Support NeoGAF

[Unit24]

No, really guys, EA is totally getting better. They announced EA Access and released pools for Sims 4 for free! Clearly this means they've changed their ways and it's all uphill from here.

Please ignore everything else they did last year, and also this. EA is totally getting better.

Totally.


(Kill me.)

 

[pompidu]

This. Silver lining: the shitty launch and backlash against EA help prop up the CTE, which has led to some of the best improvements that the series has seen and has actually let the community shape the game.

I just hope DICE also implements a lot of Hardline's improvements into the next BF or Battlefront.



Agreed on both fronts.



Except, again, it probably wouldn't have been. BF2 was charging for expansion packs and their 2 booster packs.

Never bought any battlefields, gameplay was always meh.

 

[brokenbeans]

Will probably buy.

 

[Anton Sugar]

At some point publishers will learn:

1. Release your game.
2. Establish that it actually works as intended.
3. At least a month after your working game has been released, announce DLC.

Again, what would this accomplish? A warmer feeling?

Expansion packs/DLC is planned months in advance. Different teams are working on them--the infrastructure/engineering/dev ops team is LIKELY not creating new maps, new weapons, new vehicles, etc.

All they're doing is announcing it early. It's astonishing to me that people are upset at just KNOWING, prior to launch, that DLC is being developed and will be released at a later date.

 

[ironcreed]

At some point publishers will learn:

1. Release your game.
2. Establish that it actually works as intended.
3. At least a month after your working game has been released, announce DLC.

A pretty simple formula, lol. Get the players hooked, then sell them on more. Those who plan to stay with the game for the long haul will still end up buying it. And on the upside? It just plain makes you look better, instead of grabbing for over $100 before the game even releases.

 

[Fury451]

Yeah. Some people here are just too young to remember expansion packs. The expansions backs that came out for 1942, BF2, and 2142 were virtually the same as the DLC we've been getting since BF3. People were spoiled by the VIP system of Bad Company 2 giving four while maps for free with no new guns and handing out other game modes on stock maps piece meal.

Only BC2 Vietnam is comparable to a single DLC pack for BF3/4.

This was the point I was trying to raise- maybe it is an age/experience issue because I was so used to seeing them years ago, but Premium is comparable or even more of a value than past expansion packs were dollar for dollar. At the least, they were equal in terms of content, but I still think Premium for 3/4 had more content than any 1942 or other expansions by far.

But BC2 did spoil, in a good way.

A pretty simple formula, lol. Get the players hooked, then sell them on more. Those who plan to stay with the game for the long haul will still end up buying it. And on the upside? It just plain makes you look better, instead of grabbing for over $100 before the game even releases.

It comes down to presentation it seems. They're still doing all of what you said, just "out of order". DLC is planned way in advance, so they probably figure make the pass available ASAP anyways. Other than jumping the gun in the announcement, releasing in the order you mentioned would be much more ideal, I agree.

 

[Anton Sugar]

It's so ironic to hear BC2 touted as a good example of DLC. Outside of the paid expansion, Vietnam, 6/7 of their DLC was existing game modes added to existing maps. If ever there was a case to be made for "this should have been available day 1", that is it.

But no, BC2 is the best Battlefield game.

 

[mmazurkiewicz]

i may buy the game but no way in hell am i buying these $50 expansion packs.

 

[Tubie]

B..b..but you get a discount on the content that should been included in the base game!

Announcing DLC before a product is even out just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially from a company who releases broken games at launch. I find it amazing that people are willing to pay money upfront and then defend the practice to the death. If you enjoy annualized FPSs that don't innovate and price gouge then good for that person but it's not my cup of tea.

When has a CoD or BF game ever come out with 25-30 maps at launch? They are not cutting content, those maps haven't even been made yet. They usually start to work on the first DLC not long before the base game is ready to ship out.

Also, it's been 17 months since BF4 came out, and BF4 came out 2 years after BF3. I don't think that counts as "annualized".

 

[ElzarTheBam]

It's so ironic to hear BC2 touted as a good example of DLC. Outside of the paid expansion, Vietnam, 6/7 of their DLC was existing game modes added to existing maps. If ever there was a case to be made for "this should have been available day 1", that is it.

But no, BC2 is the best Battlefield game.

And there was a huge number of complaints leading to their only free map pack with new content being released at the tail end of its lifespan.

 

[Fury451]

When has a CoD or BF game ever come out with 25-30 maps at launch?

When has any game really? The paranoia people have that "content is being cut and resold" is ludicrous. No game has ever had THAT much multiplayer content at launch.

Battlefield provides a decent amount of content at launch already- new modes is the highlight, but new maps and guns are great.

You can't expect a developer to have all of that ready prior to a release, because to my understanding, the create and add based on player feedback/trends.

The guns especially they seem to add based on demand and then have to tweak and balance them plus any new equipment as well. New maps are added after seeing how the initial ones are received and working in improvements based on feedback (i.e. More close quarters, or long range, or vehicle based, etc.).

Again, I don't support cutting and selling content, but Battlefield Premium is definitely NOT a case of that happening.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

When has a CoD or BF game ever come out with 25-30 maps at launch? They are not cutting content, those maps haven't even been made yet. They usually start to work on the first DLC not long before the base game is ready to ship out.

Please tell me where I said I expected 25-30 maps at launch. Activision and EA have a history of cutting content or giving a barebones package so they can sell DLC a month or two later. Asking for $110 upfront for the full experience is a joke and makes people think they're being greedy. But hey, let's give these mega-corporations the benefit of the doubt.

 

[DouglasteR]

NEVER again.

Spoiler

Seriously, never.

 

[ironcreed]

This was the point I was trying to raise- maybe it is an age/experience issue because I was so used to seeing them years ago, but Premium is comparable or even more of a value than past expansion packs were dollar for dollar. At the least, they were equal in terms of content, but I still think Premium for 3/4 had more content than any 1942 or other expansions by far.

But BC2 did spoil, in a good way.



It comes down to presentation it seems. They're still doing all of what you said, just "out of order". DLC is planned way in advance, so they probably figure make the pass available ASAP anyways. Other than jumping the gun in the announcement, releasing in the order you mentioned would be much more ideal, I agree.

See, expansions were never on sale before the game released back in the day. You used to buy a game and then get sold on the expansion down the line when you were craving more. What I am against is them trying to get people to pay $110 upfront before they even know the full quality of the game. But apparently many are more than happy to oblige, so more power to them. Choice is a beautiful thing and I am not going to argue with those who want to go ahead and buy it all right now.

 

[EventHorizon]

Access to double-XP

Priority position in server queues

These two are examples of the incentives for devs to make the normal game experience worse in order to make players pay for a "fix" by buying premium content. In the case of the server queues, this feature will directly make the regular gamer's experience worse by pushing them lower in the queue and making them wait longer.

I was never going to buy Hardline, but it just hit me that my fears for Battlefront will come true. It is going to be plugged into this formula and really just be Battlefield with light sabers. Battlefield, Hardline, and Battlefront will all be the the same game just changed up a bit to try to hide that fact.

I sad.

 

[Hidden One]

Early winter 2016? What the fuck?

 

[Tubie]

Please tell me where I said I expected 25-30 maps at launch. Activision and EA have a history of cutting content or giving a barebones package so they can sell DLC a month or two later. Asking for $110 upfront for the full experience is a joke and makes people think they're being greedy. But hey, let's give these mega-corporations the benefit of the doubt.

Wait so they are not cutting content, but they somehow still are? I don't get your logic on this, seems more like blind hate for EA.

When I bought BF4 it never felt it had too little content, hell some people never even bought Premium for that and are still perfectly happy playing the base maps to this day.

Premium is something extra for people who really like the game and feel they will stick with it for the long haul.

Nobody is being forced to buy it.

 

[Florida_Man_5000]

I bought the Digital Deluxe but I think that Premium is what I wanted. And before I get criticized, I got probably a thousand hours plus in BF4 so $110 is a great value proposition to me. I gladly give games that I like my money so that they make more of them.

 

[Fury451]

See, expansions were never on sale before the game released back in the day. You used to buy a game and then get sold on the expansion down the line when you were craving more. What I am against is them trying to get people to pay $110 upfront before they even know the full quality of the game. But apparently many are more than happy to oblige, so more power to them. Choice is a beautiful thing and I am not going to argue with those who want to go ahead and buy it all right now.

Absolutely true, and again I agree with you. I see it as "we're selling this anyways, may as well let you buy it now", not a malicious per se. But yes, ideally they should wait to sell it, it appears less greedy and suspicious, plus it would give the base game room to "breathe" a little. As I mentioned, I bought BF4 Premium after they added the second pack, because that's when I decided I wanted more, so I'm with you on that point.

I think that speaks to more present trends though- you have to hook people immediately because of the ADHD nature of online multiplayer gaming. Back in the golden age of expansions, there was less month to month competition.

I think the idea here is sell the pass while you can, that way you get guaranteed return players who may have otherwise forgotten about the game because the next one in another series came out or whatever.

Doesn't mean I agree with that approach, but I understand it.

Splitting the player base is probably the most troublesome thing Premium does though.

 

[RE_Player]

I might actually buy it...

 

[ironcreed]

These two are examples of the incentives for devs to make the normal game experience worse in order to make players pay for a "fix" by buying premium content. In the case of the server queues, this feature will directly make the regular gamer's experience worse by pushing them lower in the queue and making them wait longer.

I was never going to buy Hardline, but it just hit me that my fears for Battlefront will come come true. It is going to be plugged into this formula and really just be Battlefield with light sabers. Battlefield, Hardline, and Battlefront will all be the the same game just changed up a bit to try to hide that fact.

I sad.

Double XP and server queue priority falls straight into the 'pay to win' category and are not what one would deem perks of a typical expansion.

 

[HariKari]

I bought the Digital Deluxe but I think that Premium is what I wanted. And before I get criticized, I got probably a thousand hours plus in BF4 so $110 is a great value proposition to me. I gladly give games that I like my money so that they make more of them.

Broken games? That's what you're supporting by preordering for a few trinkets.

 

[bombshell]

These two are examples of the incentives for devs to make the normal game experience worse in order to make players pay for a "fix" by buying premium content. In the case of the server queues, this feature will directly make the regular gamer's experience worse by pushing them lower in the queue and making them wait longer.

I was never going to buy Hardline, but it just hit me that my fears for Battlefront will come true. It is going to be plugged into this formula and really just be Battlefield with light sabers. Battlefield, Hardline, and Battlefront will all be the the same game just changed up a bit to try to hide that fact.

I sad.

The server queue prioritization is a non-issue unless you really, really, really want to join a specific full server. Otherwise you just join another non-full server via the server browser.

 

[Enilced2]

Oh yeah have had this pre ordered since announced last year at E3. Probably grab premium too was great value for BF4 and always bummed I grabbed the BF3 expacs seperately

 

[Tubie]

The server queue prioritization is a non-issue unless you really, really, really want to join a specific full server. Otherwise you just join another non-full server via the server browser.

Some people are acting like there's a limited number of servers or something. There are always servers nearly full with open spots for people to join without waiting.

On consoles the vast majority just uses quick match so they will never see a server queue in their time with the game, premium or not.

 

[Turin Turambar]

When has any game really? The paranoia people have that "content is being cut and resold" is ludicrous. No game has ever had THAT much multiplayer content at launch.

Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament 1, 2k4 and 3.

Arma 2 had also a fuckton of content, though the map isn't divided in small zones. But 225km2 of terrain is a lot of BF-sized maps, and it had 5 factions, editor, and dozens of weapons and vehicles.

 

[CalamityPixel]

Looks like I'm not gonna get this game then, I'll wait until all the DLC is out and I may then buy the Premium Edition.

Then that'll save me roughly £60

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Wait so they are not cutting content, but they somehow still are? I don't get your logic on this, seems more like blind hate for EA.

When I bought BF4 it never felt it had too little content, hell some people never even bought Premium for that and are still perfectly happy playing the base maps to this day.

Premium is something extra for people who really like the game and feel they will stick with it for the long haul.

Nobody is being forced to buy it.

You dont get the logic because you are selectively reading. EA and Activision have been known to withold content while they announce season passes and DLC before the game launches. You may be happy to lap up whatever they set in font of you but I'm not going to spend my money on their product when they pull crap like this. So don't worry, I won't buy it. Not sure why you and that other guy are arguing so hard to get people to pay $110 plus tax upfront.

Oh, and FYI, expansion packs weren't announced before release and sitting on shelves day 1 years ago.

 

[sn00zer]

I am genuinely curious who spends $100+ right out of the gate for Battlefield and Call of Duty. I cant imagine many people aged 25+ would be interested in this.

 

[brokenbeans]

I have EA access so should get a discount off this as well.

Ed - I'm 31 and employed so I have no problem spending as much as I want on any of my hobbies (in reply to dude above me.)

 

[cluderi]

Not really for me but I don't like this as an indication of what they have planned for the Battlefront release .......

 

[EventHorizon]

The server queue prioritization is a non-issue unless you really, really, really want to join a specific full server. Otherwise you just join another non-full server via the server browser.

If it were nothing then it wouldn't be worth a bullet point to get you to buy the premium edition. Like I said that's the problem with incentives like faster experience and server queue prioritization. It puts pressure on the devs to make them worth something, and since these directly affect the gameplay experience, making them better necessarily makes the normal game worse.

If they really are worth nothing then EA should have no problem removing them.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

You dont get the logic because you are selectively reading. EA and Activision have been known to withold content while they announce season passes and DLC before the game launches. You may be happy to lap up whatever they set in font of you but I'm not going to spend my money on their product when they pull crap like this. So don't worry, I won't buy it. Not sure why you and that other guy are arguing so hard to get people to pay $110 plus tax upfront.

Oh, and FYI, expansion packs weren't announced before release and sitting on shelves day 1 years ago.

Do you have any proof of this or is your hatred for EA making you assume as such?


Anyway, it doesn't matter. You and everyone else who thinks like you lose. There are thousands of people for everyone one of you that will buy the season passes and DLC. A few loud people on the internet isn't going to change that.

 

[Lothars]

Oh, and FYI, expansion packs weren't announced before release and sitting on shelves day 1 years ago.

You could guarantee expansion packs were going to come out around a year after the game was out for pretty much any game released.

 

[Bedlam]

Ridiculous.

Get f*cked, EA.

 

[giancarlo123x]

Jesus at some of the hate in here like this shit is new. Did Hardline kick your dog and steal your man/girl?

 

[Tubie]

You dont get the logic because you are selectively reading. EA and Activision have been known to withold content while they announce season passes and DLC before the game launches. You may be happy to lap up whatever they set in font of you but I'm not going to spend my money on their product when they pull crap like this. So don't worry, I won't buy it. Not sure why you and that other guy are arguing so hard to get people to pay $110 plus tax upfront.

Oh, and FYI, expansion packs weren't announced before release and sitting on shelves day 1 years ago.

I'm not telling anyone to preorder the game, or Premium. I'm talking about the value of Premium itself. I guess we both misunderstood each other.

Nobody should ever preorder anything honestly, specially digital games or DLC.

 

[Alienous]

Well, look at that.

I can't say I was interested before. I'm certainly not now.

 

[On Demand]

Can i have BF Bad Company please?

Pre planned DLC makes me throw up. All this early access and premium BS. I hope the internet slows back down to dial up speeds.

 

[Dyson Industries]

What Battlefield game came out in 2014 again? I may have missed it.

Battlefield Four finally went gold in 2014. You may have missed it.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Do you have any proof of this or is your hatred for EA making you assume as such?

Ever heard of Mass Effect 3 or Call of Duty? I don't care how you spend your money, I'm saying I don't like the practice and think it's a joke, yet here you are trying to argue against me refusing to spend $110 for yet another Battlefield game.

 

[void666]

Are people really surprised? They did the same with BF3 and 4. Why BFHL should be different?

 

[JJD]

Double XP and server queue priority falls straight into the 'pay to win' category and are not what one would deem perks of a typical expansion.

I disagree. Double XP is not an issue considering that usually some of the best weapons are early unlocks (looking back at BF3 and 4). Server queues were always present on Battlefield. They are not expansion "perks", specially on PC considering servers were maintained by the community. If you helped to pay for the server you had queue priority, it's been there for a long, long time. No one is getting kicked out of a server for someone with premium to join. You'll just have to wait a couple seconds, minutes at most to join. If you don't want to do that just find another server.

I fail to see how this is pay to win.

 

[ryseing]

Well that's a shit reason lol

No, it isn't.

If dealing with EA and shitty DLC is what it takes to get a new entry in a beloved franchise, so be it. As long as we get a decent game out of the deal.

It's been too damned long. I'll be there day one.

 

[bombshell]

If it were nothing then it wouldn't be worth a bullet point to get you to buy the premium edition. Like I said that's the problem with incentives like faster experience and server queue prioritization. It puts pressure on the devs to make them worth something, and since these directly affect the gameplay experience, making them better necessarily makes the normal game worse.

If they really are worth nothing then EA should have no problem removing them.

But I just explained to you how it does not affect the non-premium members in any way besides that you will have a slower join time on already full servers if there's also a premium member trying to join that same server. This would be a severe problem if the servers are limited and most of the time all full, but they are not. The server browser is your friend.

 

[Fury451]

Quake 3 Arena, Unreal Tournament 1, 2k4 and 3.

Arma 2 had also a fuckton of content, though the map isn't divided in small zones. But 225km2 of terrain is a lot of BF-sized maps, and it had 5 factions, editor, and dozens of weapons and vehicles.

Fair enough, you got me with those.

I completely forgot about Arma 2 actually.

 

[void666]

BF3 premium was well worth it. Great map packs.

 

[ElzarTheBam]

Ever heard of Mass Effect 3 or Call of Duty? I don't care how you spend your money, I'm saying I don't like the practice and think it's a joke, yet here you are trying to argue against me refusing to spend $110 for yet another Battlefield game.

Are you really that thick?

He's not arguing against you refusing to spend $100 on a battlefield game, BTW the game actually $60.

He's arguing against your assinine statements aka content that should be in the game, holding back content.

Premium is an optional added value, whether you like it or not is up to you. Out of all the season passes released every year for most AAA games, this is the only one with a substantial amount of content.

Now even without premium, Hardline, like BF3, like BF4, like COD, like Halo etc still features a lot of content.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

It's kinad sad, but when Battlefront and Black ops 3 start really being shown the sales for Hardline are gonna flop like a dead fish.

You'll probably be able to get the game + Premium for 40 easy by the end of summer.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

Ever heard of Mass Effect 3 or Call of Duty? I don't care how you spend your money, I'm saying I don't like the practice and think it's a joke, yet here you are trying to argue against me refusing to spend $110 for yet another Battlefield game.

You'll have to do better than that. Prove to me that content was withheld from being available on disc on the release dates of those games in favor of DLC.

The burden of proof is on you, if you can't respond I'll just continue to assume you are full of it.