Report: Unlocks in Star Wars: Battlefront II at the review event required a sixth that of the retail version

UPDATE – This article and headline have been edited to report and read ‘Report: Unlocks in Star Wars: Battlefront II at the review event required a sixth that of the retail version.’ Review copies had the same unlock requirements as retail versions.

It was only during the review event that EA reduced the required amount to a 6th what they originally cost in the retail version.

The amount of credits required during the review event was still lower than the amount after the 75% reduction announced yesterday.

More bad news in the world of Star Wars: Battlefront II. The ongoing saga of the loot boxes, cost of heroes and community management continues as details of the review event come to light.

In a video posted to YouTube by Star Wars HQ the narrator mentions that Luke Skywalker can be purchased for 10,000 credits (watch below). This is a sixth the amount we know it currently costs in the final game. Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader both cost 60,000 credits in the retail version. Unlocking just one of them will take 40+ hours.

Based on the calculations by Reddit user TheHotterPotato, unlocking Luke or Vader during the review event would have taken only roughly 6-hours. This could give fans an unrealistic expectation of how quickly they can unlock and use their favourite heroes and villains. It could leave many players disappointed and frustrated to find paywalls locking off the best and most wanted content.

Obviously, the credit cost has been lowered during the review event to give reviewers access to the heroes. Though it is troubling to think that reviews may miss the true cost of the heroes. The reviewer may even be none-the-wiser and simply think that the lowered 10,000 credits cost is reflective of the final game.

Earlier today we reported on the tweet from an EA Community Manager calling fans “arm chair developers.” The Community Manager has since deleted the tweet and publicly stated that the tweet in question was not in relation to Star Wars: Battlefront II.

Even if that is the case, the timing of his tweet was incredibly unfortunate. It has added fuel to an already raging fire and things seem to be going from bad to worse for Star Wars: Battlefront II.

On Reddit, EA replied to a post from a fan complaining that Darth Vader was locked even though they had paid $80 USD for Battlefront II. EA’s response is now the most down-voted comment in Reddit history, with -194,000 at time of writing.

EA’s response reads;

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes.

As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we’re looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we’ll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.

We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.

Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

It looks as though EA has certainly struck a chord with fans. Probably not the one it was hoping to strike though.

Star Wars: Battlefront II will be available on November 17. It will unlock for those who pre-ordered the special edition on November 14.


      • Actually that is what the article complains about. I understand what spurred the article. It doesn’t change that the conclusion being made is not based on any reality of what is considered game design.

        The problem with Battlefront is not that you have to play the game to unlock stuff. That would be natural. The issue is that progression is tied to microtransactions and loot boxes.

        This article is trying to paint something that is not negative in a negative light to promote their agenda. Which is that they don’t like the game. Probably for the before mentioned reasons.

        That doesn’t change the fact that the argument being made in this particular argument is dumb.

      • I get the issues people have with Battlefront. This article is just trying to make everything out to be bad.

        It is not relevant to the issue of tying progression to microtransactions and loot boxes.

        That is what I am pointing out. This article pretty much asks for a game without any progression systems at all. Which, while not outright bad, makes little sense in the context of modern game design.

Leo Stevenson
Leo Stevenson
I've been playing games for the past 27 years and have been writing for almost as long. Combining two passions in the way I'm able is a true privilege. PowerUp! is a labour of love and one I am so excited to share.

━ more like this

Crucial P3 Plus 1TB PCIe 4.0 NVMe M.2 2280 SSD Review -Reliable bang for your buck

If you’re not a data hoarder like myself, it’s tough to make an SSD review sexy. The layperson, for example, will often glaze past...

Kindle (11th Gen) Review – The Reader

I adore my Kindle. I was gifted a 10th-generation Kindle for Christmas and it reignited my love of reading. When I was younger, I...

Is a MacBook Pro M1 Max a gaming laptop?

I've had the great privilege of taking the new Apple MacBook Pro M1 for a spin for the past few weeks and I love...

Hogwarts Legacy Review (PS5) – Totally wizard. Utterly bewitching.

Incant the words ‘Harry Potter’ and that spells ‘meh’ to me. I’m no devotee, though I've scanned the books and sat through the films....

Elgato Stream Deck + Review: Swiss Army knife

The Elgato Stream Deck + is like a swiss army knife for your desk setup. It gives you an unlimited number of ways to multitask at the touch of a button.