What do you think about the battle pass system?

The battle pass system is a micro-transaction method popularized by fortnight that is supposedly "consumer friendly."

You pay $10 (varies depending on game) to buy a "battle pass" for a season which allows you to unlock cosmetic items during a season of play as well as premium currency which allows you to pay for the next battle pass by playing the game enough during the previous season.

In essence it forgoes lootboxes, random drops, dlc, and microtransactions (mostly) but is more of a "pay to grind" system where you're paying for the ability to unlock items by playing the game. This allows the company to still have micro-transactions for people who don't want to grind, but also maintains player engagement an gives players a constant stream of new content.

The most recent game to use this system is the new call of duty MW, which just launched its battle pass.

In the past call of duty had $15 map packs, then they switched to loot boxes which were expensive and ruined game balance, and now they've switched to the battle pass, which is ostensibly better because you can get constantly added new maps and any new weapons are free for everyone (not just people who buy the battle pass).

I'm someone who always hated paying for DLC, and I'm also someone who can't stand loot boxes if they affect game balance, but I'm basically ok with them if they're cosmetic only. This almost looks like a pretty decent compromise to the loot box problem. It's all cosmetic, there's no random drops, you always know what you're getting, and all of the non-cosmetic items are free for everyone and earned by playing.

Still, I don't trust Activision or Epic so the moment something that seems like it might be more consumer friendly comes out I immediately want to know what the catch is. I've never actually played a game with a battle pass in it until now, and I'm wary that I'm being scammed in some way (I'm just using the free tier in MW). Does anyone know more about the battle pass and can explain the downsides?

Garbage, that's what.

You lost me at "micro transaction". If AAA games are going to have this garbage, then the game should cost $30. They will usually make millions more with micro transactions that will earn them more than enough profit.

It really only seems better for dedicated players who play enough to get the next season(s) free. Activision hasn't even announced how long the season is but apparently data miners have found that it'll end January 28th. It's still some bullshit though, we used to just buy a game and be able to play the damn thing with everything unlocked. I can understand doing this kinda stuff for games that will last years like a "living" game that releases more and more substantial content as content isn't free. But for a game like COD that has a year shelf-life and then it's onto the next one, it doesn't make much sense. Or for a free-to-play game, of course. I still don't get the point of playing like any of these new shooters when older games are just plain better from a gameplay perspective.

Marik2:
You lost me at "micro transaction". If AAA games are going to have this garbage, then the game should cost $30. They will usually make millions more with micro transactions that will earn them more than enough profit.

Pretty much this; if you pay $60, you shouldn't have to pay for anything else.

I only really dabbled in in Dauntless (which is free-to-play essentially Monster Hunter).

I think the main thing is, I only have occasional interest in cosmetics, quite a lot of them (Fortnite memery eesque stuff in particular) don't really catch my interest. Even in PvE games liek Dauntless, having consumables or outright exclusive powerups in their seems kind of scummy.

There's also the whole investment-forces you to have to play the daily/weekly/etc stuff aspect. Which always strikes me as some of a anti-thesis to the idea of a game. Grind sure, grind can be fun, but having to grind on schedule or piss all your possible reward away is annoying. Doubly so the idea of paying for a pass that is going to force you into a part-time job for a month just to actually get the things out of it rather then let you go at your own pace.

Warframe has Nightwaves now, which are the same system, but fortunately just there as optional objectives free of charge. And in beetween the new "seaasons" have intermissions where you can get stuff you may have missed previously as well.

The other one I'm familiar with even though I've departed the game is Destinys. Which is outright getting ludicrous and including both the paid season pass, with gameplay affecting rewards, and then additional microtransactions to play catchup/skip the season pass grind on top of that. (And the pass is already in addition to their paid 40 dollar DLC)

As with microtransactions, if it is only cosmetic it's fine. However, if you are putting Weapons in ( Like CoD MW), then no it's bad.

I don't care if they put the coolest Skin at rank 100, that is unattainable to a casual player,but once weapons are included , then it's a hard no for me.

I'm playing MW and it annoys me that after every match they put me at the battle pass screen.

"So you're saying I have to pay money just to be able to have access to buy something which is essentially inconsequential?"

"..."

This is why I'm a single-player misanthropic ingrate, but w/e.

Dirty Hipsters:
I'm someone who always hated paying for DLC, and I'm also someone who can't stand loot boxes if they affect game balance, but I'm basically ok with them if they're cosmetic only.

See, I don't mind paying for DLC... provided they expand the game. Campaign packs and roster expansions (provided they're a meaningful addition to the game) are OK to pay for, for me. If a DLC stacks up with an old-y style-y expansion pack, I'm willing to open my wallet. That said, I get what you mean in this context.

Seems like a way of selling you a subscription, while calling it something else.

A dumb scheme of things that should be in the game to begin with. I hate them, and they're no different from all the bullshit with microtransacs, online passes from last gen, and another form of control over the consumer, because most publishers don't want you owning a game. Just limited access to it. This is why I prefer single player or local multiplayer. If every major publisher decides to do add streaming with battle passes as the only thing for the next console generation, I'll have to stick with Nintendo's next console.

As long as it's not mandatory I don't care. Though to be fair I never played fortnite so I am not sure I entirely grasp what you're describing. (nor CoD for that matter haha)

My dlc thing is only ok in 2 main ways, new story content or new characters in fighting games that weren't already done by the time of release. Cosmetic stuff is a maybe since sometimes I wanna express my love for a character by fancying them up but that's super rare and takes an exceptionally strong character to summon such feelings.

I have a hard time imagining buying dlc maps and whatnot though. Maybe it's cause I'm not into fps games for anything other than story content.

I've seen it done well in Smite and Paladins, but those are both free2play games. They shouldn't be in full priced games.

Battle pASS is the latest AAA bullshit scheme to milk customers for as much money as fucking possible. That's all it is. Stop supporting bullshit.

Dirty Hipsters:
The battle pass system is a micro-transaction method popularized by fortnight that is supposedly "consumer friendly."

I'll just leave this here...

tl;dw: Not only it exploits the fear of missing out the new shinny that everyone else has; but season pass has exclusive items unavailable to non-paying players and exclusive grinds to get the rewards faster. That's right: challenges behind pay-walls.

Paying for another grind. Subscribing to another job. Man, they really know how innovate in fleecing fuckers for all they got and bugger all else.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.