I like this quote. It’s from the worst review i’ve read in my entire life.
I’m not saying this because they give BattleForge a 5 of 10 but because the review is terribly written, contains almost no information and is basically just a rant about microtransactions and money winning the game. For example:
“People have every right to be wary of downloadable content and microtransactions. [...] PC gamers don’t put up with that sort of thing as much, which is why we suspect this will not be a hit.”
Things are written in this review which do not make any sense except for showing the reviewer’s inability of supporting his arguments, or even making an argument in the first place. I think it’s hilarious when David Jenkins of Teletext.co.uk wonders why EA bought Phenomic in the first place:
“They seem a curiously non-casual company for EA to want to buy but that’s none of our business.”
I concur, it is none of their business. So why does Mr. Jenkins even bother writing it in the first place?
Of course, there are also sentences that make no sense at all. Could be a simple typo but it shows the lack of effort that went into this review:
It’s only the fact that the underlying game isn’t terribly interesting that stops this being all a scandalous con.
BattleForge got a few reviews in the 60s and i can understand their argumentation. But what is becoming more and more obvious is that the lower the scores, the more the reviewers seem to hate micro-transactions. So this one marks the low end of BattleForge reviews, and what’s been (and will be) reviewed around this area of review scores (meaning below 6 of 10) is in fact the article writer’s disgust of the payment model. I would be surprised to see a review below a 6 of 10 score whose argumentation doesn’t build mainly on conveying reservations (to say the least) against the micro-transaction business model.
really, cause i found this quote quite accurate…
“completely unbalancing the game in favour of the rich”
when booster packs are selling for the equivalent of $2.50cents and the average booster packs contains 8 cards, most of which are common. After someone spends $25 on 10 packs, they essentially have a collection of 50% duplicate cards. I know this from experience, over $50 pumped into this game and there are at least a dozen weak cards I have sextuplets of. Where as anyone with a small fortune to waste on a single game, has no problem purchasing rarer cards, from the in-game Auction, for the equivalent of $30-40per card. For anyone who believes this blowhard over me, just visit the games forums themselves, or read some users reviews.. not some marketing puppet who is giving the game more credit then is due, in attempts to increase sales (retail and cashshop)
That may be the one true statement in that review. I won’t deny that. But that is also a problem common for many microtransaction games.
For what it’s worth, if people could simply pay for the cards directly, and pay premium (like $100) for each super-rare card, you’d favor the rich even more since they could get those cards from day one by spending a large sum, while the rest of the players would be stuck with non-rare cards for a long time, possibly forever. At least the randomness is giving everyone a fair chance to find a rare card in a booster.
Personally, for me microtransactions are a double-edged sword. As developer i like and appreciate the fact that this model is working, as player i have hardly ever played a game that is worth putting extra cash in, let alone spent cash on microtransactions. I do like to have the choice but i don’t like it if it seems like a money sink or that you have to do it to get anywhere.