Every single battlefield game less content then the previous 8 maps and 30 guns what a disgrace.

2»

Comments

  • VincentNZ
    2578 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I really hope someone else starts making game's like battlefield there not very good at making their own game anymore ... Spawn in only 2 tanks wow watch in the next battlefield there will be no tanks

    Lot of complaining for a new type of service model that we haven't seen in action yet. A very different type of model where you no longer pay for additional maps and weapons.

    And we really haven't seen/played the other maps yet.

    Also recall that one of the earlier Battlefield games had a similar so called issues. They later provided a large map pack with plenty of vehicles in it. Of course you had to buy the dlc to play them. Now you won't.

    For now it is really and see before you have a legitimate complaint.

    Well we pay 60€ up front, for a game with this much content, and for stuff like the co-op, a single-player episode, the BR mode, and some key marketed mechanics and features like dragging and vehicle customization. Now, personally I do not care for any of this, it wouldn't leave a dent if it all were leftout, but that is a lot that was marketed for the release which could not make it in, at a steep price tag.
    We also get the promise of a life-long service to the game, which seems to be at two years from now. This is going to be paid for by microtransactions to justify the high quality stuff they want to put out. So with the dollars made by selling silver boots we will get maps, weapons, factions all that stuff. Precedents are other games that have a similar model like R6 or CS, or even PUBG.
    However we should not kid ourselves, most of the stuff we will get is already in development and paid for, everything on the roadmap at DICE headquarters already costs a lot of money and every item the players buy will be used to repay that debt. If that does not play out as expected, do you really think they will put out high quality content at a regular rate and sink more money into it? Or will they just release more goggles, hats and boots to pay for all their debts and costs?
  • barnesalmighty2
    1341 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't see dice, EA or the players benefiting from the new microtransaction model. For the most part I highly doubt enough people will buy skins to allow the "expected" volume of content over the next two years.

    Dice already had to cut a bunch of cosmetics for being over the top, there isn't enough wiggle room for cosmetics to be viable and keep to a WW2 theme.

    Unless cosmetics were dumped into that stupid battle royal mode and dice were allowed to let rip with as much crazy as they liked. Which would hopefully keep everyone happy.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    BF1 had less weapons if you don't include the tanker/pilot ones.
    BF1942 had 10 weapons (and no garand, might I add)

    I thought I remembered there being a Garand and a Type-4 (which was basically a Japanese Clone of the Garand.. meh)..
    I think modding/mod-supporting-servers also were a massive benefit to BF1942, especially in it's later years.
    Frankly with the frostbite games; I think the biggest "bottleneck" towards more weapons being added is the amount of customization/attachment related stuff.

    So I guess that brings up a question; would people here be alright with "fewer attachment options" if that meant there was a greater variety of weapons?
    or are red-dot-scopes that important?
  • I-Soldat-I
    1638 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    I'm sure it takes a lot of work to create those maps, I hope for those who play BF V it isn't more of the Tsarityn variety of nice looking but lopsided fail maps
  • xXCA_RageXx
    1024 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I don't see dice, EA or the players benefiting from the new microtransaction model. For the most part I highly doubt enough people will buy skins to allow the "expected" volume of content over the next two years.

    Dice already had to cut a bunch of cosmetics for being over the top, there isn't enough wiggle room for cosmetics to be viable and keep to a WW2 theme.

    Unless cosmetics were dumped into that stupid battle royal mode and dice were allowed to let rip with as much crazy as they liked. Which would hopefully keep everyone happy.

    It could go either ways in my opinion. I personally think it all depends on the overall success of the gameplay. IF the gameplay is good and keeps people interested, then they will make plenty of thing to sell for cosmetics. Not to mention if the br mode is even slightly good, they would probably make even more money off selling cosmetics in that mode. Not sure how you can't see both sides benefiting from this service as long as the overall game does well. No lootboxes and no population dividing paid dlc= good for the player and the potential of a possibly endless stream of $$ from cosmetics= good for EA. Sure now if the game flops, which I highly doubt it will, both sides suffer.

    Hell in league of legends alone, I've spent over 900$ in a 4 to 5 year period on a free to play game and the absolute majority of that was on cosmetics.
  • madman001able
    611 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    GrimesSU wrote: »
    Sometimes, more is less. Keep it simple, make sure it works.... Most everyone will love it.

    Just lol.
    Spoken like a true fanboy.
    .
    They literally called their fanbase uneducated and are putting out a barely finished product with the "promise" of stuff that is supposed to be at launch to come later, and the fanboys will STILL buy the game.

    BF4, and BF1 only? Alrighty then.

    I didn't have this multiplayer account until BF4.
    .
    I've played since BF1942 was first released in 2002, and for BF2 and BF3, I played under a different name, so don't try to pull that 'Well, your account only lists BF4 and BF1'.

    Well then, going around calling people fanboy is a bit hypocritical don't ya think?
  • staryoshi06
    202 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    BetaFief wrote: »
    BF1 had less weapons if you don't include the tanker/pilot ones.
    BF1942 had 10 weapons (and no garand, might I add)

    I thought I remembered there being a Garand and a Type-4 (which was basically a Japanese Clone of the Garand.. meh)..
    I think modding/mod-supporting-servers also were a massive benefit to BF1942, especially in it's later years.
    Frankly with the frostbite games; I think the biggest "bottleneck" towards more weapons being added is the amount of customization/attachment related stuff.

    So I guess that brings up a question; would people here be alright with "fewer attachment options" if that meant there was a greater variety of weapons?
    or are red-dot-scopes that important?

    It didn't have a garand at launch supposedly.
  • barnesalmighty2
    1341 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't see dice, EA or the players benefiting from the new microtransaction model. For the most part I highly doubt enough people will buy skins to allow the "expected" volume of content over the next two years.

    Dice already had to cut a bunch of cosmetics for being over the top, there isn't enough wiggle room for cosmetics to be viable and keep to a WW2 theme.

    Unless cosmetics were dumped into that stupid battle royal mode and dice were allowed to let rip with as much crazy as they liked. Which would hopefully keep everyone happy.

    It could go either ways in my opinion. I personally think it all depends on the overall success of the gameplay. IF the gameplay is good and keeps people interested, then they will make plenty of thing to sell for cosmetics. Not to mention if the br mode is even slightly good, they would probably make even more money off selling cosmetics in that mode. Not sure how you can't see both sides benefiting from this service as long as the overall game does well. No lootboxes and no population dividing paid dlc= good for the player and the potential of a possibly endless stream of $$ from cosmetics= good for EA. Sure now if the game flops, which I highly doubt it will, both sides suffer.

    Hell in league of legends alone, I've spent over 900$ in a 4 to 5 year period on a free to play game and the absolute majority of that was on cosmetics.

    I don't think the game will flop, I do think they will sell way less skins than they're expecting to. Which will mean a reduced volume of support over the next two years knowing how EA acts as a company in recent years. I just don't think battlefield players are the skin buying types. We are not ADHD fortnight kids after all.

    We will have to let it play out and see what happens. I can tell you I will never ever buy skins for bfv.
  • Kexlar
    181 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Bf V is going to be a game with no season pass, so we will be getting FREE maps onwards into the game, why would they release the game with all the maps, or a good portion of them at launch? If you cannot wait for the new maps and other items to come over time, maybe play a different game instead.
  • Unyinz
    20 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited October 2018
    Solid_KF wrote: »
    Am i the only one who doesnt care if we have 30 or 40 guns and prefers a smooth release?

    It seems like a lot of people refuse to admit that enjoyment of video games is a purely subjective opinion, and feel like they can make their belief seem more "objective" by pointing to numbers. "How could this game possibly be better than the last one, it has less *things* than the last one!" Meanwhile, they ignore the massive amount of work that's gone into revamping the actual game's systems themselves.

    There are games out there with way more weapons than any BF game has ever had, yet there's a reason people still play BF. It's not about the numbers, it's about how the game feels, and the game will do fine as long as it has enough variety to keep people's attention.
Sign In or Register to comment.