EA plans Battlefield V microtransactions from January

[HEXUS]

'BCoins' will be used to buy optional cosmetic items for character customisation etc.

Read more.

[Phage]

As a long-term Battlefield player I'm fine with this for cosmetics only

[Moonister]

As a long-term Battlefield player I'm fine with this for cosmetics only

don't be naive...it's like me saying I'll go with your g/friend to Ibiza but don't worry because we won't do anything naughty.

...it's only downhill (not fun kind) from there.

[Moonister]

and just to add I'm a battlefield player too...but EA is certainly getting greedy to the point of loosing perspective of what's good for the players / customers.

[OilSheikh]

EA never learns, do they ?

[Tabbykatze]

don't be naive...it's like me saying I'll go with your g/friend to Ibiza but don't worry because we won't do anything naughty.

...it's only downhill (not fun kind) from there.

Bad metaphor.

This is more like getting a coffee at Costa:

"what do you mean you don't want six shots, cream, sprinkles and chocolate on your mocha frappabullpoo?"

You just look like a weirdo not taking part.

Microtransactions are here to stay and no one can change that, especially for a multiplayer only game. This is the lesser of two evils.

[aniilv]

I was wondering why the currency was so hard to obtain, like simple pants would need tens of hours of gameplay to get.

Microtransactions, of course.

[Syphadeus]

... This is the lesser of two evils.

Hmm. You seem to be of the opinion that micro-transactions are a forgone conclusion "especially for a multiplayer only game". I would disagree. There are certain business models where micro-transactions are a fundamental / necessary part of the product. That business model, predominantly, is free-to-play.

In a triple A title, and one that has been released incomplete no less, to posit that it is the lesser of two evils isn't the way to go. Certainly, you should be withholding judgement until you can get a good idea of the price structure and how much grinding would be required to get these cosmetics without having to pay. This is a really important factor to consider if you're judging the whether this business practice is being applied ethically. As it's EA I suspect it will be absolutely exploitative but it remains to be seen. It CAN be done in a way that is more respectful toward paying customers but it's a difficult line to walk.

To shrug it off and simplify it as a lesser of two evils is, I think, showing a lack of understanding of this issue in modern gaming.

[Tabbykatze]

Hmm. You seem to be of the opinion that micro-transactions are a forgone conclusion "especially for a multiplayer only game". I would disagree. There are certain business models where micro-transactions are a fundamental / necessary part of the product. That business model, predominantly, is free-to-play.

In a triple A title, and one that has been released incomplete no less, to posit that it is the lesser of two evils isn't the way to go. Certainly, you should be withholding judgement until you can get a good idea of the price structure and how much grinding would be required to get these cosmetics without having to pay. This is a really important factor to consider if you're judging the whether this business practice is being applied ethically. As it's EA I suspect it will be absolutely exploitative but it remains to be seen. It CAN be done in a way that is more respectful toward paying customers but it's a difficult line to walk.

To shrug it off and simplify it as a lesser of two evils is, I think, showing a lack of understanding of this issue in modern gaming.

I'm a long time player of Warframe that is the biggest grindfest to get anything and you can buy pretty much anything with just 23 digits from your fantastic plastic.

This is not an issue in modern gaming as long as you understand that there is a difference between cosmetics and game altering monetisation.

There are many Japanese RPGs that if you don't pay for the game altering items then you might as well not play.

Cosmetics are just there for the players enjoyment, nothing more. If they make money then that's a win but is not the basic focus of the game. Battlefront 2 is an example of bad monetisation because it altered the way the game worked having them or not.

I think you misunderstand the different types of monetisation and how it affects games. There is bad monetisation and ignorable monetisation. This is an ignorable monetisation and therefore my assertion it is there lesser of two evils is valid.

Monetisation itself is not negative. It is negative when abuse against consumers becomes the focus or it can negatively impact yours or other players games.

Having a sexy dva skin makes me play no better or worse than having the standard skin. I can pay for it or i can earn it, either way, not a big thing. Lesser evil.

Edit: And to add, most games are shareholder driven from their publishers so they want to maximise ROI of which monetisation can help with this.

Welcome to financially driven games development, this maxed out credit card will be your guide.

[Corky34]

[ik9000]

Monetisation itself is not negative. It is negative when abuse against consumers becomes the focus or it can negatively impact yours or other players games.

Having a sexy dva skin makes me play no better or worse than having the standard skin. I can pay for it or i can earn it, either way, not a big thing. Lesser evil.

I'm fairly sure I've read of gamers stalking base-skins as the likelihood of them being noobs is higher, so much the easier to rack up the kill rate or whatever the driver is. So it does affect people negatively - too much of it and people are incentivised to buy skins just to escape the beasting. Monetisation is just greed. Make a decent product and sell it for a fair price.

[Tabbykatze]

I'm fairly sure I've read of gamers stalking base-skins as the likelihood of them being noobs is higher, so much the easier to rack up the kill rate or whatever the driver is. So it does affect people negatively - too much of it and people are incentivised to buy skins just to escape the beasting. Monetisation is just greed. Make a decent product and sell it for a fair price.

I think to what you are referring to is a topic called "smurfing". If that is the basis of saying skins are bad then that is an incredibly weak argument.

Smurfing happens in CSGO and Overwatch by people making new accounts so they have a lower rank and reset statistics so they match with lower skilled players. That has happened throughout the history of gaming where player ranking is involved regardless of microtransactions or cosmetics.

[delta5361]

As far as cosmetics are concerned, I don't mind. However if this is well received then surely it paves the way to potential 'pay to win' features in the future.

[guybrush1966]

EA....Worst gaming Company ever!! bar none....I resolved never to buy anything from them again last year....garbage like this just enforces that decision....greedy F*****s....

[ik9000]

As far as cosmetics are concerned, I don't mind. However if this is well received then surely it paves the way to potential 'pay to win' features in the future.

Exactly, set precedent then slowly creep. Like invasion of privacy by the state. Start with snooping on suspected terrorists via court order, then move to making isps keep data for 2 years but they can only see it with a warrant (honest gov), then move to no court order, then mandatory data collection on everyone ever because because because. Give a mouse a crumb and it will want the whole cookie.

[Corky34]

Like invasion of privacy by the state you say, creep you say, surely not.