S
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 1942, Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 did not have a campaign
- Thread starter SantaC
- Start date
TheAssist
Member
Games traditionally were much more expensive. People just always forget that inflation exists.
The Cost of Gaming Since the 1970s
The cost of games is a debate that comes up quite regularly, so we took some time to analyze the cost of games now vs the 1970's.
techraptor.net
The return of the $70 video game has been a long time coming
Top-end game pricing has never been lower when measured in constant dollars.
arstechnica.com
I really dont understand why people are so up in flames about games getting more expansive. Either games cost more, or they get monetized the way EA used to do it. At the very least they are now only offering cosmetics for real money and not modes, maps and gameplay advantages. This is objectively the better way. But now people keep complaining that 70 bucks is too much. Ok, if you dont want to pay that, you have to accept different monetization models or buy it at a later date. Or buy smaller scale games that dont have teams of several hundred people behind them and take years to develop.
These are all legit options, but please dont complain that game prices get adjusted to inflation every 10 years, while production costs and competition go up. The argument that games make more money than ever doesnt count, that money is made on the phone market and we all know how publishers make that money and I dont want any of that in my console and PC games (unfortunately we already have enough of it there). And I dont think EA sold more copies of BF V than of BF 4. So they need to make up the money from inflation over the past 10 years and growing production costs somehow.
Of course, wanting 70 bucks and then nickle and diming the players is just pathetic. But as long as the actual content is free and they refinance that by people being stupid and buying skins for way too much money I'm fine with that.
I really do hate EA as much as the next guy, but you cant blame them for being financially reasonable this time around. This is one of their most consumer friendly ways of monetization methods in years. Leave out the game mode least people were interested in and put the money into post launch content (maps, weapons, vehicles) thats actually free. Raise the upfront cost of the game so at least everyone knows what they are in for. Thats the game, thats what it costs, done. Your decision. Thats actually not bad. I still dont like the cosmetic stuff, but I guess if you want to support the game over 2 to 3 years thats just how you do it these days, if you dont want to burn money for good will (or dont have a hardware or storefront business to keep you afloat).
Codes 208
Member
-battlefront 2
-battlefield 3
-battlefield 4
-Battlefield V
you know what these games have in common? They all have campaigns and at best they’re average. Dice made too much of an effort copying CoD and somehow made it worse.
the only real exceptions are BF1 and the Bad Companies (which only work because they’re CoD parodies)
if you really want to play a good campaign shooter from EA, that’s what Respawn is for.
As for pricing, you can blame next gen tax on that otherwise you can prolly buy it at Walmart for $60 when it releases.
-battlefield 3
-battlefield 4
-Battlefield V
you know what these games have in common? They all have campaigns and at best they’re average. Dice made too much of an effort copying CoD and somehow made it worse.
the only real exceptions are BF1 and the Bad Companies (which only work because they’re CoD parodies)
if you really want to play a good campaign shooter from EA, that’s what Respawn is for.
As for pricing, you can blame next gen tax on that otherwise you can prolly buy it at Walmart for $60 when it releases.
GHG
Gold Member
I don't care about the single player.
All of the games mentioned in the OP played excellently, had a ton of content and weapons (including huge maps), allowed mods which kept the community fresh for years on end and they didn't have any battlepass/microtransaction bullshit.
The bottom line is you now pay more and get less.
So with all due respect:
All of the games mentioned in the OP played excellently, had a ton of content and weapons (including huge maps), allowed mods which kept the community fresh for years on end and they didn't have any battlepass/microtransaction bullshit.
The bottom line is you now pay more and get less.
So with all due respect:
Last edited:
JerryinSoCal
Member
If they never added campaigns as part of the package people wouldn't be complaining but they did add them and they were actually fun and now they've taken them out. The MP doesn't sound like it's benefitting from no single player, I couldn't care less about larger player counts I'd rather have more player caused destruction and less of this set piece stuff that's scripted and going to happen no matter what.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
You get the massive multiplayer with hundreds of hours of potential fun regardless if it's got SP or not, 70 bucks or Free2Playpoor 4h campaign with no redeeming quality and replay value = "shut up and take my money"
massive multiplayer with hundreds of hours of potential fun = "70 bucks is too much, sorry"
Doesn't change that they are removing a portion of the game and still asking the same...wait no they asking for more this time
And doesn't matter how long it is, that's down to the developer.
Fact is Battlefield has shipped with a SP campaign for over a decade now, whether it's replayable or not, you're getting less for more.
And that's not something so called "Real Gamers" should want, we all know what's down that road.
S
SpongebobSquaredance
Unconfirmed Member
Creating a cinematic campaign needs a lot of resources and they are not justified if most people don't care about a campaign. They aren't removing anything of value for the vast majority of players and on the contrary, can focus on what the series always excelled at. Therefore I am not getting less if the main part is getting better - It's about quality, not quantity in the end.You get the massive multiplayer with hundreds of hours of potential fun regardless if it's got SP or not, 70 bucks or Free2Play
Doesn't change that they are removing a portion of the game and still asking the same...wait no they asking for more this time
And doesn't matter how long it is, that's down to the developer.
Fact is Battlefield has shipped with a SP campaign for over a decade now, whether it's replayable or not, you're getting less for more.
And that's not something so called "Real Gamers" should want, we all know what's down that road.
I can pre-order the PC version right now for 60 bucks. Console versions are more expensive, but I still don't see the problem here. A few months later the price will be down by half anyway, so if you don't think the price is justified for the content you just wait for a little. In the meanwhile free content will be added, so it is a win/win situation.
What "real gamers" should want are good quality products and as a multiplayer-centric game, the developer's main task should be delivering a quality multiplayer experience and not waste resources on something literally no one cares for.
TGO
Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
Oh I don't play Battlefield multiplayer
I find it boring and despite its player count I think the maps too big and under populated.
And the weapons handling sucks, sound is good though
So I do usually buy them when they drop to about £15 or under.
But you know, I do give them a chance to see if they've improved with each release, so this is kinda off putting even for 15 quid
As for your post, yeah if they can show where the resources are going then sure.
But they haven't so far, which...is the problem.
A.Romero
Member
This will sell better than any recent BF game, mark my words.
I'm one of the few people that enjoyed the campaigns in 3 and 4 and went through 1 but didn't really play more than 5 minutes of V. Nothing of value was lost. The 10 hours of the campaign easily get compensated by the MP.
EA does a lot of stupid shit but this one was not one of their shitty decisions. I rather have those resources focused on creating MP content, even if it comes at a cost... In a few years it will be much cheaper or even free so...
I'm one of the few people that enjoyed the campaigns in 3 and 4 and went through 1 but didn't really play more than 5 minutes of V. Nothing of value was lost. The 10 hours of the campaign easily get compensated by the MP.
EA does a lot of stupid shit but this one was not one of their shitty decisions. I rather have those resources focused on creating MP content, even if it comes at a cost... In a few years it will be much cheaper or even free so...
Arsic
Loves his juicy stink trail scent
For me it's a tough sell on the value of the package.
No campaign
No CO op mode
No BR at launch
Smaller scale amount of maps and modes for the MP only title
When your competition can do all that without issues, then you need to ratchet the price down.
CoD beat BF as the better franchise long ago. BF is just for fedora snipers who play for a week or two then drop the game. Hence why all BFs die and are ghost towns to find games without hackers.
No campaign
No CO op mode
No BR at launch
Smaller scale amount of maps and modes for the MP only title
When your competition can do all that without issues, then you need to ratchet the price down.
CoD beat BF as the better franchise long ago. BF is just for fedora snipers who play for a week or two then drop the game. Hence why all BFs die and are ghost towns to find games without hackers.
