Where's the pink darth vader?

Where's the pink darth vader?

Sad thing is because that comment has now gained some traction just give it a little bit of time before Pink Vader is put in the game and anyone want a bet that it will be one of the more expensive reskins?

Isn't this like the 3rd or 4th time EA has tried to figure out how to implement MTs into this game? I find it a bit ironic how obsessive EA is over MTs and gambling tactics. Gambling is supposed to encourage people to keep paying more money, despite the fact you'll never get it all back; you're going to lose out eventually. To me, it is EA who has the gambling problem - they're so addicted to adding MTs despite the fact that it's just lowering the popularity of the game. At first it was outrageous, now it's just sad and pathetic.

I see nothing wrong with visual MT as long as it is not gamble based and does not give advantage (better camo). Pink Vader would not give advantage to anyone. (Walking attention seeker.) ...unless there is Willy Wonka's Candy Factory Map.

Fox2232:

I see nothing wrong with visual MT as long as it is not gamble based and does not give advantage (better camo).

I agree - cosmetic MTs aren't that bad. But context plays a role here. In a lot of games, cosmetic MTs are mostly just there so people can show their enthusiasm for the game - it gives them a little flare while the devs get some bonus cash. It's important to distinguish that in most of these cases, the devs don't depend on these MTs for revenue. But considering how hard EA has been pushing MTs, it just looks like they're begging "please give us money, this game has a lot of debt to pay off".

schmidtbag:

To me, it is EA who has the gambling problem - they're so addicted to adding MTs despite the fact that it's just lowering the popularity of the game. At first it was outrageous, now it's just sad and pathetic.

They're doing fine as far as I know. All EA really cares about are initial sales and then milking the game as hard as they can post-release. Until the majority of people stop buying their games they're not going to change, and like it or not we're the vocal minority on this. If I remember correctly even after all the angry comments on various forums and reddit that made them initially disable the lootboxes BF2 was still a top seller at release.

I am so happy i steer clear of touching games at launch, nice to sit safe on the sidelines and watch the ensuing mess unfold. lol

Turning Players into Payers.

EA can't help himself, there is simply too much money at stake... ...and too many dumbs ready to buy the pink Darth Vader skin! 😀

schmidtbag:

I agree - cosmetic MTs aren't that bad. But context plays a role here. In a lot of games, cosmetic MTs are mostly just there so people can show their enthusiasm for the game - it gives them a little flare while the devs get some bonus cash. It's important to distinguish that in most of these cases, the devs don't depend on these MTs for revenue. But considering how hard EA has been pushing MTs, it just looks like they're begging "please give us money, this game has a lot of debt to pay off".

The issue is that as the whole MT gambling / lootbox thing in SWBF2 was starting to blow up EA actually said to it's investors that turning off lootboxes won't hurt their profits https://www.pcgamer.com/ea-tells-investors-turning-off-battlefront-2s-microtransactions-will-not-affect-earnings/ It confuses me it really does, I make a decent product based on a long loved fandom and release it at a decent price and I know that if I sell it at a decent price I'll make money, in facts lots of money. Now because I have been drinking rather heavily for the last three years I opt to smear this product in shit and then charge my customers an extra fee for this. I know that doing this won't make me any more money but I opt to do this anyway. Seriously did no one at EA even think for a second that doing something that is only going to piss people off and in EA's own words 'won't make them any more profit' was a massively bad idea?

They're doing fine as far as I know. All EA really cares about are initial sales and then milking the game as hard as they can post-release. Until the majority of people stop buying their games they're not going to change, and like it or not we're the vocal minority on this.

The issue for EA here though is that vocal minority made enough noise to start getting governments looking at the legal standing on lootboxes, the ESRB actually changed their rating system based on it (a milk toast and utterly pointless and worthless change but a change all the same) they made enough noise that the house of mouse actually started to look in to it with rumours being that Disney forced EA to remove them due to the backlash and it would seem that developers themselves are now starting to distance themselves from lootboxes as a whole, Shadow of War just announcing it plans to remove them and EA themselves are now having to reconsider having lootboxes in Anthem (which we know fine well would have been lootboxed to the hilt had it released last year.) The big indicator of weather it has had an effect is what happens with the next FIFA game, this game has had this similar pay to win / lootbox mechanic for the last few years and seems to have gone pretty much under the radar, it will be interesting to see if it has a similar pay to win mechanic with the next FIFIA game