Support NeoGAF

[DeaDPo0L84]

I'm so fucking hyped, gonna be glorious on PC.

 

[KyoZz]

Which back in the early days of BAttlefield were called expansions and were literally almost like playing a new game

And even earlier, DLC didn't exist. You paid your game, full and complete and that's it. Maybe a year later an expansion was released but it has ton of content and the ratio price/content is in favor of the player.
But those times are over. I'm not saying it's good, I'm just pointing the fact that those seasons are most likely the same things as the DLCs we get since the last what, 10 years maybe? They just put another name on it.

And I'm with you, the last game I paid full price/on release was Wasteland 3. Before that it was RDRII so it goes back to quite some time.
Also I stopped playing BF after 3, but this one I'm curious. On GamePass or like you, bundled with full content and a discount, no way I'm paying 110e for one game.

 

[DevilMayFlyForAWhiteGuy]

You know the lack of a campaign isn’t necessarily a bad thing because in BF they usually suck, but still charging $70 for only multiplayer is garbage. Add season passes on to that it’s even more ridiculous. No thanks, just lost all my interest.

 

[Halo is Back]

No Campaign?

 

[elliot5]

lol when TLOU Factions releases for $70 with battle passes as a multiplayer only experience and people lap it up

 

[truth411]

https://www.ea.com/games/battlefield/battlefield-2042/game-overview

Expect this from more major Multiplats devs moving forward.
This is why Im a Sony Fan, as AAA development become more expensive Sony will be a main source for AAA single player experiences. You can find multiplayer experiences anywhere.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Not if your trying to find a full server under 50 ping especially one that rotates in DLC. Population splitting is always a problem in multiplayer games.

Im not saying devs work for free, im saying to put out content worth buying other than maps or scrape the maps all together and just make the next sequel. Buying maps that you wont be able to play in a few months is stupid

Could EA have both last gen and next gen versions play together but only have graphics differences? If you got a next gen system you can pick and join last gen servers too, but last gen gamers cant join next gen servers because they have 2x the player count.

So the player pool is kind of together. Just a matter of whether next gen gamers want to play with smaller MP matches or not.

 

[JerryinSoCal]

No campaign in BF2042 might be the best decision EA has ever made.
Fuck all the campaign-only Battlefield players - you are the reason the series has fallen off a cliff. Wasted resources.
BF started as MP only and stayed that way for years - not a coincidence those were the best games in the franchise.

As for paid seasons - thats a bad thing if its tied to maps. Modern Battlefield always split the playerbase between people who owned the maps and not - and when a premium map popped up, the servers emptied and died. It also made it tough to play with friends - managing who had the maps and who didnt.

The Multiplayer didn't suffer because of the campaigns it suffered because DICE broke away from the destruction and started going to set pieces and "levolution" moments. I would much rather have places to play with smaller buildings that can all be taken down than stupid static arenas with one big thing that's always going to fall at some point no matter what. Sand storms? no thanks, tornadoes? I'm sure it looks cool but what does that add to the actual game other than something you know is going to happen at some point and try to avoid?

 

[RoadHazard]

Will try once it goes F2P or is included on PS+. Or actually I probably won't anyway.

 

[GHG]

How large were those maps? BF1 and BFV maps are massive compared to BFBC2.

They took an extra year and had six studios make this game. Trust me they werent sitting around gutting maps on purpose. They pick quality over quantity.

They were large and you got a lot of them:

Battlefield Maps Ranked By Size and Biome

Åstrand wrapped up his current #BFFunFact Twitter thread with a chart comparing the size of every multiplayer map in the Battlefield franchise.

www.newsledge.com

The idea that the number of maps needs to be sacrificed in order to have large maps is bullshit.

And if they can't be bothered then why not leave things open to modders like they once were on PC?

Anyone sensible will wait for this to hit the £3.99 tier on EA Play.

 

[splattered]

Sounds fine by me. I have stopped playing SP campaigns in games like this anyway... just get me to the meat of the game and make sure i have fun with it. Free on gamepass and maybe even battlepass perks with GPU? That would probably be huge for the series. I have GPU till this time next year but may still buy deluxe/ultimate version depending on what's included. We'll see. I am so ready to stop my COD/Fortnite/Destiny rotations and sink hundreds of hours into a modern version of this franchise again.

 

[LordCBH]

They took an extra year and had six studios make this game.

It took 6 studios to make this rip off? Good lord.

 

[Trogdor1123]

It is so easy to say no to this shit.

If it was f2p or had single player content coming it would probably be ok. This is not ok.

 

[Forsythia]

Yes, keep whining about unlocks in multiplayer shooters, as if those cannot be fun without them. Keep buying those dumb battle passes which turn a game into work. And then keep whining when EA is going to charge for seasons.

I just don't get it. Publishers are the devil but people keep giving them money for shit that should be included for free. I cannot blame EA for trying this, they know lots of people are dumb enough to actually pay for it.

 

[McHuj]

Have no problems with no single player campaign. Haven't played that since BF4 (and that was because weapons were locked behind it).

I have no problems paying $70 or more if this game provides me as much entertainment as BF4 did. I bought it and premium on 2 platforms (PS4/PC), probably spent $120+ on both. Played them (still to this day) for 1500+ hours. If BF2042 gives me 1/3 of that, I have no problem paying what they're asking.

 

[Codes 208]

A multiplayer focused franchise has no campaign. I’m legit shook.

it would’ve sucked anyway. The only good campaigns dice have ever made were BC1 and 2

 

[Trogdor1123]

Holy shit, only 7 maps too? So $10 a map? That's what a whole map pack costed before. Wow, this is just complete bologna...

 

[Trogdor1123]

Have no problems with no single player campaign. Haven't played that since BF4 (and that was because weapons were locked behind it).

I have no problems paying $70 or more if this game provides me as much entertainment as BF4 did. I bought it and premium on 2 platforms (PS4/PC), probably spent $120+ on both. Played them (still to this day) for 1500+ hours. If BF2042 gives me 1/3 of that, I have no problem paying what they're asking.

So just to be clear, you are willing to pay way more for 1/3 the value you recieved in the past? Really?

 

[Entroyp]

I paid $70 for Cold War and never touched the campaign. No regrets.

I’m not sure if BF games are lacking in its multiplayer offerings though.

 

[Nobody_Important]

So is it f2p?

saw other thread

Why would it be F2P?

 

[M1chl]

WTF fuck you dice.

GamePass at best it is.

 

[Dr.Morris79]

Knew it was too good to be true. Fuck off EA.

 

[Neofire]

Sorry, I come from a time when you could just buy your multiplayer focused game and be done with it.

Enjoy your live service GAAS.

Ugh I can't stand gaas bs. MS is a big contributor to this mess.

 

[Naked Lunch]

Bye, bye Battlefield campaign-only players.
We never wanted you in the first place.
SP didnt show up till like the 5th game in the franchise - and it was a failed experiment.
Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

 

[Klik]

Im ok with that. I never buy Battlefield because of single player campaign.

 

[The Chairman]

Sure, then how about them lowering the price for less content then?

Yeah, cutting the campaign and still selling the game for $70 or even $50 is highway robbery.

 

[Birdo]

Sounds more and more like a f2p game being sold for $70.

 

[McHuj]

So just to be clear, you are willing to pay way more for 1/3 the value you recieved in the past? Really?

I've paid $60 for game like Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War, that delivered 1/50 the value so it's not that big of a deal.

 

[MiguelItUp]

As an old fart, it really seems like gaming is heading toward the toilet.

As an old fart this Battlefield's vibe reminds me of when I loved Battlefield the most before there were campaigns. Battlefield campaigns then, were just Battlefield with bots, lmao.

I know people said the BF campaigns were pretty good, some better than others. But I never played one. Because to me, Battlefield, ever since 1942, wasn't about that. It was all about chaotic multiplayer experiences that revolved around a lot of people, classes, vehicles, and just all out warfare.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I've paid $60 for game like Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War, that delivered 1/50 the value so it's not that big of a deal.

That's not what I asked. I asked if you were willing to pay way more of way less value. I guess your answer is yes.

 

[It's all in the wrist]

I'm ok with no campaign if the campaign sucks like it had with the last few entries. But it should not be $70 WITH paid seasons. FUCK that. The game would have to be a revelation to get me to subscribe to it.

 

[The Chairman]

Bye, bye Battlefield campaign-only players.
We never wanted you in the first place.

This post reminds me of this

And then this happened

EA’s Head Blames Marketing, Development Delay For Low ‘Battlefield 5’ Sales

EA overhauls marketing approach in light of Battlefield, Titanfall sales

variety.com

 

[Nobody_Important]

I'm ok with no campaign if the campaign sucks like it had with the last few entries. But it should not be $70 WITH paid seasons. FUCK that. The game would have to be a revelation to get me to subscribe to it.

The maps and guns will be free. The paid seasons are for cosmetic content only.

 

[McHuj]

That's not what I asked. I asked if you were willing to pay way more of way less value. I guess your answer is yes.

Yes, it is. Because if I'll get ~500 hours of game play for $100, that's a still a great value especially when comparing against typical game.

 

[Blitzmangoman]

Funny thing is, people pay 40$ for indie games which they play for 10 hours, hell let us say 50 hours just for the fun of it.
A MP game like BF in which fans spend a whole lot more time in, like hundreds of hours equals "Fuck this ripoff" or "70$ for this?".

Get real.
If the MP that will be shown and the beta are good for me, take my money EA. I play Battlefield games as my main MP title with friends for a long time. 120€ for entertainment for 500+ hours? Count me in.

 

[SafeOrAlone]

I can't remember the last time I played a campaign from an FPS game that was arguably designed primarily for multiplayer.

If I want a single player FPS, I'm satisfied with Doom, Wolfenstein, Halo, and plenty of others.

Now, asking $70 for this is a relevant point, but if they are putting all that money into polishing the multiplayer, I think it will be a worthy trade-off for sure.

 

[MiguelItUp]

The maps and guns will be free. The paid seasons are for cosmetic content only.

Specialists as well. The ONLY paid content revolves strictly around cosmetics. Everything else is free and included. From maps, to specialists, to guns, etc.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Campaign is a simple thing and will definitely lose fans to call of duty because of that.

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I will seriously have to reconsider my pre-order once I get a chance to weigh all the options. I was thinking about doing the EA play pro but I really don't seem to justification thing for the year for a single game. I guess we will have to see where the trailer as far as what seems worth the price of admission

 

[GHG]

I've paid $60 for game like Horizon Zero Dawn and God of War, that delivered 1/50 the value so it's not that big of a deal.

Those games do not lack content. What is this nonsense?

So just because you can play the same handful of maps over and over again for years on end suddenly that's "value"? If that's the case then Apex Legends and Fortnite are the best "value" games of all time.

Nothing is stopping you from replaying single player games over and over again by the way. Better yet, you can do so at any point without a worry in the world because they are not reliant on a playerbase being present in order for you to play.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sounds F2P model.

 

[KaiserBecks]

I‘m fine with this.

 

[Nobody_Important]

Specialists as well. The ONLY paid content revolves strictly around cosmetics. Everything else is free and included. From maps, to specialists, to guns, etc.

Yeah so I'm fine with it. I'm also betting they will have the usual Camos to unlock via levels and feats like they always have.


The battle pass stuff will be for the flaming skull camos and the anime titty guns I bet. Which to be honest I can do without myself so I'm not too bothered.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Campaign is a simple thing and will definitely lose fans to call of duty because of that.

Honestly with the numbers seen nowadays revolving around F2P multiplayer games that numeral will be fairly slim and I don't think will be hurtful at all. I'm curious to know what their F2P/Crossplay approach is, which they said they'll be talking more about later.

 

[Gone]

Fuck Campaign in BF.

I'd just play the multiplayer without paying for the season pass since all future maps are free for all.

Can't wait.

 

[blastprocessor]

No campaign in BF2042 might be the best decision EA has ever made.

Fuck EA for charging full price for less. This shit cannot be the fucking future of video games. I say fuck any publisher pulling this shit.

 

[Coolwhhip]

 

[Krappadizzle]

I can't wait for the sense of accomplishment I'll have when I don't buy the season pass and play for 342 hours to unlock the ability to use a vehicle. Truly a sense of perseverance and achievement. Thanks E.A.!

 

[xrnzaaas]

. . .because you played Battlefield for the campaign right? Hell did the first three even have one?



How many maps that can handle over a hundred players do you need?

I could ask you how long before a typical player gets bored of playing on the same maps over and over again. Sure some people will love it and will spend a lot of time learning the maps and enjoying them, but I bet many people will treat BF2042 like another EA game that's missing more unique content in the launch version.

 

[Warnen]

Why would it be F2P?

Thread title probably should have read: Battlefield 2042 is F2P

that was posted before me, thought meant it was f2p