and since they can be also be obtained without paying (by you know, actually playing the game)then it's not content being kept from those who don't want to pay on top of the game. They don't give any advantages to gameplay, they just take advantage of people who are happy to part with their own money for it. No one is being forced to pay. Cosmetic only transactions which can be unlocked via gameplay don't bother me in the slightest.
  • @6 & 9: The game publishers are not crying poverty. They are raking in hundreds of millions of dollars annually. It is fans such as yourselves who have concocted this excuse that the costs of games have risen and therefore microstransactions offset those costs. You are wrong. Rockstar made $500 million in microstransactions back in 2015. Activision Blizzard made over $4 billion on microtransactions in 2017, which represents over half of its revenue for that year. You're consumers. Stop sticking up for the producers, you're only hurting yourselves.
  • @14 said: "Cosmetic only transactions which can be unlocked via gameplay don't bother me in the slightest." Well, they SHOULD bother you, since the fact that they CAN be unlocked during gameplay does not mean that they will be unlocked within a REASONABLE amount of time. "Pay $10 for a costume or grind for 100 hours to unlock it" is not a reasonable proposition. And since the entire point of MTX is to tempt consumers, it makes sense for them to be priced just low enough that they're preferable to a grind. If you're a reasonable consumer, that should infuriate you.
  • Remember production prices have gone down. For the SNES and Megadrive the cartridges were very expensive to produce and very rarely went on sale. Printing a Blu-Ray costs very little by comparison. It only looks like prices have stayed the same if you compare to cartridge consoles. Microtransations on cosmetic items is fairly harmless. It's when you have to pay for essential content which should be in the base game. Destiny locked you out of most of the online modes unless you bought the expansions which is unfair.
  • @13 more fool the player who buys a half baked game. In the end, it's down to us as the consumer to judge if the game is worth it. They are not making you buy their game.
  • @16 they don't bother me because I can control my impulses. If I don't want to pay for it and the grind is something I deem too long, I don't bother with it. It's down to personal preference whether something is a reasonable grind or not.
  • Public statement tomorrow: "We never intended to make that skin 8 bucks, we're still learning the ins and outs of screwing with our player base. Please be patient, we're always evaluation our level of stupid"
  • @18, Correct... no one forces anyone to buy a game, but I'd be hard pressed to believe you've never bought a game that wasn't plagued with some sort of issues/glitches in which you needed to wait for patches/updates to correct those said issues. Those are the half-baked games. Unless you wait a year or a fair amount of months later to buy a game to allow time for patches/updates, you'll never know a game is half baked until you buy and play it because the publisher is certainly not going to broadcast that the game is half baked upon release of a game.
  • @18, as for getting half a game, I'm referring to games that release, require a season pass, and the publisher already knows/has four DLCs they'll release with the pass. We know in the days of old before this kind of crap existed, those four DLCs would've likely been included in the game. Again, no one is forced to buy the game, but this is a model adopted by a great, many companies, so you either deal with it under protest, wait for sales (which doesn't eliminate the model), or quit gaming altogether.
  • @3 the first one didn't have microtransactions the article was probably talking about this one but on release
  • @22 " We know in the days of old before this kind of crap existed, those four DLCs would've likely been included in the game. " Well this isn't necessarily true is it. Developers having a DLC plan for a game is not inherently a bad thing, because the effort required to produce the DLCs would not have been put in in the first place unless there was a monetary incentive. Otherwise developers would have taken 10+ years to release games because they could constantly develop more stuff for it for free. The way dev cycles work it can make perfect sense to start mobilising some teams to work on future content while the game is still being finished, because their role isn't necessarily still required on the full game.
  • People really defend developers like Dice or Epic who sell items for around 10 bucks? wow
  • @5 according to the xbox app, I have 26 hours played, which includes idle time and campaign time, so let’s say about 17 hours and I honestly think i’ve only unlocked like 25 crystals. Keep in mind that, I’m not great and don’t actually actively pursue challenges that grant crystals. For an average player, I would say they can probably get an average of about 2 crystals an hour. So EA thinks 500 hours of our time is worth £8.
  • @24, I agree in that having a DLC plan is not a bad thing, to get a head start on things. However, but I often wonder, is it really extra content when you see what you get from the start? I'm seeing it from the perspective of this... I make a fighting game that I program to have 24 fighters. I charge you $60, but only give you 16 fighters, and then release two DLC packs for $10-$15 each, giving you the remaining 8 fighters (4 at a time) that were there to begin with. You've gotten less for more... In the days of old, the game would've cost you $60, you'd get 16 fighters, but the other 8 were unlockable by beating the game with certain characters or at certain difficulties. This is no different than designing a game with say, a multiplayer feature, making 14 maps, and making 8 of those maps playable with your $60 copy. I make you buy a season pass, and give you the other 6 maps, two at a time, spread over three DLCs. Another example, paying for a season pass/DLC for a Time Trial feature, or Challenges feature. Remember when those features used to be unlockable after beating a game?
  • We are getting the good BF2 next week. Ill never play this EA garbage again.
  • People who claim that developers need to implement microtransactions in order to offset the rising costs of game development are just theorizing this and don't know for sure that this is actually true. I love how no sources are ever provided for such claims. This also wouldn't really explain all the publishers/developers who don't implement microtransactions but still manage to release financially successful titles. The bottom line is there is no need for microtransactions - they are simply a way to maximize profits. I get that in most cases, they are used for purely optional cosmetic in-game content. The problem with this is that there's been a standard in place for decades now - that you can unlock all available content in-game through normal play. By offering any sort of content, cosmetic or not, as purchase-only (in this case with Battlefront II, given that it takes an obscene amount of time to unlock the content, it might as well be purchase-only), they are going against said standard. As a result, whereas a gamer used to pay a flat $50 to buy a game and unlock all content through in-game play, they are now paying up to quadruple that to unlock all content. IMO, the price model should revert back to what it always was - that is, you pay between $40 - $60 for a full game and then $5 - $15 for each new DLC pack, given that it adds a fair amount of content and required a fair amount of time and effort to develop following initial release. So long as developers are making quality games, this traditional model should work well for them.
  • @12, I was talking specifically about game/game station/electronics botique, these are the prices they sold at, if games did take a dive around the ps1 generation, then have slowly glimmer back up, prices have still increased here. I wasn't referring to super market prices at all but video game specialising retailers.
  • @29 Cats already out of the bag, with the absolutely outrageous success of GTAV based so heavily on micro transactions, no big-time publisher will ever want to forgo the possibility of such long-running revenue streams. As for your hope for "traditional" payment structures, there are plenty of games that still do this. The Witcher 3 is one of the most successful games of the generation and that sold a fully-fledged game, with 16 free DLCs and then two huge paid expansions. These games are still around. But the crux of the matter is publishers like EA and Ubisoft are here to make money. They always have been. The market has shifted and new ways to do that have arisen by delivering games differently. It's our job as consumers to call out when things go too far, but fundamentally people seem to want this new means of game delivery. The market spending supports it. Without financial incentive what reason would EA have for actually putting money into studios to produce these games we know and love?
  • @15&29 well we know the price of salary has gone up and game production staff are generally of greater number than they used to be due to complexities of game creation, so I would say it's likely. That and the fact so many smaller deva close because they say they cannot afford to make games anymore also makes up this "theory". @17 I was thinking more of DC games. I remember paying £40 each for those.
  • WAAAAAHHHH WAAAAHHH!!! @1 If you don't like it, don't buy/play it. Otherwise no one cares about your useless opinion.
  • @32 No game studios are making the claims you are. Studios have always gone out of business, even when costs were comparatively cheaper. Salaries in SOME instances MAY HAVE increased, but game profits have risen as well. It's not a theory, it's poorly-reasoned guesswork.
  • @29 & 34. Actually, you are the ones with sloppy guesswork. To not think that the cost of developing games has not significantly risen in 20 years while the complexity of said games has increased exponentially is boarding on insanity. What in your life has not increased in cost in 20 years? https://www.google.com/amp/s/kotaku.com/why-video-games-cost-so-much-to-make-1818508211/amp
  • *bordering
  • @34 "Some salaries may have increased"? You think that most people earn what they did 20 years ago? There are plenty of articles to backup my claim. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/10/31/why-have-video-game-budgets-skyrocketed-in-recent-years/amp/ https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2014/09/economist-explains-15
  • @33 then why does he have 13 thumbs up and you have -2?
  • Micro transactions are taking the place of dlc and I hate it. No new content, just money for accessories.
  • You need to register before being able to post comments

Game navigation