Did Ea shoot themselves in the foot with BF2?

[Illidan Stormrage]

So Battlefront 2 honestly looked like a great game, until the beta. During the Beta we learned that to compensate for a lack of paid DLC(Season pass) we are getting a loot crate system. Now don't get me wrong their are great loot crate systems out there like CSGOs, or Overwatches, But this one is basically paid to win system to and from. The loot crates can give you: Star cards, weapons, upgrades for heroes, upgrades for fighters, emotes, skins, and a new currency called crafting parts. Now how the system works is like this:
1. Every match you earn credits. The amount of credits you get is dependent on how your TEAM does. Not you. so like Communism, everyone gets the same amount even if you did better then the worst player on your team. You get on average about 150 credits. the highest I ever got was 270 but that once.
2. You get a daily loot crate every time you log in. Other crates are purchased by either credits, or another currency called crystals( real money converted to game currency). The lowest level crate is a 1000 and the other three crate types are 1100. This means on average you have to play over 2 hours of game time to earn the lowest costing crate.
3. Due to how much stuff is in these crates, rarely will you get what you want. For example if I want the CR-2 Naboo security blaster, I have to either get 600 crafting parts, or earn it randomly in a crate drop. Keep in mind you can only get crafting parts in crates and their is no guarantee you will get crafting parts. Also that means you would play on average about over 12 hours to get enough for a weapon.
4. Some star cards are extremely powerful. One card I found and equipped was called "Death from a above" this is a Hero Star Card for Boba Fett. The affect at rank one is 50% damage reduction when using your get pack or Rocket Barrage ability. If you rank this up to max its a 100% damage reduction when using this card. Another card I found useful was two tie bomber cards. 1 gave me increased damage with Proton torpedoes and the muilt-missile thing. the other gave me addition missiles I could fire that could go all the way up to 12 missiles.
5. The amount of cards you can have equip is affect by How many cards you have and what rank are they.
6. You can buy loot crates using real money. Yes this is a pay-to-win system.
7. All DLC will be free, but the DLC weapons, emotes, star cards, and cosmetics will be added to the loot crates. Therefore you will have to constantly play in order to get what you want.


This by far has got to be the worse case of Micro-Transactions and loot crates I have ever seen.
EA basically shot themselves in the foot. It saddens me because If I buy this game I am supporting this practice. That sucks because I honestly want to play the campaign, and I loved the space battles.
what do you guys think?

[Pali]

I'd call it pay-to-save-time rather than truly pay-to-win, as you can earn the same rewards through time investment.  Star Trek Online's loot boxes, for example are much more of the PTW variety, as they can only be opened through purchase of keys with credits or through the dilithium exchange - credits cost real money, and no matter how much you play there is a cap on dilithium conversion that means at bare minimum you have to wait three days between purchases of keys.

That said, I'm a bit more forgiving than most seem to be when it comes to these kinds of post-release policies.  If a game is meant to be heavily multiplayer, or continue to be worked on after release, then the company needs to keep making money off of its continued work.  There are a lot of ways to do this, most with their own pros and cons - Paradox combines free content and patches with paid DLC mini-expansions, which lets them keep working on and radically revamp their games for years after release... but it also means that if you want to buy the complete EUIV experience now you need to buy a dozen+ DLCs along with the base game.  STO's pay to win style is brutal for competitive players, but for a casual like me who only ever played solo for the atmosphere and stories it was glorious - I got 100+ hours of playtime in the Star Trek universe without ever dropping a penny.

With BF2, they clearly want to keep the game alive for a while, and to do that they need to release DLC.  Either they charge for the DLC, or they find a way to make smaller amounts of money more often over time - and loot boxes aren't a terrible way to do that.  The advantages afforded by dropping extra cash will balance out over time as other players eventually earn the same rewards.

[Illidan Stormrage]

With BF2, they clearly want to keep the game alive for a while, and to do that they need to release DLC.  Either they charge for the DLC, or they find a way to make smaller amounts of money more often over time - and loot boxes aren't a terrible way to do that.  The advantages afforded by dropping extra cash will balance out over time as other players eventually earn the same rewards.

Then why not just make the loot boxes cosmetic only? Just because it saves some people time isn't a reasonable excuse. Other people may pour in more time and feel cheated when they see a guy who rarely plays unlocks advance weapons and gear through paying real life money at the screen.
I can understand with free to play games, but a AAA game already costs $60.
I mean Cosmetic only has worked for CSGO, and Overwatch so why not a cosmetic only crate system. Putting weapons, star cards, and stuff needed to craft weapons makes this even worse.

[GreyStar]

I'd call it pay-to-save-time rather than truly pay-to-win, as you can earn the same rewards through time investment.

The advantages afforded by dropping extra cash will balance out over time as other players eventually earn the same rewards.

With an entirely RNG progression system with strength tied directly to luck on the slots, and the only way to get luck on the slots is to play for long periods of time or shell out cash, with no in game progression other than luck, and said luck definitely affecting how one preforms in a competitve multiplayer game, it's pay to have a chance of winning. There's not much to say about a situation where you can have two players of equal skill where they've invested the same playtime, but one paid for lootcrates and thus stastically is better than his counterpart in almost every way. That's the situation created here by the crates as even if extreme playtime can overcome an RNG progression system, that doesn't work as to overcome the system they need to win, which they are at a disadvantage at because other players got a few more loot crates and thus being stastically better means they win more often and at better scores.

The last time I saw this in a serious Star Wars game that wasn't trash was Galatic Starfighter where even if I was more skilled, I couldn't beat the other players due to their stastically in every way upgraded ships, and thus I kept losing, so I couldn't progress because of those losses, meaning I would never be able to match them, which means I kept losing.

Also, side note, waiting for the game to come out and a guy unboxes the same gun from 100 lootcrates, and all the crates he makes with those extra guns just keep producing the same gun, so he's stuck in a cycle of never progressing thanks to one in ten million RNG.

[Pali]

Then why not just make the loot boxes cosmetic only?

Because that almost certainly wouldn't make as much money, and while I'm hardly privy to EA's financial planning, I'd bet that they plan to fund a significant chunk of post-release development and maintenance with income from loot box sales, while the initial up-front $60 sale price is likely budgeted to pay for the development and marketing costs they've already sunk into making the game.

With an entirely RNG progression system with strength tied directly to luck on the slots, and the only way to get luck on the slots is to play for long periods of time or shell out cash, with no in game progression other than luck, and said luck definitely affecting how one preforms in a competitve multiplayer game, it's pay to have a chance of winning. There's not much to say about a situation where you can have two players of equal skill where they've invested the same playtime, but one paid for lootcrates and thus stastically is better than his counterpart in almost every way.

If it were a 1v1 or small squad game, I'd care more about individual players not being perfectly balanced against each other.  In a large team game, it's less of an issue, as both teams will benefit from having well-equipped players.  Yes, there will be randomness, and yes, there will be games where one team has a ton of super-equipped people and the other team has jack, but statistically it'll likely balance out for the most part. *shrugs* The main issue would be if the bonuses are too great, but if there's enough blowback they can always be nerfed in patches.

[Guderian]

Well i think EA is knowing exactly what they are doing. And People will buy no matter what.
That is why we still have this Microtransfer and DLC Crap. Because there is a ton of People willing to buy it.

They will make a crap-ton of Money out of it, i guarantee it

[Pali]

It's just a different form of post-release business model than many gamers prefer.  That's fair, but acting like it's pure greedy evil is going too far.

Consider - if I don't pay a penny for loot boxes for BF2, I am still going to get access to all of the DLC and post-release patches for free (had they gone with Paradox's model, I'd be paying for each piece of DLC, but I'd have all guns and cards ready to go).  Sure, I may not end up with a comparable set of cards to select as someone who drops another $60 into the game beyond the original purchase, but I'm also able to access 90+% of the same content for half the price.  When I face that guy 1 v 1 will I likely be at a disadvantage?  Sure.  It'll be the exact same disadvantage I'm at when I face someone who has spent double or so the amount of time I've spent playing the game.

[Lord Xizer]

I would PREFER a finished game with maybe ONE expansion pack way down the road...you know like developers USED to do before they found out people would pay for 1/4 of the game in full every month for DLC or micro transactions.

[Pali]

Pre-release, it's hard to claim that a game isn't being released in a finished state.  And what defines a finished state is a very subjective question in its own right - plus, some blatantly unfinished games like KOTOR2 are still damn well worth the purchase price and multiple playthroughs.

Games used to be released on physical mediums, so updates to the game had to be released the same way - to make those updates worth the purchase price and time required to visit a store, those updates usually came with substantial amounts of new content.  This was the only distribution model that made any economic sense at the time.  Digital distribution has opened up a vast realm of business models, all with their attached pros and cons, and it should surprise no one that distributors and publishers are trying to experiment to find the most profitable medium.

Personally, I'd be happy if BF2 went free to play but even more pay to win, so long as the single-player experience wasn't diminished by the change - but economic reality requires that it would be.  Without an up-front purchase price, a single-player campaign is a bad investment, as too many people would be like me and just play that for free.  Without long-term income streams beyond the purchase price, extensive long-term multiplayer development is a bad investment, as eventually the costs of maintaining the game would outweigh the profits from maintaining it.  If you want both great single- and multi-player (or long-term development on the single-player), you pay for both, one way or another.

The question that is yet to get answered is whether or not BF2 can deliver both.  If it can, then it is money well-earned by EA and DICE.  If it can't... that's why I haven't pre-purchased.

[Illidan Stormrage]

Don't get me wrong Micro-Transactions can be a good thing, but if implemented poorly it could lead to game breaking problems. This is basic problem is that you will have people who will be really powerful getting gear they didn't deserve by just buying it. How is it fair if I play as a Officer constantly and I am really good at it, but I am being destroyed by some guy who bought crates to increase his fighting capabilities to The max.   How is it fair if I am in a space battle as a Tie Bomber and I doing really well, but I still get destroyed by another dude who paid to gear himself up with elite weapons?
This isn't a good progression system. Its garbage and random and unforgiving.
it really just needs to be like CSGO, OR overwatch which still make money of cosmetics.(a lot infact)




 They should have something like a progression tree, where you have three different ways to spec your character, One that promotes squad play and squad boosts , another that promotes skill by yourself, and which focus on you in terms of your whole team
Example:
Assault spec one
contains gives you abilities that maybe give your teammates better health regen and boosts to defense when working together. Star cards focus on team play and cooperation. other supports cards would be like smoke, or dioxis gernades
Spec two
contains abilities the promote your skills in combat. More accuracy with weapons and fighting against enemy armor maybe unique star cards such as anti vehicle grenades, or rocket launchers. Others types of close range star cards like a shotgun card or something.
Spec 3
Rewards players who work with their team, not just there squad. Star cards could be like: If any of your teammates are in close range of you they move 5% faster, or recover health out of combat faster.

You can give players skill points so they can mix and match these tech trees to make a hybrid character that has unique playstyle to you.
I could be a hard hitting sniper that still boosts teammates on the battlefield.
OR a heavy that has some heavy hitting grenades but also abilities that reduce weapons cool down times for my team.


I am sorry off track but in conclusion. Micro-Transactions are good only when they are cosmetic only.

[Mr.Puerto]

So Battlefront 2 honestly looked like a great game, until the beta. During the Beta we learned that to compensate for a lack of paid DLC(Season pass) we are getting a loot crate system. Now don't get me wrong their are great loot crate systems out there like CSGOs, or Overwatches, But this one is basically paid to win system to and from. The loot crates can give you: Star cards, weapons, upgrades for heroes, upgrades for fighters, emotes, skins, and a new currency called crafting parts. Now how the system works is like this:
1. Every match you earn credits. The amount of credits you get is dependent on how your TEAM does. Not you. so like Communism, everyone gets the same amount even if you did better then the worst player on your team. You get on average about 150 credits. the highest I ever got was 270 but that once.
2. You get a daily loot crate every time you log in. Other crates are purchased by either credits, or another currency called crystals( real money converted to game currency). The lowest level crate is a 1000 and the other three crate types are 1100. This means on average you have to play over 2 hours of game time to earn the lowest costing crate.
3. Due to how much stuff is in these crates, rarely will you get what you want. For example if I want the CR-2 Naboo security blaster, I have to either get 600 crafting parts, or earn it randomly in a crate drop. Keep in mind you can only get crafting parts in crates and their is no guarantee you will get crafting parts. Also that means you would play on average about over 12 hours to get enough for a weapon.
4. Some star cards are extremely powerful. One card I found and equipped was called "Death from a above" this is a Hero Star Card for Boba Fett. The affect at rank one is 50% damage reduction when using your get pack or Rocket Barrage ability. If you rank this up to max its a 100% damage reduction when using this card. Another card I found useful was two tie bomber cards. 1 gave me increased damage with Proton torpedoes and the muilt-missile thing. the other gave me addition missiles I could fire that could go all the way up to 12 missiles.
5. The amount of cards you can have equip is affect by How many cards you have and what rank are they.
6. You can buy loot crates using real money. Yes this is a pay-to-win system.
7. All DLC will be free, but the DLC weapons, emotes, star cards, and cosmetics will be added to the loot crates. Therefore you will have to constantly play in order to get what you want.


This by far has got to be the worse case of Micro-Transactions and loot crates I have ever seen.
EA basically shot themselves in the foot. It saddens me because If I buy this game I am supporting this practice. That sucks because I honestly want to play the campaign, and I loved the space battles.
what do you guys think?

1Credits were capped during the beta
2 again credits were capped during the beta so in the full game you could probably play a good match and get a lootbox
3 They've stated that all of the more powerful star cards and ranked star cards are locked beyond in game achievements and they cannot be purchased
4 they will probably change that
5 star card rank is locked and cannot be purchased
6 Lootboxes is not a pay 2 win system since there is not guarantee youll get anything good
7 it encourages people to play the game more than it does people buy the stuff.

[Illidan Stormrage]

None of that is true, they aren't changing anything except for

4 they will probably change that
5 star card rank is locked and cannot be purchased
6 Lootboxes is not a pay 2 win system since there is not guarantee youll get anything good

4. They have stated they will not change the statics of most cards until the first patch of the launch game. However if they do it wont be that significant
5. That isnt true. Star card rank ups can be purchase using crafting parts. The problem is the crafting parts can only be earned crates. for example if  iwant to upgrade a level 2 star card to level 3 it would cost me 120 crafting parts. that would mean I have to open 6 lootcrates which do not guarantee me any crafting parts at all. It is really painful and makes me pull my hair out.
6. Not true. If you take two very skilled players who play the same amount time, except one purchases loot crates with real money, then the person who bought the loot crates would be better than the other because of the advantages.




watch the full videos and you will see why this is really bad.

[GreyStar]

If lootboxes aren't pay to win because of the lack of guarantees, then they aren't a progression system either.

It's just a different form of post-release business model than many gamers prefer.  That's fair, but acting like it's pure greedy evil is going too far.

Consider - if I don't pay a penny for loot boxes for BF2, I am still going to get access to all of the DLC and post-release patches for free (had they gone with Paradox's model, I'd be paying for each piece of DLC, but I'd have all guns and cards ready to go).  Sure, I may not end up with a comparable set of cards to select as someone who drops another $60 into the game beyond the original purchase, but I'm also able to access 90+% of the same content for half the price.  When I face that guy 1 v 1 will I likely be at a disadvantage?  Sure.  It'll be the exact same disadvantage I'm at when I face someone who has spent double or so the amount of time I've spent playing the game.

How long does taking to get access to content for "free" still count as free? Month, two months, year? EA could entirely reduce credits to almost nil or inflate credit prices and make lootboxes only primarily gotten with payments.

[Mr.Puerto]

We know you have a lot of questions about Crates and progression, so we want to clarify a few things, as the complete system was not in the Beta and will continue to be tuned over time:

There are many things you can earn in the game, including weapons, attachments, credits, Star Cards, Emotes, Outfits and Victory Poses.

As a balance goal, we’re working towards having the most powerful items in the game only earnable via in-game achievements.

Crates will include a mix of of Star Cards, Outfits, Emotes or Victory Poses.

Players earn crates by completing challenges and other gameplay milestones, or by purchasing them with in-game credits or Crystals, our premium currency.

If you get a duplicate Star Card in a crate, you will get crafting parts which you can then use to help upgrade the Star Card of your choice.

And lastly, you have to earn the right to be able to upgrade Star Cards and unlock most Weapons. You can only upgrade or unlock them if you have reached a high enough rank, which is determined by playing the game.




Thats their official statement. Lootboxes are never guaranteed good items there are literally thousands of videos showcasing this. And yes lootboxes are not a progression system either.

A player can pay to get tons of lootboxes sure, but at the end of it they could get mediocre things simply due to luck.

[Illidan Stormrage]

Thats their official statement. Lootboxes are never guaranteed good items there are literally thousands of videos showcasing this. And yes lootboxes are not a progression system either.

A player can pay to get tons of lootboxes sure, but at the end of it they could get mediocre things simply due to luck.

Then why is it being advertise as a progression system? You have to gamble and grind for weapons, gear, and star cards.

While it is true lootboxes are never guaranteeing you anything, that doesn't mean it is not a pay to win system. A player can pay for tons of lootboxes and they statistically have a advantage because there chances of getting more useful gear faster is increased.

example: If I buy 24 lootboxes(for no reason) it doesn't matter if I get crap, I can still get scrap which is only obtain by lootcrates to purchase elite weapons and gear. It doesn't matter if certain people luck is different, you can still get a advantage no matter what.

We should not be defending these kinds of practices, unless they are cosmetic only. I would fully support cosmetic only lootboxes, but not loot boxes that give weapons, gear, and currency.

If lootboxes aren't pay to win because of the lack of guarantees, then they aren't a progression system either.

How long does taking to get access to content for "free" still count as free? Month, two months, year? EA could entirely reduce credits to almost nil or inflate credit prices and make lootboxes only primarily gotten with payments.

that is how it is. You would need to play about 6 matches in order to get enough credits to get a single loot crate, problem is in isn't tied to how well you do, its YOUR TEAM. so you can be the best and not get rewarded for hard work, or you can be lazy and just get free credits for no reason.

watch the full videos and you will see why this is really bad.

[Pali]

How long does taking to get access to content for "free" still count as free? Month, two months, year? EA could entirely reduce credits to almost nil or inflate credit prices and make lootboxes only primarily gotten with payments.

The vast majority of content - levels, game modes, DLC levels, and base classes and heroes - are what I was referring to.  Yes, getting all the cards will cost, in either time or money.  If you aren't willing to invest one, you'll be at a disadvantage against those who do.  At least this way someone who plays a few hours a week has the option of keeping up with those who play a few dozen hours a week by investing cash rather than playtime - and those who invest neither will be at no less of a disadvantage regardless of whether their opponent has sunk money or time in. 

Consider: should someone who only plays four hours a week be stuck with a permanent disadvantage against those who play 40?  Or should there be a way for them to catch up?  What about people who come into the game months or years after release, when most players would have unlocked their abilities through the time spent in-game?  For many more casual gamers this kind of thing is a major boon.  Again, there are pros and cons to any approach taken here, and someone is going to be left unhappy no matter what course is taken.

As for EA massively ramping up credit costs down the line, that is speculation - if they do it at the time it may well be condemnable, but condemning them before they've done it isn't something I'm willing to do.

[Mr.Puerto]

As for EA massively ramping up credit costs down the line, that is speculation - if they do it at the time it may well be condemnable, but condemning them before they've done it isn't something I'm willing to do.

They have stated that the credit earning was capped during the beta. No one's know's how its going to be changed expect for the personalities that they are using to play test some features.

Onto something else

Here's the thing AAA games now cost alot of money to produce, we are talking movie level size budget and crew which is absolutely insane. If a company wants to make any sort of meaningful profit from the game, they have to include things like DLC or micro transactions. The initial release of the game and how much money it makes in that time means absolutely nothing in terms of profit, unless you have a game like GTA 5, which doesn't happen. Games are needed to be huge hits in order to break even. DLC and micro-transactions are introduced in order to produce profit so they can put it back into the game, or use the money on other projects. That's the nature of AAA video games, no matter what people say about it.

People asked for free DLC so the player base is split up, so we got lootboxes so that they can make the money to produce these free items. Nothing in life is free, so you have to pay for it one way or the other. Cosmetic DLC will probably not make enough money either, otherwise they would've gone that route instead. And here's the thing, if there was no market for this sort of thing, EA would never implemented it in the first place just because of the PR disaster these things bring about. Do you see people outraged about GTA's micro-transactions and how you can't do anything in the game unless you either get hacked and get tons of money, grind for all hours of the day or buy one shark card and make things easier. Of course, but what is the result of the outrage? Shark Cards for GTA 5 has made literally Billions in revenue, and on top of the fact that GTA 5 is still the number one selling game in alot of countries. The system works and only a small minority of people are outraged compared to the huge audience the causal games appeal to. I'm not defending it at all. This is just the way things are, and have been.

[Illidan Stormrage]

Consider: should someone who only plays four hours a week be stuck with a permanent disadvantage against those who play 40?  Or should there be a way for them to catch up?  What about people who come into the game months or years after release, when most players would have unlocked their abilities through the time spent in-game?  For many more casual gamers this kind of thing is a major boon.  Again, there are pros and cons to any approach taken here, and someone is going to be left unhappy no matter what course is taken.

Considered this: Should someone who only plays four hours a week be given advantages just by paying money over someone who doesn't but plays more? Should a player who doesn't buy dlc be punish with a inherit disadvantage, because someone who doesn't play as much as they do can boost his character up the entire way to get weapons and star cards that are more powerful? Also if a person who only plays hours chooses not to buy this but other people, then aren't they screwed, because who just got the game like him already have half the weapons and star cards, because they bought it all with real money? While your right there will always be pros and cons, but if the cons affect the major of players then you always go with the option that doesn't affect the majority.

People asked for free DLC so the player base is split up, so we got lootboxes so that they can make the money to produce these free items. Nothing in life is free, so you have to pay for it one way or the other. Cosmetic DLC will probably not make enough money either, otherwise they would've gone that route instead. And here's the thing, if there was no market for this sort of thing, EA would never implemented it in the first place just because of the PR disaster these things bring about. Do you see people outraged about GTA's micro-transactions and how you can't do anything in the game unless you either get hacked and get tons of money, grind for all hours of the day or buy one shark card and make things easier. Of course, but what is the result of the outrage? Shark Cards for GTA 5 has made literally Billions in revenue, and on top of the fact that GTA 5 is still the number one selling game in alot of countries. The system works and only a small minority of people are outraged compared to the huge audience the causal games appeal to. I'm not defending it at all. This is just the way things are, and have been.

Cosmetic lootcrate systems, and cosmetic micro transactions have been making more money then most other systems. Need proof? Look at Overwatch, CSGO, Battlefield 1, Call of duty(back when it ran those cosmetic camo packs), Playerunkown battlegrounds, etc. Don't get me wrong if BF2 was a free-to-play then I would understand, but it isn't. BF2 is a $60 AAA game, and there are other ways to make money clearly. listen here is how we fix the problem: Pull all weapons, star cards, and non-cosmetic stuff off the store. Then people are more likely to purchase these cosmetic packs because its about making there solider look cool, and not some game-breaking gear you get out of them. And GTA 5 is a poor example because, that isn't a lootcrate system, and It doesn't affect how you play in competitive modes like death match, races, and other game modes, it only affects the open world, which doesn't really affect anyone since most people don't need to pay-to-win, and rarely are near each other. Players also don't need shark cards because you can earn that money rather easily. The reason why BF2 is worse, is because its a slow painful progression just to get one crate, and I can just buy a couple crates and still get a star card guarantee if I choose the right pack.

The system works and only a small minority of people are outraged compared to the huge audience the causal games appeal to. I'm not defending it at all. This is just the way things are, and have been.

Really? I mean look on YouTube, look at Reddit, look at 4chan, its clear that a lot of players are upset. it got so much attention that EA had to respond. And No this isn't how the system was and always has been, the original system was:
1. You buy a game(usually $60)
2. Later down the line(maybe about a 3-4 months) dlc would either be announce or release.

The problem is so many companies tried to push $60 season passes, which is Bullshit since the dlc isn't, really worthy that much. Companies finally realize this and change that could be good if implemented right, but most are poorly implementing it.
Games like Overwatch have lootcrates, but they are cosmetic only
Other games that like even EA's own Battlefield 1 have cosmetic only lootcrates.

[Slornie]

I would fully support cosmetic only lootboxes, but not loot boxes that give weapons, gear, and currency.that is how it is. You would need to play about 6 matches in order to get enough credits to get a single loot crate, problem is in isn't tied to how well you do, its YOUR TEAM. so you can be the best and not get rewarded for hard work, or you can be lazy and just get free credits for no reason.

Isn't the fact that the in-game rewards are based on team performance, rather than individual performance, a balancing action against your supposed "pay to win" issues?  Even if players dropping significant sums of real money into the game turn out to be as common as you're clearly expecting, once you take into account distribution across teams and shared winnings the impact on player progression is much reduced?

EDIT: As Mr Puerto said the more "traditional" DLC model used for the previous Battlefront, where each pack added new locales to play etc, split the player base hugely with each release which over time makes for a less resilient community.  This time with the purchasable perks EA are trying to keep the playerbase together by funding those new maps/DLC differently and offering the additional content freely to all.  In the grand scheme of things I think for a multiplayer-oriented game the latter is definitely a more sustainable approach.

[Illidan Stormrage]

Isn't the fact that the in-game rewards are based on team performance, rather than individual performance, a balancing action against your supposed "pay to win" issues?  Even if players dropping significant sums of real money into the game turn out to be as common as you're clearly expecting, once you take into account distribution across teams and shared winnings the impact on player progression is much reduced?

EDIT: As Mr Puerto said the more "traditional" DLC model used for the previous Battlefront, where each pack added new locales to play etc, split the player base hugely with each release which over time makes for a less resilient community.  This time with the purchasable perks EA are trying to keep the playerbase together by funding those new maps/DLC differently and offering the additional content freely to all.  In the grand scheme of things I think for a multiplayer-oriented game the latter is definitely a more sustainable approach.

The loot crate system IS the progression system. If you want anything(star cards, weapons, upgrades) you have 3 options
1. Get is randomly from a loot crate
2. Craft it using crafting parts(you only get crafting parts in loot crates, and it can from 10-20 CPs)
3. Purchase unique lootcrates that will be in the game's store. (some guarantee legendary star cards and gear)

quote author=Slornie link=topic=6998.msg67544#msg67544 date=1508082387]
Isn't the fact that the in-game rewards are based on team performance, rather than individual performance, a balancing action against your supposed "pay to win" issues?  .
[/quote]
How does that balance pay-to-win issues exactly? The only thing based on team performance is how many credits you earn per game. Everyone gets the same amount of credits and since most cost over 1000 credits you need to play on average 5-6 matches to get just 1/10 or 1/5 the credits needed.

EDIT: As Mr Puerto said the more "traditional" DLC model used for the previous Battlefront, where each pack added new locales to play etc, split the player base hugely with each release which over time makes for a less resilient community.  This time with the purchasable perks EA are trying to keep the playerbase together by funding those new maps/DLC differently and offering the additional content freely to all.  In the grand scheme of things I think for a multiplayer-oriented game the latter is definitely a more sustainable approach.

No this doesn't solve the problem of split communities, because now players want separate versions of multiplayer. Some players want gamemodes were star cards have flattened values while others don't. While your write season passes split up community there is a simple way around the problem make it like Rainbow 6 siege's season pass. The Rainbow 6 season pass worked like this: All future content is free, but players who have the season pass get early access, and exclusive cosmetic item. This way everyone gets the content, but people who paid a little more get first slice at the cake, but in the end everyone gets a piece.

"We also have heard some players are looking for a way to play where all players will have the same set of Star Cards with flattened values. Like everything else, we will be continually making necessary changes to ensure the game is fun for everyone. We will work to make sure the system is balanced both for players who want to earn everything, as well as for players who are short on time and would like to move faster in their progress towards various rewards."