Just FYI, if you go with an apex account, you're setting yourself up for very likely awfulness.

[the.lovewyrm]

Today you get lured in with a Ghillie suit.
Soon, you will have doomed the game by creating a peer pressurable precedence of hiding more and more things behind this sort of stuff.

Absolutely not a good idea for any customer, and supporting it as a customer will only come back to bite you.
DLC and game purchases fund development and crossplay and all the bells and whistles can be implemented for everyone no problem.
It does not need something like an 'apex account'.

This will go bad more likely than it will go well.
And I only say that because absolutes are rarely appropriate, but you should still consider it an "for all intents and purposes" absolute, regardless.

[Finney]

I totally agree with you. Been waiting for this to happen! I have and most likely will not update the game. In the game files there are EPIC files, be warned people! Why do we need APEX (same name as what ARMA 3 used, come on EW), we are on Steam and all my friends are on here so why the hell we need APEX? And at what cost to upgrade your APEX account?

Screw you too EW!

[Nite69]

Yea i am not supporting it either I just skipped it and checked the box to not ask me again my single player is still working like normal

[astreamuser]

They will be adding interesting things only to the online service, essentially forcing players to make an account so that they avoid the already monotonous single player experience.

[Soulstain]

Why does is this generation of gamers find it so difficult to do anything without someone holding their hand and constantly jabbering in their ears whether it be in a game or some other social media? Do most of you not enjoy your own company? Lol, yes I have lots of friends, I just don't need them jabbering at me constantly while I'm playing a game.

[the.lovewyrm]

Originally posted by tasx:

They will be adding interesting things only to the online service, essentially forcing players to make an account so that they avoid the already monotonous single player experience.

How does not adding the extra items to singleplayer but only multiplayer make singleplayer less monotonous?

It doesn't.
There is no consumer friendly reason to hold any content hostage behind some special online account.

[astreamuser]

Originally posted by the.lovewyrm:

How does not adding the extra items to singleplayer but only multiplayer make singleplayer less monotonous?

Yes that's true If they add it to multiplayer games only. I was thinking that maybe they want to implement events that have certain rewards, you would have to be online to participate to the event but then you get to keep the reward even if you logout.

So the Ghillie suit is only accessible from the apex account? It doesn't transfer to single player?

[Goltzhar]

It is purely cosmetic you do not get any advantage of wearing it.
My personal opinion is that I do not care if I was running around naked or in a ghillie suite, I do not see it anyways..... I only play SP.
If it had given some visibility reduction or sound reduction I would like it. Otherwise I do not care. I just skipped the question... But we will probably be forced into it anyways is my guess....But until then Im not creating an account for something I have no use of.

[Shizanketsuga]

1. The Apex account has nothing to do with single player vs. multiplayer (and yes, you do have the ghillie suits in single player). They could, for example, add community goals that you can contribute to regardless of session in order to unlock some special weapon skin or something of that kind.

2. This way of arguing by appealing to some sort of doom that looms behind a supposed chain of gradually worse events is called a slippery slope fallacy, with the emphasis very much on the word fallacy. It's not like you sign over your soul with the Apex account and couldn't push back once somebody does try to use it for harmful purposes.

[[FOAD]Iron]

I will never create an Apex account, regardless of 'reward' and I will never have anything to do with Epic.

[the.lovewyrm]

Originally posted by Shizanketsuga:

1. The Apex account has nothing to do with single player vs. multiplayer (and yes, you do have the ghillie suits in single player). They could, for example, add community goals that you can contribute to regardless of session in order to unlock some special weapon skin or something of that kind.

2. This way of arguing by appealing to some sort of doom that looms behind a supposed chain of gradually worse events is called a slippery slope fallacy, with the emphasis very much on the word fallacy. It's not like you sign over your soul with the Apex account and couldn't push back once somebody does try to use it for harmful purposes.

Slippery slope fallacy?
Unlike the notion that suddenly introducing some strange separate account in conjuction with your basegame that promises rewards in contrast to the base game making things better?

I mean, you're right, it's a logical fallacy, and ultimately it's all conjecture.
But, if we really both sat down with complete serious intent, who do you think would be able, potentially, be able to produce more existing examples of things going wrong vs right with such practices?

I don't know for sure, but I would still go with my side of this.
I can't think of a single instance where such a practice was necessary OR fair.

Crossplay is basically "built in" in the ways internet communication works.
You can theoretically play a game both on the c64 and a nasa supercomputer over the internet, the nasa supercomputer would simply have to slow down, but if both implement the underlying TCP/IP socket standards, etc..then they'd be able to communicate.
You wouldn't need some extraneous account for that.

[WarpLover]

Is APEX acting as an a server during MP between PCs, or is PC 2 PC still the same?

[the.lovewyrm]

PC to PC will very likely remain the same, that's not really my issue anyway.



My issue is that I consider it better for any customer/player to protest needing an external account that acts as a gatekeeper for crossplay, as well as exclusive items for being part of this 'club'.

There is no need for it, especially not technical.
Would you really want a game to be split into castes just because the company behind it wants your email addresses and other such thing?
When they instead could just implement it directly? And not put any items behind such a hurdle?

I mean, I get the aspect of trying to toy with the human desire to have exclusivity and special items...
but should that be applied to something as basically 'mundane' (yet shady) like having to sign up for some thing inside a game you already paid in full (even at a sale)?

I would say no, and playing along I see not very beneficial for the players, only the company.

If it's for support of the company? Well, that's what DLC is there for, isn't it?
No need for this kind of shady stuff.

[briansaxton]

Originally posted by Shizanketsuga:

This way of arguing by appealing to some sort of doom that looms behind a supposed chain of gradually worse events is called a slippery slope fallacy, with the emphasis very much on the word fallacy. It's not like you sign over your soul with the Apex account and couldn't push back once somebody does try to use it for harmful purposes.

Aaand you're engaging in the fallacy fallacy. Just because someone is using a well known fallacy in their argument doesn't mean the argument itself doesn't have merit. This "slippery slope" has happened before in other games, so it's not fallacious to be concerned about it happening to this one. Personally, I hate the idea of content behind an unnecessary account. You then arbitrarily create two classes of players for no reason other than to gather personal info for ad revenue. No, thanks.

[Big Helper]

Originally posted by Shizanketsuga:

1. The Apex account has nothing to do with single player vs. multiplayer (and yes, you do have the ghillie suits in single player). They could, for example, add community goals that you can contribute to regardless of session in order to unlock some special weapon skin or something of that kind.

2. This way of arguing by appealing to some sort of doom that looms behind a supposed chain of gradually worse events is called a slippery slope fallacy, with the emphasis very much on the word fallacy. It's not like you sign over your soul with the Apex account and couldn't push back once somebody does try to use it for harmful purposes.

Eh-eheheh...ehem... "sign over your soul"? Who mentioned any soul to be signed over...? 🤔And you're saying that we could "push back" the effects of having our info sold to vendors? Well, we've already agreed to it by signing up for an APEX account. So no, we can't. And what if this goes on with the playerbase being compliant to this? Well, what happens after that is the developer/publisher would then do the same for all of their other games! 🤑 Why would you want that? 🤨

[BLAME! 40K]

agree , dont need another bs service account #127