Article content continued

The problem concernsBattlefield’s elaborate in-game economy, which revolves, like the universal economy of theStar Warsfilms, around galactic credits. Credits are earned through play, and may be exchanged for items, upgrades, and more powerful “Hero” characters, such as Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader. This credit system itself is not controversial: the game shares its basic system of progression and augmentation with any number of similar role-playing and fantasy games. It may take time to earn the credits required to enjoy the most coveted prizes, but that’s precisely the point of such a method of challenge and reward.

However,Battlefieldis somewhat unique for games of its kind in that its credits are available by other means — namely, they may be purchased in exchange for real money. Now, EA has attempted to camouflage this shortcut by devising certain barriers between credits and actual cash: one must buy “Crystals,” not credits, and crystals are exchanged for “Crates,” which contain an unknown assortment of items, power-ups and, indeed, a flat rate of credits, too. The ultimate effect of which is that players willing to spend money above and beyond the shelf price ofBattlefrontare afforded the opportunity to pay for concrete advantages in the game.

Photo by EA Games

And that has aroused a maelstrom of dark-side fury. Serious competitive gamers object to the notion that their opponents can effectively buy their way to victory: it certainly diminishes the sense of fair play to imagine that the rival fighter sharpshooting you over and over again has simply shelled out for a superior gun. (It would be sort of like playing chess against someone who has paid for two or three additional queens.) The landscape of multiplayer video games is as deeply competitive — and therefore reliant on integrity and a level playing field — as any professional sport.