This game is a sinking ship. The deluxe content is utterly embarrassing.

Comments

  • Pillownaut
    183 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    bf3 had a proper co-op missions. In bfv those were done just because Dice promised them but the same time quality wasn't promised so it ended up being a very poor experience.
    I logged in just to check out the coop stuff after the patch. Played for 10 minutes and quit. What's up with the aimbot artillery? - To keep you from camping? In a PVE gamemode? xD

  • Genosha-NL
    24 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Paid full price in the PS store..I even pre-orderd.
    Even though I play battlefield since 2142 (that was awsome) I do like BFV as well.
    There are things they need to fix and add though..
    Disappointed in the stuff we get from having the Deluxe edition..certainly does feel like a rip-off.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    6240 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Pillownaut wrote: »
    bf3 had a proper co-op missions. In bfv those were done just because Dice promised them but the same time quality wasn't promised so it ended up being a very poor experience.
    I logged in just to check out the coop stuff after the patch. Played for 10 minutes and quit. What's up with the aimbot artillery? - To keep you from camping? In a PVE gamemode? xD

    The whole co-op thing in bfv is a big joke.
    I literally played 2 missions and managed to complete only one because the second one has a glitch which spawned target enemy npc inside the red zone all the time and npc refused to move so it wasn't possible to even achieve the main goal.
    Seems like nobody actually tested those before the release.
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    Like what? Tell me how someone working x amount of hours are going to jump brackets by saving 200 dollars?
  • disposalist
    8916 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    Like what? Tell me how someone working x amount of hours are going to jump brackets by saving 200 dollars?
    If someone is "struggling to pay their bills" 200 dollars of *disposable income* is a massive amount of money. Leaving aside the moral (or immoral) choice of spending on entertainment when they owe the money to others (which they must do, if they are 'struggling' to pay bills), 200 dollars on a console instead of on rent could see them out on the street if their finances go weird one month. Great choice.

    It's somewhat of an academic argument, as I would say if someone is truly 'poor' they simply wouldn't be able to buy a console let alone games for it.

    The worrying/annoying/sad thing these days is some seem to see it as a necessity or a right and go ahead and buy these things even though they know that the welfare system will have save them later and pay for their essentials because of it.

    Still, tax-payers, by definition, can afford it, I suppose...
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    Like what? Tell me how someone working x amount of hours are going to jump brackets by saving 200 dollars?
    If someone is "struggling to pay their bills" 200 dollars of *disposable income* is a massive amount of money. Leaving aside the moral (or immoral) choice of spending on entertainment when they owe the money to others (which they must do, if they are 'struggling' to pay bills), 200 dollars on a console instead of on rent could see them out on the street if their finances go weird one month. Great choice.

    It's somewhat of an academic argument, as I would say if someone is truly 'poor' they simply wouldn't be able to buy a console let alone games for it.

    The worrying/annoying/sad thing these days is some seem to see it as a necessity or a right and go ahead and buy these things even though they know that the welfare system will have save them later and pay for their essentials because of it.

    Still, tax-payers, by definition, can afford it, I suppose...

    I think there's a lot of assumptions. For one, assuming because someone is Poor, they can't afford a level of entertainment which is false. That 200 dollars might not be accessible or it might come at a time where it is (tax refund, extra hours from work) etc. The person may want to buy for example a PC but cannot afford it and has to buy a base console. $200 purchase that lasts for however long they need it. They are still people playing on their PS3. Some people don't even have subscriptions to their PS and play single player games that they either purchased a long time ago, bought second hand or borrowed. There are free to play games which do not require a play station subscription aka H1Z1 although that's probably a small list of games.

    I think its unjust to say if someone is poor, they shouldn't be allowed entertainment. I don't think someone who spent 200 dollars for a console that last them a few years even going beyond the generation's lifespan is blowing money.

    It would be as insane as someone saying, why are you buying a basketball or connect 4 if you're struggling to pay bills. That person knows their budget better than we do. I don't think there are people that are destitute, so poor they can't afford fresh water are buying consoles. The standards for poor is different from that type of poor.
  • disposalist
    8916 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    Like what? Tell me how someone working x amount of hours are going to jump brackets by saving 200 dollars?
    If someone is "struggling to pay their bills" 200 dollars of *disposable income* is a massive amount of money. Leaving aside the moral (or immoral) choice of spending on entertainment when they owe the money to others (which they must do, if they are 'struggling' to pay bills), 200 dollars on a console instead of on rent could see them out on the street if their finances go weird one month. Great choice.

    It's somewhat of an academic argument, as I would say if someone is truly 'poor' they simply wouldn't be able to buy a console let alone games for it.

    The worrying/annoying/sad thing these days is some seem to see it as a necessity or a right and go ahead and buy these things even though they know that the welfare system will have save them later and pay for their essentials because of it.

    Still, tax-payers, by definition, can afford it, I suppose...

    I think there's a lot of assumptions. For one, assuming because someone is Poor, they can't afford a level of entertainment which is false. That 200 dollars might not be accessible or it might come at a time where it is (tax refund, extra hours from work) etc. The person may want to buy for example a PC but cannot afford it and has to buy a base console. $200 purchase that lasts for however long they need it. They are still people playing on their PS3. Some people don't even have subscriptions to their PS and play single player games that they either purchased a long time ago, bought second hand or borrowed. There are free to play games which do not require a play station subscription aka H1Z1 although that's probably a small list of games.

    I think its unjust to say if someone is poor, they shouldn't be allowed entertainment. I don't think someone who spent 200 dollars for a console that last them a few years even going beyond the generation's lifespan is blowing money.

    It would be as insane as someone saying, why are you buying a basketball or connect 4 if you're struggling to pay bills. That person knows their budget better than we do. I don't think there are people that are destitute, so poor they can't afford fresh water are buying consoles. The standards for poor is different from that type of poor.
    Our definitions of 'poor' may differ.

    "I think its unjust to say if someone is poor, they shouldn't be allowed entertainment". You're allowed entertainment - there's lots of inexpensive entertainment to be had out there.

    If you manage to balance the books, buy a console and keep paying your bills, then cool, well done!

    If you spend 200 dollars on entertainment when that was supposed to go on bills and then your life is a 'struggle' and tax-payers have to bail you out, then I have no sympathy.

    If you buy a console when you are struggling to pay your bills, you are effectively happily risking having to get tax-payers to pay for it later on. Is a console such a 'right' or a 'necessity' that that is ok?

    *shrug* this is possibly a philosophical or political debate that we aren't going to resolve here and isn't appropriate really.
  • Pelliy
    2228 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Pelliy wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    Like what? Tell me how someone working x amount of hours are going to jump brackets by saving 200 dollars?
    If someone is "struggling to pay their bills" 200 dollars of *disposable income* is a massive amount of money. Leaving aside the moral (or immoral) choice of spending on entertainment when they owe the money to others (which they must do, if they are 'struggling' to pay bills), 200 dollars on a console instead of on rent could see them out on the street if their finances go weird one month. Great choice.

    It's somewhat of an academic argument, as I would say if someone is truly 'poor' they simply wouldn't be able to buy a console let alone games for it.

    The worrying/annoying/sad thing these days is some seem to see it as a necessity or a right and go ahead and buy these things even though they know that the welfare system will have save them later and pay for their essentials because of it.

    Still, tax-payers, by definition, can afford it, I suppose...

    I think there's a lot of assumptions. For one, assuming because someone is Poor, they can't afford a level of entertainment which is false. That 200 dollars might not be accessible or it might come at a time where it is (tax refund, extra hours from work) etc. The person may want to buy for example a PC but cannot afford it and has to buy a base console. $200 purchase that lasts for however long they need it. They are still people playing on their PS3. Some people don't even have subscriptions to their PS and play single player games that they either purchased a long time ago, bought second hand or borrowed. There are free to play games which do not require a play station subscription aka H1Z1 although that's probably a small list of games.

    I think its unjust to say if someone is poor, they shouldn't be allowed entertainment. I don't think someone who spent 200 dollars for a console that last them a few years even going beyond the generation's lifespan is blowing money.

    It would be as insane as someone saying, why are you buying a basketball or connect 4 if you're struggling to pay bills. That person knows their budget better than we do. I don't think there are people that are destitute, so poor they can't afford fresh water are buying consoles. The standards for poor is different from that type of poor.
    Our definitions of 'poor' may differ.

    "I think its unjust to say if someone is poor, they shouldn't be allowed entertainment". You're allowed entertainment - there's lots of inexpensive entertainment to be had out there.

    If you manage to balance the books, buy a console and keep paying your bills, then cool, well done!

    If you spend 200 dollars on entertainment when that was supposed to go on bills and then your life is a 'struggle' and tax-payers have to bail you out, then I have no sympathy.

    If you buy a console when you are struggling to pay your bills, you are effectively happily risking having to get tax-payers to pay for it later on. Is a console such a 'right' or a 'necessity' that that is ok?

    *shrug* this is possibly a philosophical or political debate that we aren't going to resolve here and isn't appropriate really.

    fair enough, we can agree to disagree. :)
  • ackers75
    2651 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    You do realise some people work and have things called bills to pay!
    It’s what’s known as called being an adult
  • OP_Glitchmobile
    972 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    You do realise some people work and have things called bills to pay!
    It’s what’s known as called being an adult

    I don't have enough bills...too much time off work (literally half the year).....this can also be called being an adult.
  • Khronikos
    2236 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 2019
    Apex has some of the same issues BFV will face for BR. These games are trying to replace the tween fanbase of Fortnite, but they don't have a chance in hell of doing it. Apex is addictive, but as of now it's super imbalanced and quite honestly just an RNG game. It's basically you collecting useless loot for 3/4 of your time playing it. You don't keep the loot. You use it for the one maybe two firefights you usually get into with randoms. That is if you didn't die or quit out after one minute.

    With a full squad of good players it can be fun. But I rarely have the time for that, and even when I do it doesn't always work out. Apex sucks up too much time much like a lot of BR games. Not sure I really care for it to be honest. Not enough action for me.

    These BR games only work when you have balanced teams and good squad play. BF does not have balanced teams so we know that won't be happening. I can't imagine people are going to stick with Apex unless it majorly improves, but IDK maybe people love this addictive uselessness.

    I think it's good to spot addictive games though. They are bad for you. BF is full of addicts just looking for something, but I doubt V is it. This game just doesn't seem like it will do all that well in the BR genre. But maybe their map is insanely awesome or something. I just doubt it.

    Plus it doesn't have that teenly flair that Apex has. It seems more of the tweens and teens love this BR stuff. I find it a waste of time for the most part. It can be really fun and addictive, but playing alone it's completely RNG as to how any given match goes. I just don't understand why people love this stuff.
  • KPNuts74
    679 postsMember, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    KPNuts74 wrote: »
    Pelliy wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Mmm. I preordered deluxe at a discount for the early access.

    I paid $48 for delivery last night, which we finished in seven minutes.

    I paid another $20 for a movie that was over in two hours and and sixteen minutes.

    Edit: The delivery and movie cost less than deluxe and were completed in two hours and twenty three minutes.

    I'm sure you didn't mean it but your comment could seem a bit insensitive to anyone who struggles with the day-today bills.

    For a lot of people Battlefield is an escape from the daily drudgery.

    To just wave a wad of cash in their faces and say it's nothing to you to spend seventy dollars on two hours worth of entertainment seems a little bit disrespectful.

    Bear in mind that Battlefield is designed to offer value over a lengthy period of playing time and it's inherent value or worth is intrinsically linked to that.

    Yet these people who struggle to pay their bills found money to buy a console and pay subs fees.

    If they struggle to pay bills, why are they playing video games?

    Same reason as everyone else who plays video games.

    But if they know it is a struggle but still do it, why should anyone 'feel bad' for being able to afford it without such struggle?

    Now if it was actually to their face and in person perhaps but here?

    Naaahhhh.

    You think people should stop playing video games because they are poor or struggle to pay the bills?

    Is it a good idea to play videogames if you are poor, and struggle to pay the bills?
    Or is it a good idea to get a job so you get out of poverty, pay the bills...THEN play videogames?

    I know wich one is right.

    Why are you assuming they're not working? They might have worked hella hours just to be able to even afford the console.

    If someone has to work many hours to buy a console maybe they should be spending the money on more important things.

    You do realise some people work and have things called bills to pay!
    It’s what’s known as called being an adult

    You missed my point in context to what I was replying to.
  • warslag
    1606 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Apex has some of the same issues BFV will face for BR. These games are trying to replace the tween fanbase of Fortnite, but they don't have a chance in hell of doing it. Apex is addictive, but as of now it's super imbalanced and quite honestly just an RNG game. It's basically you collecting useless loot for 3/4 of your time playing it. You don't keep the loot. You use it for the one maybe two firefights you usually get into with randoms. That is if you didn't die or quit out after one minute.

    With a full squad of good players it can be fun. But I rarely have the time for that, and even when I do it doesn't always work out. Apex sucks up too much time much like a lot of BR games. Not sure I really care for it to be honest. Not enough action for me.

    These BR games only work when you have balanced teams and good squad play. BF does not have balanced teams so we know that won't be happening. I can't imagine people are going to stick with Apex unless it majorly improves, but IDK maybe people love this addictive uselessness.

    I think it's good to spot addictive games though. They are bad for you. BF is full of addicts just looking for something, but I doubt V is it. This game just doesn't seem like it will do all that well in the BR genre. But maybe their map is insanely awesome or something. I just doubt it.

    Plus it doesn't have that teenly flair that Apex has. It seems more of the tweens and teens love this BR stuff. I find it a waste of time for the most part. It can be really fun and addictive, but playing alone it's completely RNG as to how any given match goes. I just don't understand why people love this stuff.
    Who gets addicted to video games?

    More like; people are addicted to things that they don’t like.

    Example: continually posts on a forum for a game that the person doesn’t like.

    You're in no place to lecture about addiction when you have over 10,000 forum posts.
  • TEKNOCODE
    11592 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Apex has some of the same issues BFV will face for BR. These games are trying to replace the tween fanbase of Fortnite, but they don't have a chance in hell of doing it. Apex is addictive, but as of now it's super imbalanced and quite honestly just an RNG game. It's basically you collecting useless loot for 3/4 of your time playing it. You don't keep the loot. You use it for the one maybe two firefights you usually get into with randoms. That is if you didn't die or quit out after one minute.

    With a full squad of good players it can be fun. But I rarely have the time for that, and even when I do it doesn't always work out. Apex sucks up too much time much like a lot of BR games. Not sure I really care for it to be honest. Not enough action for me.

    These BR games only work when you have balanced teams and good squad play. BF does not have balanced teams so we know that won't be happening. I can't imagine people are going to stick with Apex unless it majorly improves, but IDK maybe people love this addictive uselessness.

    I think it's good to spot addictive games though. They are bad for you. BF is full of addicts just looking for something, but I doubt V is it. This game just doesn't seem like it will do all that well in the BR genre. But maybe their map is insanely awesome or something. I just doubt it.

    Plus it doesn't have that teenly flair that Apex has. It seems more of the tweens and teens love this BR stuff. I find it a waste of time for the most part. It can be really fun and addictive, but playing alone it's completely RNG as to how any given match goes. I just don't understand why people love this stuff.
    Who gets addicted to video games?

    More like; people are addicted to things that they don’t like.

    Example: continually posts on a forum for a game that the person doesn’t like.

    You're in no place to lecture about addiction when you have over 10,000 forum posts.
    You seem obsessed with that. Addiction can be harmful.
  • warslag
    1606 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Apex has some of the same issues BFV will face for BR. These games are trying to replace the tween fanbase of Fortnite, but they don't have a chance in hell of doing it. Apex is addictive, but as of now it's super imbalanced and quite honestly just an RNG game. It's basically you collecting useless loot for 3/4 of your time playing it. You don't keep the loot. You use it for the one maybe two firefights you usually get into with randoms. That is if you didn't die or quit out after one minute.

    With a full squad of good players it can be fun. But I rarely have the time for that, and even when I do it doesn't always work out. Apex sucks up too much time much like a lot of BR games. Not sure I really care for it to be honest. Not enough action for me.

    These BR games only work when you have balanced teams and good squad play. BF does not have balanced teams so we know that won't be happening. I can't imagine people are going to stick with Apex unless it majorly improves, but IDK maybe people love this addictive uselessness.

    I think it's good to spot addictive games though. They are bad for you. BF is full of addicts just looking for something, but I doubt V is it. This game just doesn't seem like it will do all that well in the BR genre. But maybe their map is insanely awesome or something. I just doubt it.

    Plus it doesn't have that teenly flair that Apex has. It seems more of the tweens and teens love this BR stuff. I find it a waste of time for the most part. It can be really fun and addictive, but playing alone it's completely RNG as to how any given match goes. I just don't understand why people love this stuff.
    Who gets addicted to video games?

    More like; people are addicted to things that they don’t like.

    Example: continually posts on a forum for a game that the person doesn’t like.

    You're in no place to lecture about addiction when you have over 10,000 forum posts.
    You seem obsessed with that. Addiction can be harmful.

    It certainly doesn't seem to have done you any good.
  • MAJWolfcookies
    587 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Apex has some of the same issues BFV will face for BR. These games are trying to replace the tween fanbase of Fortnite, but they don't have a chance in hell of doing it. Apex is addictive, but as of now it's super imbalanced and quite honestly just an RNG game. It's basically you collecting useless loot for 3/4 of your time playing it. You don't keep the loot. You use it for the one maybe two firefights you usually get into with randoms. That is if you didn't die or quit out after one minute.

    With a full squad of good players it can be fun. But I rarely have the time for that, and even when I do it doesn't always work out. Apex sucks up too much time much like a lot of BR games. Not sure I really care for it to be honest. Not enough action for me.

    These BR games only work when you have balanced teams and good squad play. BF does not have balanced teams so we know that won't be happening. I can't imagine people are going to stick with Apex unless it majorly improves, but IDK maybe people love this addictive uselessness.

    I think it's good to spot addictive games though. They are bad for you. BF is full of addicts just looking for something, but I doubt V is it. This game just doesn't seem like it will do all that well in the BR genre. But maybe their map is insanely awesome or something. I just doubt it.

    Plus it doesn't have that teenly flair that Apex has. It seems more of the tweens and teens love this BR stuff. I find it a waste of time for the most part. It can be really fun and addictive, but playing alone it's completely RNG as to how any given match goes. I just don't understand why people love this stuff.
    Who gets addicted to video games?

    More like; people are addicted to things that they don’t like.

    Example: continually posts on a forum for a game that the person doesn’t like.

    You're in no place to lecture about addiction when you have over 10,000 forum posts.
    You seem obsessed with that. Addiction can be harmful.

    It certainly doesn't seem to have done you any good.

    Dude- don’t mind that shill-troll. He and the rest of his “club” either A) don’t play or B) not particularly good and C) thus have no clue -
  • BaronVonGoon
    7050 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Apex has some of the same issues BFV will face for BR. These games are trying to replace the tween fanbase of Fortnite, but they don't have a chance in hell of doing it. Apex is addictive, but as of now it's super imbalanced and quite honestly just an RNG game. It's basically you collecting useless loot for 3/4 of your time playing it. You don't keep the loot. You use it for the one maybe two firefights you usually get into with randoms. That is if you didn't die or quit out after one minute.

    With a full squad of good players it can be fun. But I rarely have the time for that, and even when I do it doesn't always work out. Apex sucks up too much time much like a lot of BR games. Not sure I really care for it to be honest. Not enough action for me.

    These BR games only work when you have balanced teams and good squad play. BF does not have balanced teams so we know that won't be happening. I can't imagine people are going to stick with Apex unless it majorly improves, but IDK maybe people love this addictive uselessness.

    I think it's good to spot addictive games though. They are bad for you. BF is full of addicts just looking for something, but I doubt V is it. This game just doesn't seem like it will do all that well in the BR genre. But maybe their map is insanely awesome or something. I just doubt it.

    Plus it doesn't have that teenly flair that Apex has. It seems more of the tweens and teens love this BR stuff. I find it a waste of time for the most part. It can be really fun and addictive, but playing alone it's completely RNG as to how any given match goes. I just don't understand why people love this stuff.
    Who gets addicted to video games?

    More like; people are addicted to things that they don’t like.

    Example: continually posts on a forum for a game that the person doesn’t like.

    He said something along the lines of he's doing it as long as EA continue their practices. He may actually think he's harming EA in some way. Maybe he thinks he's the reason for EA's stock price taking a hit?
  • TEKNOCODE
    11592 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    warslag wrote: »
    TEKNOCODE wrote: »
    Khronikos wrote: »
    Apex has some of the same issues BFV will face for BR. These games are trying to replace the tween fanbase of Fortnite, but they don't have a chance in hell of doing it. Apex is addictive, but as of now it's super imbalanced and quite honestly just an RNG game. It's basically you collecting useless loot for 3/4 of your time playing it. You don't keep the loot. You use it for the one maybe two firefights you usually get into with randoms. That is if you didn't die or quit out after one minute.

    With a full squad of good players it can be fun. But I rarely have the time for that, and even when I do it doesn't always work out. Apex sucks up too much time much like a lot of BR games. Not sure I really care for it to be honest. Not enough action for me.

    These BR games only work when you have balanced teams and good squad play. BF does not have balanced teams so we know that won't be happening. I can't imagine people are going to stick with Apex unless it majorly improves, but IDK maybe people love this addictive uselessness.

    I think it's good to spot addictive games though. They are bad for you. BF is full of addicts just looking for something, but I doubt V is it. This game just doesn't seem like it will do all that well in the BR genre. But maybe their map is insanely awesome or something. I just doubt it.

    Plus it doesn't have that teenly flair that Apex has. It seems more of the tweens and teens love this BR stuff. I find it a waste of time for the most part. It can be really fun and addictive, but playing alone it's completely RNG as to how any given match goes. I just don't understand why people love this stuff.
    Who gets addicted to video games?

    More like; people are addicted to things that they don’t like.

    Example: continually posts on a forum for a game that the person doesn’t like.

    You're in no place to lecture about addiction when you have over 10,000 forum posts.
    You seem obsessed with that. Addiction can be harmful.

    It certainly doesn't seem to have done you any good.

    I guess I’m addicted to walking, working and sleeping too. 🤷🏻‍♀️
This discussion has been closed.