DaleinCalgary
Member
Nah at that price. If they give it out for free on gamepass later and allow no PC cross play to lessen cheaters I'll try it.
That's like 3 or 4 multiplayer games all at once. And no, I'm not a fan of the price plus season passes, but this also doesn't make sense. Properly tuned and balanced maps for so many player combinations and game modes is basically impossible.The lack of SP campaign itself isn't much of an issue itself, because honestly, other than BC 1&2 they never delivered anything decent (while in contrary CoD delivers a stellar blockbuster campaign year after year), but for 70€ and such a long development time and sole focus on the MP, what I'd expect, what I demand is shitloads of content - at least 14 maps out of the box, multiple game modes - conquest, rush, breakthrough TDM, BR, a vehicle-only mode, some escort type of mode where one tem has to defend a convoy while the other tries to steal it, maybe even some sort of variation of CTF adjusted for such amount of players, and all of those modes available in different player counts - 4v4, 8v8, 16v16, 32 vs 32, and the full 64vs64. This is where I'd see the 70€ fully justified, but what EA offers is unacceptable.
The content every 3 months will be free unless you want the seasonal cosmetics earned through the season pass.$70 + $15-20 every 3 months...THAT is the issue.
This happens every generation with PC always retaining last gen prices for awhile.Last gen console games and PC same price, but next gen $10 more? lol
Are we gonna pretend like Bad Company series didn't exist and how so many Battlefield gamers loved those campaigns?? I'm scratching my head how so many die hard Battlefield gamers who used to rave about BC campaigns now suddenly say things like "Battlefield campaigns were never good".Only the most casual of casuals plays Battlefield for single player lol
Battlefield is and always was only about the multiplayer. If you want f2p go play fortnite.
It's like people can't read or rather they read it but ignore it. Every thread I read about BF2042 I am disappointed with the comments, lol.The content every 3 months will be free unless you want the seasonal cosmetics earned through the season pass.
So no. It's essentially $70 dollars for years of content and new content without splitting the playerbase.
that’s not how pricing worksThank Sony for that. They put the example, now everyone will follow suit and MS will have to because otherwise their games will look like cheap.
You and at least 12 others or so........I know the cost of Gamepass would need to increase for there to be every AAA title on Gamepass form day 1, but I'd be willing to pay £70 a month for that service.
I'm an old school BF player since 1942 and playing vs bots because your internet connection was laggy at times. Bad Company was never a main series battlefield and I couldn't give less of a shit about that series.Are we gonna pretend like Bad Company series didn't exist and how so many Battlefield gamers loved those campaigns?? I'm scratching my head how so many die hard Battlefield gamers who used to rave about BC campaigns now suddenly say things like "Battlefield campaigns were never good".
I mean, we haven't seen it in action, it could be extremely impressive. We'll see on Sunday.I thought I remember them saying it was a true 'next gen' game? Lol.
They want $70 for an MP only cross-gen game? Are they high?
I get that they said the maps are way bigger, but it's still only 7 maps.
If so then that's fine...The content every 3 months will be free unless you want the seasonal cosmetics earned through the season pass.
So no. It's essentially $70 dollars for years of content and new content without splitting the playerbase.
Here there is no season pass to buy. Just the battle passes, which is purely cosmetics. Skins, cards, icons, that kind of thing. The other season content is free and included. May require you to play/level to unlock, but that's pretty standard these days.I hate the season thing. If I buy a season pass let me have all the content unlocked, instead you just get a limited time to grind out the content nowadays. Even with someone like me who has a lot time to grind, that shit is annoying.
The value proposition here is stupid. If it were next-gen only and $70 maybe, but for a cross-gen MP only title?The only people whinning are the singleplayer only scrubs who get fucking wrecked online.
Time to STFU.
Ever hear of Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, UT 2004, Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142?
All online only. All full price retail games. All better replay value than your favorite single player crap. Hell, I still play half of those games today.
Battlefield games have always launched with a low number of maps - whether they had a campaign or not. Fact.
Maps will be added post launch for free so that argument is garbage.
Time to STFU.
Ever hear of Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, UT 2004, Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress 2, Battlefield 1942, Battlefield Vietnam, Battlefield 2, Battlefield 2142?
All online only. All full price retail games. All better replay value than your favorite single player crap. Hell, I still play half of those games today.
What message? The message that they won't pay $70 when we been paying $70+ for some games since the 90's.No, you can thank dumb shit gamers who haven't got the self control to not buy it and send the publishers a message.
The problem with your argument is that COD is garbage. A piece of shit is still shit no matter how much content it has.Great examples. Now please tell us all how much those games cost and how much content they had.
A lot of mad BF fanboys surfaced lately to defend their beloved franchise I see, but when CoD asks full price for a full-fat blackbuster AAA SP campaign, a full-fat co-op that could as well be a stand-alone game, and a full-fat MM with a dozen of maps and more game modes than any other game out there, then it "fucking greedy Activision!"... Fuck, even when we look back at EA and 1st Titanfall, people universally shitted on the game being full price and MP-only, and now with much higher price and less content it's suddenly OK because it's BF? Double standards/hypocrisy is what I'm all againt, same as EA's shitty practices.
For those holding out for GP. There appears to be a partnership but from the following I don't think it's a GP day 1 game.
It is. Microsoft can't sell for less to a direct competitor for two things. They look cheap and they'll be loosing money.that’s not how pricing works
The problem with your argument is that COD is garbage. A piece of shit is still shit no matter how much content it has.
When Battlefield is done right, which 2042 looks like it might finally right the ship, there is no better large scale military teamplay shooter out there. A good Battlefield game, with a group of friends who know how to play and communicate, is untouchable.