Talk:Star Wars Battlefront II (2017 video game)

Reddit notice
From my understanding, seems users have banded together on Reddit to add "pay-to-win" to the article. Please continue to keep an eye out for these edits. Edit: There's a reason why the page is protected now: discuss, and do not refactor any comment here! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk &bull;&#32;contribs) 01:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

People are adding "pay to win" because it is accurate. Please add this to the description because it is the most factually accurate description. Anyone who is removing the "pay to win" description are most likely employees of Electronic Arts marketing team. The reason such a large amount of people on Reddit are adding this correction is because it is a correction. The reason you see a majority of people that think this way is because it is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.227.156 (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2017‎ (UTC)
 * Creditably is hurt when you start off with bad faith accusations of a conflict of interest. The article adequately covers, with a lot of sourcing, the controversy. How it started, what it was, the downvoting, and EA's response. This is summarized in the lead already. Trying to shoehorn a pay-to-win label in the lead is clear and obvious POV pushing. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for this type of thing. -- ferret (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is not POV pushing per se, they provided many sources, reliable ones infact, that do infact show that the game is pay to win. It even fits the definition set here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-to-play#Criticism) by your own editors. -- greendevil32 (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Two of those sources are reliable by our typical standards, Comicbook.com and Gamespot.com, and both refer to the microtransactions as "pay to win". The article covers that, specifically calling out the loot boxes. Neither source says "Battlefront II is a pay-to-win game." The definition of pay to win linked also is defined in the context of free to play games. Either way, shoehorning it into the lead sentence is definitely POV pushing when the lead includes a paragraph dedicated to the topic. It's also clear that at least some portion of the edits are being done with the goal of altering Google search results to contain the phrase pay-to-win in response to Reddit threads. -- ferret (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

As someone who's been following this controversy from day one, it's pretty obvious this is a pay-to-win game. People who pay money have a distinct and noticeable advantage over those who do not. IcarusBen (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The page mentions that they decreased the hero prices, but not that they also made earning them slower, cancelling it out. -- TheoryOfEverything (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Added with secondary source. -- ferret (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The relevant Reddit thread.--Ilikerainandstorms (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't use sources like Reddit because its content is user-generated. (Ironically, this means that Wikipedia can't use itself as a source, either.)  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 18:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think Ilikerainandstorms is just noting the thread that led to edits being made here. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Should "After a Reddit thread concerning the amount of time to unlock heroes without purchase was replied to by EA's community team, the response became the most downvoted comment in the site's history." really belong in the lead? This should just be considered apart of the overall lootbox controversy and therefore generalized (removed for redundancy/undue weight) in the lead. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are two sentences to summarize that section. I don't think that's particularly overdue. This is still quite a small lead though and could use expansion. We could trim it to "A reply from EA's community team on Reddit on the topic became the most downvoted comment in the site's history" though -- ferret (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems better. And true, once the actual gameplay gets reviewed, it could be further improved as more is written in the lead. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 21:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys the government of Hawaii is literally going to fight EA's "predatory behaviour". Basically, OF COURSE the title of "pay to win" applies to this game, but the article should have a lot more to it, regarding how this game pushed things too far and caused the most downvoted reddit comment of all time, and governments are now starting to take action against the gambling loot boxes. So yea of course it's gambling/pay to win.......and if that isn't described on this article, then this article is inaccurate. I've also seen the discussion going on here as a way of censorship when it's clearly true. I don't like that type of censorship just because the internet believes in something....that devalues wikipedia as a whole in my opinion and I don't think those people should be representing wikipedia by censoring legitimate descriptions of things that are real — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.249.227.156 (talk) 07:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I question if you've even read the article, as all of the things you just mentioned are covered in detail. -- ferret (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * IP user, while I (I'm probably as upset as anyone else is on Reddit about EA's practices and this stunt they pulled) and many others are upset about this, we are still trying to uphold one of Wikipedia's core policies: maintaining a neutral point of view, which, especially in this case, includes not giving undue weight to something. Basically, in most cases, the article must try to be equal parts good and bad if possible.  It's why you'll find that, for example, most review sections in video game articles here contain equal parts positive and negative points, even for games as good as The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild.  Maintaining neutrality in a controversy section, especially with a controversy as heated as this one, can be bit harder, but we do our best.  I realize you want Wikipedia to be the best that it can be.  So do we, and that means we have to continue upholding our neutral point of view policy.  I'm sorry if that conflicts with the way you think this article should be.  Feel free to reply if you feel the need to, but please remain civil in your comments.  Try to comment on the content of the article instead of commenting on the actions of its contributors.  (Also, I'm sorry if this sounds weird in any way, and please forgive me if this sounds harsh in any way.  It wasn't meant that way.  I'm extremely tired right now, and I'm having trouble thinking because of that.)  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 18:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add reddit page in article
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbinorion (talk • contribs) 01:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The article lists secondary sources discussing the downvoted reddit comment but does not cite the primary source (reddit) where the comment was originally posted. 47.138.200.205 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You need third-party coverage of it, because Reddit is an unreliable source otherwise. If it's that notable, then surely it will be reported on. ~ Dissident93  ( talk ) 05:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 November 2017
Please add that some mission rewards were also decreased by 75% and that Arcade rewards were capped at five challenges.

Source: http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2017/11/13/wheres-our-star-wars-battlefront-ii-review.aspx

If the first part of this request needs a better source, at least add the second part.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 14:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I've already included the reduction of the campaign rewards. GameInformer does not seem to clearly state that any other rewards were changed at this time though. That is, he hopes that EA will address it but it isn't clear he's suggesting it was changed in the last 24 hours. If you can find a source that does, I'll add it. -- ferret (talk) 14:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't seem to find one at the moment, so maybe just say that they're capped off after five missions or something like that. It might be better to be a bit more vague than "five missions", though, as it's never mentioned that that is the cap, just that he hit it at that time.  (I never actually said 24 hours, anyway, though that is what I meant.)  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 15:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like a detail that might belong in the first paragraph (rather than the second, focused on the Reddit backlash). Something like "GameInformer noted that after completing five arcade challenges, the game required them to wait 14 hours to complete more." -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This source references the Game Informer author's experience and illustrates the 14 hour wait time in an embedded tweet. Maybe you could use this? https://www.vg247.com/2017/11/14/star-wars-battlefront-2-limits-your-earnings-in-arcade-mode-to-prevent-credits-farming/ -- Horserice (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Not to lead the reader, but I feel it should say "so the amount of grinding required remains the same" just so it's clear what reducing the rewards the same percent has accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.204.139 (talk) 05:06, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Designer: Jayden Hishon?
Added back in August by an account with a single edit to their name:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/122.56.90.131

The credit is not sourced. Cannot find any references to a Jayden Hishon in reference to Battlefront II, and the only thing that comes up for this name on google is a kid with 2 youtube videos and 9 views.

I'm assuming it's a joke edit that somehow stuck around? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.187.245 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed. -- ferret (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reviews
Even though the page is blocked for the week, should an admin add the game’s reviews? At least Metacritic and likes of IGN to a score box? TropicAces (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll add the Metacritic boilerplate shortly, can you provide the other reviews as you see them and some accompanying prose? -- ferret (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * right now, the only review I see posted that goes into the template is GamesRadar ( http://www.gamesradar.com/star-wars-battlefront-2-review/) TropicAces (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)tropicAces
 * Since the game isn't released yet, let's hold off on starting Reception. We can work on it here, see subsection below and edit as you see fit. -- ferret (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Reception draft
Star Wars Battlefront II received "generally favorable" reviews on PC and "mixed or average" reviews on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One, according to review aggregator Metacritic.

In his 4/5 star review for GamesRadar, Andy Hartup praised the multiplayer but criticized the single player modes, saying the game has a "very strong multiplayer offering tarnished by overly complicated character progression, and a lavish, beautiful story campaign lacking in substance or subtlety." GameRevolution felt the campaign started strong but weakened as it progressed, praising the multiplayer gameplay while criticizing the micro-transactions, loot box progression system, and locking of heroes.

For EGM's review, Nick Plessas praised the multiplayer combat, balancing, and variety, but criticized the game's sustained focus around loot crates. Andrew Reiner of Game Informer gave the game 6.5/10, writing "Answering the call for more content, Star Wars Battlefront II offers a full campaign and more than enough multiplayer material, but the entire experience is brought down by microtransactions."

Reddit comment link
Can the link to the most downvoted comment be added to the article too? https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsBattlefront/comments/7cff0b/seriously_i_paid_80_to_have_vader_locked/dppum98/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.54.122.178 (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added it back in, with the primary purpose of sourcing the current count which I also updated. -- ferret (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Copypasta
Should it be mentioned that the EA comment on Reddit has become a popular copypasta on the site? Bobbbcat (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not unless that's been covered by the secondary sources, which I haven't seen. It's trivia in the end. -- ferret (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Should the abysmal user scores on Metacritic be mentioned?
Currently, the game has a user score of 0.9 for the PS4 version. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the lowest user score any game on Metacritic has ever received. Should it be mentioned? IcarusBen (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:VG/GL, last bullet. We won't mention it directly or sourced to Metacritic unless secondary reliable sources discuss it. This is similar to the EA comment being downvoted on Reddit. If it was only sourced to Reddit, we wouldn't include it, but because secondary sources covered it we can. -- ferret (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Review for Reception section http://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/star-wars-battlefront-2-4 prokaryotes (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can add it above at . -- ferret (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"Some commentators, however, defended the EA monetisation policies. A Wall Street analyst writing for CNBC noted how video games are still the cheapest entertainment medium per hour of use, and even with the added microtransactions, playing Battlefront II was still much cheaper than paying to see the theatrical release of a film." He only arrives at this conclusion by using an example of 2.5 hours of play per day for a year, which is 912 hours of playtime in Battlefront 2... No one is gonna play the game that long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.134.166 (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Wall Street Analyst Bias
Wall Street analyst writing for CNBC noted how video games are still the cheapest entertainment medium per hour of use, and even with the added microtransactions, playing Battlefront II was still notably cheaper than paying to see the theatrical release of a film

This line here, while technically true was stated by someone who has a connection to EA and is attempting to skew the narrative. It's also pretty common knowledge that people think movies and pay TV are too expensive (the comparisons he was trying to make). There are other things wrong with this statement but I'm too tired right now, maybe someone else can help me out with sources that aren't Reddit.

Sorry for the Reddit source and everything else, I don't really do this wikipedia edit stuff much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.102.229 (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * If it gets picked up by a reliable source then we can cover it. At the moment Twitter is not one such source, especially an unverified account that seems to be more about posting memes and normal social media content than doing investigative reporting. --Teancum (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The section after the info box
This feels like it belongs in reception...not in a sectionless opener? Has the feel of someone emotionally invested wanting it to appear front and centre. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC) --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 22:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I would either remove or move/merge everything in the second paragraph of the lead starting starting at "which could give players" to the reception and monetization controversy sections, and I would probably merge the remainder of the second paragraph into the first one if possible. Unfortunately, I'm on mobile at the moment, so I can't easily do it.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 22:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Two sentences to summarize lengthy and heavily sourced portions of the article is not undue. The controversy is what the game is now most known for.  -- ferret (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Need to change Janina Gavankar's credit placement in the overview section
In the overview page, there is a line that reads "The game features a full campaign story mode unlike 2015's Battlefront. The game's single player protagonist, Iden Versio, leader of an Imperial Special Forces group known as Inferno Squad (Janina Gavankar), "

it should be changed to something like:

"The game features a full campaign story mode unlike 2015's Battlefront. The game's single player protagonist, Iden Versio (Janina Gavankar), leader of an Imperial Special Forces group known as Inferno Squad, "

Since the original version seems to imply she is playing the entire squad, rather than Iden Versio --Spectre800 (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- ferret (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

New category
We need the cat Category:Video games containing loot boxes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.15.47 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Inaccuracy
"By the end of November 2017, EA had lost $3 billion in stock value since the launch of the game."

I feel like this implies that EA lost the stock value strictly because of Battlefront's release - was that really the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvis2500 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I notice that the post is over a year old, but I will answer for the sake of this article anyway.


 * Electronic Arts' stock value drop has been attributed by reliable secondary sources to the microtransactions controversy. To say that the controversy caused the drop is definitely incorrect, as sources only attribute the two events, not cite one as the cause of the other. If you feel that the passage is incorrect, you could change it to "...in stock value, which has been [widely] attributed to the controversy," with additional independent citations attributing it. I would not object to that. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 02:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018
I can't edit it because I'm not sure how to hyperlink a word but in the character roster for Star Wars battlefront 2 Captain Phasma isn't included WickederFawn (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

In the game modes add that a temporary game mode was added: Ewok Hunt and elaborate WickederFawn (talk) 03:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 13:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018
there are new multiplayer modes for this game that are not here EvansMatt (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Post-release content
Hello,

since post-release content has been divided into "Seasons", how should we add that info to the article? Bravo1138 (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Reddit reaction and alteration of microtransactions
I know this is an extremely late post as I've not been comfortable with the wording for a while, but the lede basically asserts that the microtransactions were temporarily removed from the game by EA purely as a result of the negative reaction to their Reddit post (becoming the single most downvoted comment in its history). Surely the negative buzz and opinions from numerous journalists and gamers at the time outside of Reddit had a big hand to play in it too? I just think it sounds disingenuous, and I'm sure changes would have been made regardless of Reddit; we've seen other examples like that before. -- Wikibenboy94 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Outdated Cover Art
Should probably update the cover art since they added a new art with the celebration edition — Starboybooya526 (talk) February 28 2020 9:26 (UTC)
 * We usually keep the original cover, not re-releases or "complete editions", etc. -- ferret (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Photos?
Should their be more photos like within the areas that lack (some) informational content. EX: there should be a photo of the hero roster (currently or at launch), or of some of the map(s). I’m just saying it be a lot more “lively”. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 22:41, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

This issue has been resolved Jerry Steinfield (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

delay of scariff
i'm not going to change the "mid-April" section in the original trilogy update area since it was said as that around the end of the month we'll get more information on the update but most likely some things like a maul skin is coming. it doesn't need to be necessarily changed till more conformation has come. Jerry Steinfield (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

"Sense of pride and accomplishment" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sense_of_pride_and_accomplishment&redirect=no Sense of pride and accomplishment] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Seawolf35 (talk - email) 18:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)