Support NeoGAF

[shone237]

the premium package is just as predictable as the amount of people "offended" by it.

I've played BF4 daily since its release, and despite the few bugs that I had to deal with (sorry not to stoke the fire but I've had almost zero issues playing since launch) I got more than my moneys worth. Especially when I compare it to all the $60 games I purchased only to play for a week.

That said, I look forward to giving EA my money for premium.

 

[Spottiettiedop]

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.

I did for BF4. And that was based on how much I liked BF3 premium. I'm shocked that people are shocked/outraged etc about the announcement in 2015. It should be expected with any game with the name Battlefield in it.

 

[TheSlySoul]

So this will be like Evolve where you have to pay $100 to have the complete game?
I am so tired of this trend. Not buying any game that does this.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

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.

I have you two examples and you're choosing to ignore them. That's cool, have fun with your game.

So this will be like Evolve where you have to pay $100 to have the complete game?
I am so tired of this trend. Not buying any game that does this.

Sssssh, if you point out that the 'complete' game is over $100 you'll get angry Battlefield fans calling you stupid for not spending the money.

 

[Tubie]

So this will be like Evolve where you have to pay $100 to have the complete game?
I am so tired of this trend. Not buying any game that does this.

Wow, now we're comparing this to Evolve.

You get the full game for $60. That includes: single player, all of the original guns and modes and more than enough maps to last you for hundreds of hours of multiplayer.

You can then decide for your self if you want to spend $50 to buy all future DLC map packs.

Expansion map packs have been a thing since the first Battlefield game.

 

[EventHorizon]

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.

And once again I repeat, if it offered no benefit then why is it there? Why not just drop that "feature"? There is obviously a perceived benefit to it and because it comes directly at the expense of non-premium players, it makes their game worse. There should be no paid perks that behave this way.

 

[Fury451]

I have you two examples and you're choosing to ignore them. That's cool, have fun with your game.

Those examples have nothing to do with Battlefield or Premium.

Stuff cut and resold from other games does not equal stuff cut and resold from Battlefield.

Again, if you want an EA game to pick for blatantly cutting bits off and removing features as an excuse for selling them later, The Sims says hi. Battlefield has never been like that.

 

[Mooreberg]

Are going to do this twice in one year with Battlefront coming out? What a joke.

 

[ElzarTheBam]

So this will be like Evolve where you have to pay $100 to have the complete game?
I am so tired of this trend. Not buying any game that does this.

No, this'll be like Battlefront, and like Batman, and Halo 5 and the next Far Cry.

See where I'm going.

 

[Fury451]

Are going to do this twice in one year with Battlefront coming out? What a joke.

I asked this earlier, it seems unlikely that Battlefront will even release this year. Probably early or later next year. I'm thinking it will miss the launch of the new film, which would be just fine by me.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Sssssh, if you point out that the 'complete' game is over $100 you'll get angry Battlefield fans calling you stupid for not spending the money.

I want to like the series, but I haven't played it since the PC days. Tried the BF 2 Xbox 360 game, but it did not grab me.
Seems like a different version of Call of Duty now.

No, this'll be like Battlefront, and like Batman, and Halo 5 and the next Far Cry.

See where I'm going.

Not buying any of those games until they go on sale as well.
Hyrule Warriors and Mario Kart 8 so far are the only games with season passes doing it right.

 

[JJD]

So this will be like Evolve where you have to pay $100 to have the complete game?
I am so tired of this trend. Not buying any game that does this.

It's nothing like Evolve. For one Maps are free on Evolve.

 

[Daffy Duck]

I asked this earlier, it seems unlikely that Battlefront will even release this year. Probably early or later next year. I'm thinking it will miss the launch of the new film, which would be just fine by me.

Battlefront is coming this year, tie in with the film, no way it's slipping.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

I want to like the series, but I haven't played it since the PC days. Tried the BF 2 Xbox 360 game, but it did not grab me.
Seems like a different version of Call of Duty now.

At this point it is just a re-skin of Call of Duty as EA tries to compete in that genre with Activision. They both are pretty much the same thing to me at this point and I try to stay far away from either of them. Last multiplayer centric FPS I purchased was MW3 and that is honestly one of the worst games I have ever played. Got burned and vowed never to give my money to these types of games again until they innovate and stop announcing DLC before the game is out. Just gives the impression you have to pay more than $60 for the full product which is dumb. It's sad to see people just accept this without question because they've got to play the latest version of the game they bought last year.

 

[Mooreberg]

I asked this earlier, it seems unlikely that Battlefront will even release this year. Probably early or later next year. I'm thinking it will miss the launch of the new film, which would be just fine by me.

Who decides this though - EA or Disney? DICE has released unfinished games before.

 

[Fury451]

Battlefront is coming this year, tie in with the film, no way it's slipping.

Probably true, but it wouldn't make sense- that's basically sending Hardline to die. Plus we haven't seen anything of Battlefront yet, making me think it's not ready.

Who decides this though - EA or Disney? DICE has released unfinished games before.

Fair point. Probably EA. Let's we if their whole "we won't let the launch of BF4 happen again" thing is true, which may mean slipping on launch if it isn't ready for prime time.

 

[TheSlySoul]

It's sad to see people just accept this without question because they've got to play the latest version of the game they bought last year.

Yeah, things have changed plenty from the days people saw Capcom lock content in Street Fighter vs. Tekken.
It seems to be a common practice now to cut content from the main game and sell it as a season pass. Mortal Kombat X is trying it out as well.

I would like a season pass to simply be planned DLC which as I said MK8 and Hyrule Warriors does. DBZ:Xenoverse seems to be a good example because you get plenty of content for $60.

However, if fans can accept it, more power to them.
I am just tired of it.

Edit: Also BF4 releasing as a buggy mess makes me not want to pay $60 for it either.

 

[Alchemist]

I'll stick with BF4 until Battlefront thanks

 

[Tripon]

I will say that I think premium for BF4 was worth it and I dont regret buying.

Did premium include a working game?

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

At this point it is just a re-skin of Call of Duty as EA tries to compete in that genre with Activision. They both are pretty much the same thing to me at this point and I try to stay far away from either of them. Last multiplayer centric FPS I purchased was MW3 and that is honestly one of the worst games I have ever played. Got burned and vowed never to give my money to these types of games again until they innovate and stop announcing DLC before the game is out. Just gives the impression you have to pay more than $60 for the full game which is dumb. It's sad to see people just accept this without question because they've got to play the latest version of the game they bought last year.

You are completely clueless. Battlefield isn't annual. EA obviously wants Battlefield to get more of the FPS market share from COD but the development of Battlefield games do not reflect that. For every corridor map like Metro you get 3 open maps like Caspian. It's not even remotely the same and it seems like you are only in this thread to shitpost and complain.


Enjoy never buying another multiplayer FPS. This isn't going away.

DLC being announced before release is a good thing. It tells me that the game will continue to be supported for at least as long as the DLC is coming out rather than potentially being dropped by the developer for patch support.

 

[JJD]

Who decides this though - EA or Disney? DICE has released unfinished games before.

EA decides this. I still believe it's releasing this year. Considering BF4 release date and the size of DICE nowadays they probably have been working on this game for more than 2 years now even if you consider BF4 DLC.

Dice acknowledged that they were making Battlefront on E3 2013.

 

[Fury451]

I would like a season pass to simply be planned DLC which as I said MK8 and Hyrule Warriors does.

That is what this is. They announce plans for themed map packs, then release more detail as it gets closer to release. They usually specify what the maps "favor" too based on feedback- such as more close quarters, sniping, vehicles, etc. They have a nice and varied set after all is said and done.

Then they have new game modes which usually change things up nicely. Chainlink, Carrier Assualt, even jets only with Air Superiority.

They also have guns, vehicles, equipment, and cosmetic additions to go with it.

Again- as for DLC, Premium does it well. It doesn't just cut stuff out and repackage it.

I get not liking the practice and the price, but I fail to see what is hard to grasp about their approach. It's much more fair and content heavy than any of it's competitors in the Season Pass field.

 

[Melon Husk]

EA trynna make you pay $100 for a $40 spin-off.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Enjoy never buying another multiplayer FPS. This isn't going away.

Garden Warfare didn't try that. Their economy is like Forza/GT.
I guess that would explain why Garden Warfare is the last MP shooter that I liked.

I will buy them if they are like Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare.

I get not liking the practice and the price, but I fail to see what is hard to grasp about their approach. It's much more fair and content heavy than any of it's competitors in the Season Pass field.

My issue is they are forcing the perks and special stuff if you just want the expansions.
If there was a $25 dollar option just for expansions, it would not bother me really.

 

[Fatal Futanari]

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.

Still a shit reason, even more so after shitting on Hardline. Check yourself GAF.

Its hilarious how many people on here are going to roll over just because its Star Wars.

Anyways, you guys can go complain and wait x amount of months for a price drop, I'll be too busy playing Hardline and getting prepped for SWBF3.

 

[Tubie]

Yeah, things have changed plenty from the days people saw Capcom lock content in Street Fighter vs. Tekken.
It seems to be a common practice now to cut content from the main game and sell it as a season pass. Mortal Kombat X is trying it out as well.

I would like a season pass to simply be planned DLC which as I said MK8 and Hyrule Warriors does. DBZ:Xenoverse seems to be a good example because you get plenty of content for $60.

However, if fans can accept it, more power to them.
I am just tired of it.

Edit: Also BF4 releasing as a buggy mess makes me not want to pay $60 for it either.

This is exactly what they are doing. They are announcing their DLC plans.

These are not maps that are already made and ready to ship.

 

[Fury451]

EA trynna make you pay $100 for a $40 spin-off.

This I do sort of agree with. Hardline still hasn't convinced me it's worth full price at this time, especially since Rainbow Six looks like it'll scratch the "cops and robbers" itch for me in a more tactical way.

But I'll wait until reviews are in. I like Visceral, so we will see if this is worth the price of entry, much less Premium.

My issue is they are forcing the perks and special stuff if you just want the expansions.
If there was a $25 dollar option just for expansions, it would not bother me really.

Fair enough, but what perks are you referring to? Just so I'm clear in what you mean.

I agree with how PVZ: Garden Warfare did it by the way, I greatly enjoyed that system. It wouldn't work as well for something like this just because of how the games are set up, but it was a good system for that game.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

EA decides this. I still believe it's releasing this year. Considering BF4 release date and the size of DICE nowadays they probably have been working on this game for more than 2 years now even if you consider BF4 DLC.

Dice acknowledged that they were making Battlefront on E3 2013.

This plus unlike Battlefield 4 they aren't working with a new iteration of the engine for the first time on new hardware.

 

[TheSlySoul]

I will say giving the benefit of the doubt, this season pass isn't as bad as some others.
Halo 5 will be more obnoxious I bet.

This can turn into AC:Unity where the game is a buggy mess and then your Premium will net you a free EA game and the expansions become free.

We shall see though.

Fair enough, but what perks are you referring to? Just so I'm clear in what you mean.

Mostly double EXP and guns, plus other things.
Like Project f 2 has two season passes: one for music and one for costumes.
I think making a basic season pass for the expansions and then $50 edition with perks, extra DLC, and expansions would have been no problem for me. Like I said, it just irks me a bit personally.

 

[bishoptl]

And once again I repeat, if it offered no benefit then why is it there? Why not just drop that "feature"?

Perfectly legitimate question.

 

[ElzarTheBam]

Garden Warfare didn't try that. Their economy is like Forza/GT.
I guess that would explain why Garden Warfare is the last MP shooter that I liked.

I will buy them if they are like Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare.

Very true, but GW is a great exception.

But also one which is lacking in a huge amount of content, but again it was priced as such.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Garden Warfare didn't try that. Their economy is like Forza/GT.
I guess that would explain why Garden Warfare is the last MP shooter that I liked.

I will buy them if they are like Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare.

I didn't play Garden Warfare (sold my 360 before it launched) but it actually looked like an interesting take on the genre. I'm so tired of the same played out 'modern' war setting peppered with perks and rpg-lite mechanics. When I was in college that was fun to play but now that I'm an adult who doesn't sit around getting drunk in a tank top cussing out people online over my headset, that whole scene doesn't appeal to me anymore. I mean look at Halo 4; part of the reason that game was trash was because 343 thought it would be a smart idea to copy the Call of Duty/Battlefield formula and it ended up biting them in the ass. I'm not anti-FPS but somebody has to be doing something different to get my to buy the game; I'm not cool plopping down money year after year for a clone but if people want to do that (and based off of sales, they clearly do) then more power to them. It reminds me of Madden which isn't surprising considering that's another franchise in EA's pocket.

 

[TheSlySoul]

I'm not anti-FPS but somebody has to be doing something different to get my to buy the game; I'm not cool plopping down money year after year for a clone but if people want to do that (and based off of sales, they clearly do) then more power to them. It reminds me of Madden which isn't surprising considering that's another franchise in EA's pocket.

I agree with you.
The practices are pretty common with shooting games, so I cannot blame people for accepting it.
Part of the reason I am looking forward to Splatoon because it is a unique take on the genre.

I came off too strong I admit, you guys will have fun with it.

 

[CosmicQueso]

I'm so tired of the same played out 'modern' war setting peppered with perks and rpg-lite mechanics. When I was in college that was fun to play but now that I'm an adult who doesn't sit around getting drunk in a tank top cussing out people online over my headset, that whole scene doesn't appeal to me anymore.

Oh give me a break.

 

[16BitNova]

So stupid. I wish publishers weren't such greedy, money hungry tyrants. Why can't they follow the examples of games like Killzone that released free maps, or GTA V that releases free content. This way they don't split the user base. Man $110 dollars just to get the full experience of one game. Fuck.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

I agree with you.
The practices are pretty common with shooting games, so I cannot blame people for accepting it.
Part of the reason I am looking forward to Splatoon because it is a unique take on the genre.

Splatoon looks great and I will be there day 1. I like how it actually has a colorful aesthetic instead of plopping you down in some generic desert/jungle/tundra/urban environment that you see recycled year after year in Battlefield/CoD. I'm also interested by the idea of covering a territory in ink as the objective rather than blasting some dude in the face with a shotgun. Should be a good time and Nintendo isn't telling me I need to pay $110 for the full package before it's even out.

 

[Fury451]

Mostly double EXP and guns, plus other things.
Like Project f 2 has two season passes: one for music and one for costumes.
I think making a basic season pass for the expansions and then $50 edition with perks, extra DLC, and expansions would have been no problem for me. Like I said, it just irks me a bit personally.

Well the guns are just part of the overall package that everyone gets, but I get your thing about double XP. That's kind of dumb considering the boosts you get in battle packs anyways.

I see what you're saying about splitting it, but the way they have it structured, it's actually much easier just to give you everything due to the added weapons, camo, equipment, mission-based challenges, etc. It's all connected into each content update.

A "just maps" pack wouldn't be bad, but it may be viewed as an even bigger "ripoff" depending on how they priced it, because the other content wouldn't be worth much more on it's own. They would probably rock a $40 price for just maps regardless.

I'm completely against pay to win though, so extra exclusive XP and server priority isn't something I support, even though bombshell articulated well that the server thing isn't that big of a deal. Still unnecessary.

So stupid. I wish publishers weren't such greedy, money hungry tyrants. Why can't they follow the examples of games like Killzone that released free maps, or GTA V that releases free content. This way they don't split the user base. Man $110 dollars just to get the full experience of one game. Fuck.

Killzone didn't have nearly the player base that Battlefield does, and the free maps were needed to keep people invested. It would be ideal, but it's not feasible for mega multi platform games. And GTA isn't the best example considering how long Heists alone have taken, but I get your point.

I look at Premium as expanding the base game, not making it a "full game". If you love the core enough and want more, get it. If the core game is enough before you move on, avoid it. Usually Battlefield has enough content on it's own. The only thing that would be great to add to the base game for free would be game modes themselves, but so far, those have been map-pack specific anyways.

 

[Tubie]

Perfectly legitimate question.

I think it's there for them to pad the feature list for Premium.

On consoles the way it works is you pick the mode you want to play, the set of maps you are interested in and then hit "Quick Match" which automatically puts you in a server that has room for you. This way you never see a queue and it's the main way almost everyone joins servers on consoles.

The other option in the game to join a server is manually searching a server in the server browser. Here you will see all of the servers available and then you can filter stuff to what you specifically want, then you see which servers are full and which have room.

The only instance this feature benefits you is if there's one specific server you're just dying to join for any specific reason and someone who is premium cuts in line in front of you. But, again talking from experience, this is something very rare and I, as premium, have never felt I've benefited from this in over a year of BF4.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

Oh give me a break.

The truth hurts.

Not my proudest moments but I used to do it. Not saying everyone who plays Battlefield/CoD is an immature college kid so stop jumping to conclusions. Fact of the matter though is that these types of games attract that 'dudebro' crowd and it's readily apparent if you've spent more than 5 minutes on XBL/PSN.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

I think it's kinda hard to argue that content wasn't held back on Battlefield 4, at least on current gen.

Second Assault launched with the Xbox one, and China Rising launched less than a month later.

You can't tell me with a straight face that neither of those couldn't have been on disk. I wouldn't believe it.

 

[Tubie]

The truth hurts.

Not my proudest moments but I used to do it. Not saying everyone who plays Battlefield/CoD is an immature college kid so stop jumping to conclusions. Fact of the matter though is that these types of games attract that 'dudebro' crowd and it's readily apparent if you've spent more than 5 minutes on XBL/PSN.

That's why generalizations are bad man, not everyone who enjoys these games is a "dudebro" (whatever that even means).

 

[Fatal Futanari]

I'm so tired of the same played out 'modern' war setting peppered with perks and rpg-lite mechanics. When I was in college that was fun to play but now that I'm an adult who doesn't sit around getting drunk in a tank top cussing out people online over my headset, that whole scene doesn't appeal to me anymore. I mean look at Halo 4; part of the reason that game was trash was because 343 thought it would be a smart idea to copy the Call of Duty/Battlefield formula and it ended up biting them in the ass.

>Talks about being an adult on a gaming forum with an anime avatar.

Ok bro, whatever makes you feel justified. I think the big thing you are missing is that it isn't appealing TO YOU. That's fine and dandy but it appeals to others. Calling it dumb and immature just because it doesn't appeal to Mr. Adult is just immature in itself. We got it, you dont like BF games anymore and don't like the Premium Pass.

Btw, Halo 4 was trash because it was just plain trash.

 

[weekev]

Fair play if you like this sort of thing. Battlefield has never clicked with me anyway so it makes no odds to me but this is precisely everything that is wrong with games at the moment. I understand from a business perspective that the value proposition of making 1 game and selling it in chunks to the consumer at an inflated price is nice for business but if I was into this sort of game Id feel mega ripped off.

You have either got half of a finished game with online play thats worse than what others have, or you have paid double the price of a normal game for the full experience. £50 should be enough to buy the full experience, unless Im missing something.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

The truth hurts.

Not my proudest moments but I used to do it. Not saying everyone who plays Battlefield/CoD is an immature college kid so stop jumping to conclusions. Fact of the matter though is that these types of games attract that 'dudebro' crowd and it's readily apparent if you've spent more than 5 minutes on XBL/PSN.

Yeah, college graduates with families who work 9-5 office jobs are really "dudebros" who drink all night and curse at kids online.

You either have a ridiculously Warped sense of reality or you are trolling hardcore.

 

[Fury451]

I think it's kinda hard to argue that content wasn't held back on Battlefield 4, at least on current gen.

Second Assault launched with the Xbox one, and China Rising launched less than a month later.

You can't tell me with a straight face that neither of those couldn't have been on disk. I wouldn't believe it.

Considering that they were rushed out and buggered up the main game even more than it already was when they updated, I think I can tell you they weren't on disc. It's clear that they started the DLC content before making sure BF4 was ready (standard practice with DLC to start as soon as main game planning and development ends), and DICE is massive so they could have easily had multiple teams working on it separately without it being "on disc" at all. EA was in a hurry to shove it out the door for competing with COD and launching simultaneously on next and last gen. I think this means they wanted enticing content immediately as well, plus the timed exclusivity with Microsoft meant they couldn't miss release dates.

tl;dr EA wanted money and needed to stick to their agreed launch dates for both the game and DLC, so they made deadline regardless of quality. The DLC was likely being worked on as per standard practice by separate internal staff at DICE as soon as BF4 was in end stages of development.

I can get why you'd say that though, and I'd eat crow if I could be proven wrong on that.

EDIT: Additionally, the DLC got better as it released, which I think reflects more care and thought put into the last 3 packs, both map content and game modes than the first 2, which were likely victims of deadline as I mentioned.

 

[Gucci Messiah]

>Talks about being an adult on a gaming forum with an anime avatar.

Wow you're really going to use the 'u have an anime avatar shutup' argument. Time to go on ignore.

That's why generalizations are bad man, not everyone who enjoys these games is a "dudebro" (whatever that even means).

Wasn't trying to generalize anyone who buys Battlefield/CoD as a 'dudebro' so my bad if it came off like that. And by that I just mean your stereotypical frat dude in college.

 

[JJD]

I will say giving the benefit of the doubt, this season pass isn't as bad as some others.
Halo 5 will be more obnoxious I bet.

This can turn into AC:Unity where the game is a buggy mess and then your Premium will net you a free EA game and the expansions become free.

We shall see though.

Well I can say that for anyone heavily invested in latest versions of Battlefield that Premium is a good deal.

If you're not that hardcore you can still find value in it, but frankly I wouldn't recommend it.

The biggest problem with Premium is that it is fracturing the community. Some map packs while great are not getting that much rotation because they are limited to the smaller premium community. The overwhelming majority of the player base are playing the vanilla maps as with BF3.

They should make Map Packs free. This way they are rewarding everyone access to the most important pieces of post release DLC. Hardcore players will benefit from this seeing a more active community, more diverse server rotations. This is a big plus.

Hardline was a perfect moment to try something new with Premium. It's not a main BF title. Considering the difficulties Visceral and EA are having selling the game until now they should have been more aggressive. The community would respond really well to free map packs.

I bet many of the people complaining about Premium in this thread (some never even considered buying Hardline in the first place) would think twice if the DLC maps were free.

I'll probably get lambasted for saying this but considering how weapons have been added for BF3 and 4 via post release DLCs I would have no problem if Hardline Premium offered exclusive weapons for those willing to pay for it.

Every now and then some of the DLC weapons get called OP and the best of the game, but they are usually balanced in some way or patched. For every "Bulldog is the best AR in the game!!!" outcry there are many great alternatives (like AEKs and FAMAS) to non premium players to compete with premium ones without major disadvantages.

If BF4 got one thing right from the beginning was weapon balance. And they are still improving it. There is no M16A3 situation like in BF3 now. Gadget balance has been really great too since TCE started.

 

[CarbonFire]

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.

It wasn't the best, but it certainly was a good entry into the series. And no, the DLC wasn't super amazing, but it was free, which helped keep the community for the game alive for a pretty long time. BC2 Vietnam was pretty shit, so I don't even count it.

I just don't see Hardline having much in the way of a "thriving population" once Battlefront comes out. True, they aren't quite the same game. But how many Battlefield fans are going to forgo playing DICE's Battlefront and instead stick with Hardline this fall? Or plunk down $220 to fully support both titles? Is the pool for "people who like Battlefield games" big enough to support both games at the same time? I don't really doubt Visceral's commitment to supporting the game, I just doubt that the audience will stick around long enough to make that extra premium content worth it.

 

[Anton Sugar]

It's sad to see people just accept this without question because they've got to play the latest version of the game they bought last year.

Why is the idea of brand loyalty sad? A company puts out a product you love, so you're more likely to be more interested or more trusting in their next one. I have friends who have said as much re: BF, but it applies to electronics (hello, Apple), movies, cars, etc.

You're assuming that, because people have preordered this or are interested in premium, they have done zero research and are blindly throwing down money. There is at least some level of calculation involved, especially given that we've now had two betas and a lot of players have gotten their hands on the game.

Lots of people know about the server issues, but lots of people also know about DICE/EA's efforts to make amends with their customers, as well. For some, it's not enough--I'm still doubtful and this is the first BF game I haven't preordered in a long time. But for others, who STILL play BF4 today, it's perfectly understandable and not "sad" that they feel like the risk is worth the reward.

 

[Lord of Castamere]

Considering that they were rushed out and buggered up the main game even more than it already was when they updated, I think I can tell you they weren't on disc. It's clear that they started the DLC content before making sure BF4 was ready (standard practice with DLC to start as soon as main game planning and development ends), and DICE is massive so they could have easily had multiple teams working on it separately without it being "on disc" at all. EA was in a hurry to shove it out the door for competing with COD and launching simultaneously on next and last gen. I think this means they wanted enticing content immediately as well, plus the timed exclusivity with Microsoft meant they couldn't miss release dates.

tl;dr EA wanted money and needed to stick to their agreed launch dates for both the game and DLC, so they made deadline regardless of quality. The DLC was likely being worked on as per standard practice by separate internal staff at DICE as soon as BF4 was in end stages of development.

I can get why you'd say that though, and I'd eat crow if I could be proven wrong on that.

I'm sure some code was on disk but that's not what I'm saying. Both DLCs were clearly done when the current gen versions launched, and close to completion when last gen launched. They could have been included in the full game(at least on current gen) but were held back as dlc. That argument has merit with those DLCs. Now everything past CR was clearly fresh development.