Page 2 of 2 First 12
Results 26 to 28 of 28

  1. Post
    #26
    I was generalizing reddit as 12 year old keyboard warriors, not Battlefield players. Probably spent too long in the /PS4 sub, that place is toxic. I play both PC & PS4 though.
    But yeah, I've been keeping an eye on the BF subs which was why I was surprised by your comment about reddit, I see nothing but mostly praise in there.

    Personally I see nothing wrong with DLC and this whole idea that parts of the game are kept out to monopolize just shows to me the entitled nature of gamers these days. How dare a company give continuing support to a product and expect to be paid for it hey! Expansion packs have been a long standing part of gaming for the last 10-20 years. It's nothing new. In fact the very first Battlefield, 1942, had two expansion packs, now know as DLC.

    To add to this the first DLC due in March is going to be free and the battlepacks are purely cosmetic, earned in-game, and do not require micro-transactions to buy. How is this a step backwards? If anything DICE/EA are taking on-board the communities feedback.

    I don't know mate, everyone I talk to ENJOYS the game being stripped back and better balanced with a select few weapons per class. It's what BF players have been asking for for years.

  2. Post
    #27
    Bu1ld0g wrote:
    I was generalizing reddit as 12 year old keyboard warriors, not Battlefield players. Probably spent too long in the /PS4 sub, that place is toxic. I play both PC & PS4 though.
    But yeah, I've been keeping an eye on the BF subs which was why I was surprised by your comment about reddit, I see nothing but mostly praise in there.

    Personally I see nothing wrong with DLC and this whole idea that parts of the game are kept out to monopolize just shows to me the entitled nature of gamers these days. How dare a company give continuing support to a product and expect to be paid for it hey! Expansion packs have been a long standing part of gaming for the last 10-20 years. It's nothing new. In fact the very first Battlefield, 1942, had two expansion packs, now know as DLC.

    To add to this the first DLC due in March is going to be free and the battlepacks are purely cosmetic, earned in-game, and do not require micro-transactions to buy. How is this a step backwards? If anything DICE/EA are taking on-board the communities feedback.

    I don't know mate, everyone I talk to ENJOYS the game being stripped back and better balanced with a select few weapons per class. It's what BF players have been asking for for years.
    I guess we have to agree to disagree, but I find it unsettling that this level of either lack of content or unfinished product (ie No Man Sky) is acceptable as you have articulated.
    1) No the redit page clearly has people with issues on it, go watch JackFrag, AngryJoe, Matimi0 (all been fans of the series) have similar issues and share the same sentiment on their videos.
    2) "Entitled gamers these days" - you mean people who pay $94 dollars and expect at least the same amount of content from the previous title or the bare minimum for the game to have improved as entitled? I find that hard to reconcile on a consumer ethical basis. Of course you can argue not to buy it, but that doesn't excuse the fact a lot of features are missing.
    3) What you mean by DLC is actually broken part of game that have already been made and sold back out to the consumer for additional price. You do understand the expansion packs of old were actually additional content that after the initial game release, the developers would go and create it. Nowadays this is stuff already developed and sold back to you. Secondly, how can you accept the fact you pay for Premium pass without knowing what you are acutally going to get? Having one free map doesn't excuse the problems the game is released at the current moment.
    4) The thing about community feedback and being stripped back is subjective. I don't see a big calling out for it to be like that at all. In fact, most people saying there not enough stuff online. Again each to their own, but I find it indefensible when we are getting less content with each iteration - especially when the quality isn't per se improving.

  3. Post
    #28
    Your reply does not surprise me in the slightest. You have proof to back up the ridiculous claim content is removed to monopolize I assume?
    Do you truly believe developers sit on content to trickle out to the players for extra revenue?
    Sure they have a roadmap, but that does not constitute holding items back in the slightest. People still work on it and should rightly be paid for their time.

    I'm a baker by trade. If someone came into our shop and demanded a free loaf of bread because they already paid for one yesterday, well, you see my point I hope.

    Complaining about $94 for a game though. I put that amount of petrol in my truck per fortnight. $94 is nothing in today's economical climate and to claim otherwise is delusional. You would pay that in one night at the cinema with your SO and not bat an eyelid. And that's only a couple hours entertainment compared to the days, weeks, months you will get from a video game.

    We can agree to disagree but no one is forced to pay and if it was truly the issue the vocal minority claim it is they would speak with their wallets, not buy into DLC, and it would stop.
    But it doesn't because people want to extend their entertainment past the initial purchase.
    Do you demand you get season two of say Sons of Anarchy because you paid for season one already?

    As for the season pass, I know exactly what I'm getting. The same thing we got in the last few games season passes, around 12-15 extra multi-player maps.
    New Operations, game modes, and Elite Classes. TNew weapons and vehicles will be added with each add-on. Premium includes 16 new maps in total – four in each add-on, 20 new weapons, and 14 unique dog tags.

    By the way, BF4 released with 9 maps, BF3 released with 9 maps. Guess how many BF1 released with...9