Battlefield 4

WarriorX

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
2,219
Good thing I didn't pay for the Premium membership because it won't carry over to BF4. :rolleyes: So more nickel and dimeing. Thanks! For the record, I am usually in favor of DLC, map packs, other paid items but not this one.

Why would it carry over? $50 gave 5 DLC(4 being new). Why would $50 include DLC for BF3 and BF4?
 

Raudulfr

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,733
Why would it carry over? $50 gave 5 DLC(4 being new). Why would $50 include DLC for BF3 and BF4?

No. $50 gave you ONE DLC. One. The other 3 are yet to come and you have no idea what the last two are going to be about (could be pure crap, could not come out at all).

And Back to Karkand doesn't count. Everyone has it.
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
No. $50 gave you ONE DLC. One. The other 3 are yet to come and you have no idea what the last two are going to be about (could be pure crap, could not come out at all).

And Back to Karkand doesn't count. Everyone has it.

But it gives weapon and characters skins too!!!!!!112121287216t9831827187(*!&(&@Y(&^(*

Yep, I've been pointing this out ever since Premium was announced, but people are just so eager to let companies take their money for nothing.
 

Viper87227

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
18,018
No. $50 gave you ONE DLC. One. The other 3 are yet to come and you have no idea what the last two are going to be about (could be pure crap, could not come out at all).

And Back to Karkand doesn't count. Everyone has it.

Well, that's certainly not true. $50 gave a lot more than one DLC. For one, Armored Kill has been publicized enough that we can pretty well see whats coming. As for the last two... they could be crap (albeit unlikely if they stick to their current formula), but to suggest that they may not come out at all is pretty preposterous. If EA didn't release the last two DLC's that they have already charged for, that's guaranteed to end in a class-action lawsuit. It's not like EA is at risk for going under or anything, so the only reason the last DLC's wouldn't come out is if EA straight up decided to just not release them. They aren't that stupid. So... yeah... $50 gets you 4 DLC's, and it's a safe bet that they will be good. If you don't agree, spend $15 for one DLC. Not $50. Pretty simple stuff... you aren't obligated to get premium to get the DLC.

But it gives weapon and characters skins too!!!!!!112121287216t9831827187(*!&(&@Y(&^(*

Yep, I've been pointing this out ever since Premium was announced, but people are just so eager to let companies take their money for nothing.

Still not getting this argument... no one took my money. I let them have it, because they offered a good deal. You can call it a gamble, but I think it's a safe assumption that I will enjoy all the DLC. If I do, lucky day for me, I saved $10 in the long run and got some extra shit thrown in. Honestly, I think it's great that EA offered up premium... and if you don't, like I said above, no ones forcing you to buy it.
 

Wraithetc

n00b
Joined
Aug 13, 2005
Messages
52
I hope the single player is more fun than BF3. They should focus on the larger maps earlier on.
 

trxjw

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
408
I'll wait and see what happens with BF4 before jumping to any conclusions. Thus far I've enjoyed Close Quarters and B2K. The former adds a nice fit for the gameplay if I want a CoD-esque experience. The achievements are nice as well. Prefer most of the weapons in CQ to those in the original set.

For all we know, MOH:W and BF4 could signal a divide between the two games. BF4 gets closer to the "golden age" of Battlefield, and MOH becomes the CoD competitor. I guess if I was shelling out $50 on a regular basis for tons of games, I might be a little more upset, but right now I'm getting plenty of mileage out of BF3 and the two expansion packs.
 

WarriorX

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
2,219
But it gives weapon and characters skins too!!!!!!112121287216t9831827187(*!&(&@Y(&^(*

Yep, I've been pointing this out ever since Premium was announced, but people are just so eager to let companies take their money for nothing.

If the rest of the DLC turn out to be bad, many people will feel the same way. It's a gamble yes but has a high chance of turning out to be good. If I find the rest of the DLC even remotely enjoyable it will be worth it. If not Ill be one of the first making a post on these forums and saying how it sucks. I will invite you to say I told you so. :p
 
Last edited:

grambo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2011
Messages
1,200
I've already had more than $50 of entertainment value from playing probably 15-20 hours of Close Quarters. Quite a good value proposition for the quality of production, for me personally.

I guess if you are in a situation where $50 is a massive amount of money, it's a big deal. $50 to me is a cheap meal with my wife, one drink each, at a decent neighbourhood restaurant (not fine dining). I think for the target market of BF players, they are bang on with their model (20-40 year olds with spare cash).

BF4 beta in late 2013 with possible holiday 2013 release could line up with next gen consoles as well (of course I'd prefer BF4 to be PC exclusive, re-introduce BF2 features) but that is not going to happen.
 

Raudulfr

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,733
It's not about the money, it's about the principle.



But who am I kidding, principles? Who has those? It's all about the me me me, gimme now now NOW! mentality.


And the cherry on top is those pathetic individuals who boast about buying Premium like it's such an accomplishment and then go around calling others, who did not, inferior, scrubs or poor people. But hey, target audience!
 

Dethred

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
2,543
The man who thought of the idea of not finishing a game, selling it, and later adding on the last bits as "DLC" is a marketing success story. "Hey, there's this big group of gamers who are dumb as shit, lets sell them the second half of the game as if its above and beyond the original game. They'll think they're getting a great deal when in fact they're paying at least $100 for a video game. Suckers."
 

Q-BZ

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
19,567
The man who thought of the idea of not finishing a game, selling it, and later adding on the last bits as "DLC" is a marketing success story. "Hey, there's this big group of gamers who are dumb as shit, lets sell them the second half of the game as if its above and beyond the original game. They'll think they're getting a great deal when in fact they're paying at least $100 for a video game. Suckers."

Seems that way in some cases.
 

Raudulfr

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,733
The man who thought of the idea of not finishing a game, selling it, and later adding on the last bits as "DLC" is a marketing success story. "Hey, there's this big group of gamers who are dumb as shit, lets sell them the second half of the game as if its above and beyond the original game. They'll think they're getting a great deal when in fact they're paying at least $100 for a video game. Suckers."

But, haven't you heard? It's a great deal!
 

SolidSnakeUS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,282
Since I'm too lazy to read the whole thread, but does anyone know what time period it will take place? Modern? Futuristic?
 

SolidSnakeUS

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,282
I hope to god it's essentially a sequel to BF2142. Would be amazing, considering they would have a lot more creative freedom on what they can do. And also, the modern setting has really been worn out.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
The man who thought of the idea of not finishing a game, selling it, and later adding on the last bits as "DLC" is a marketing success story. "Hey, there's this big group of gamers who are dumb as shit, lets sell them the second half of the game as if its above and beyond the original game. They'll think they're getting a great deal when in fact they're paying at least $100 for a video game. Suckers."

What's your solution then? No DLC ever? More game hours, possibly at the expense of other aspects of the game? Please give me all the gory details. This is like saying Harry Potter books should all be in one book, and it's a marketing trick to write sequals.
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
I want my Battlefield: 1914 damn it!

World War 1 would be awesome, although I would probably rather want the Red Orchestra people pulling it off. I bet the BF version would just be a bunny hopping fest.
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
Plus BF's target audience wouldn't have the attention-span to deal with single-fire weapons and trench warfare.
 

Raudulfr

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,733
Plus BF's target audience wouldn't have the attention-span to deal with single-fire weapons and trench warfare.

The lack of radar/UAV and guided missiles would drive them crazy, Not to mention trying to fly a biplane or drive a primitive tank.
 

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
What's your solution then? No DLC ever? More game hours, possibly at the expense of other aspects of the game? Please give me all the gory details. This is like saying Harry Potter books should all be in one book, and it's a marketing trick to write sequals.

Ha, well said.
 

Raudulfr

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 12, 2004
Messages
2,733
What's your solution then? No DLC ever? More game hours, possibly at the expense of other aspects of the game? Please give me all the gory details. This is like saying Harry Potter books should all be in one book, and it's a marketing trick to write sequals.

Ever heard of expansions?
 

XvMMvX

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
1,665
This thread and the crusade against developers trying to make a profit is one of the reasons PC gaming is being hurt in the long run. If it was such a cash cow that you all think it is in your fantasy land then it would still be the same, but it is not. Companies don't move to another market just to stick it to you, get over yourselves... the problem is YOU.

If you hate a game like BF3 then I don't really know what to tell you, as it is a great game and premium was worth it. Millions of people bought it across all platforms, and the game has a healthy population. 800,000 people bought premium. Instead of enjoying the game you like to wallow in your butthurt and claim that other people are stoopid... you might want to look in the mirror.

Yes developers push the envelope (think the ME3 ending and DLC on disc) but you guys rail on anyone who tries to get compensated for there work. You say you would have been happy with BF2 on an updated engine, but we all know you would have just screamed about it being a cash grab with no innovation.

Face it, you will never be happy so I hear stamp collecting is nice.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,590
This is like saying Harry Potter books should all be in one book, and it's a marketing trick to write sequals.

No, it's like saying they made a Harry Potter book, and then split it into 2 parts, each with half the amount of pages as a regular-sized novel.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
No, it's like saying they made a Harry Potter book, and then split it into 2 parts, each with half the amount of pages as a regular-sized novel.

But what do you want to do, pass a law? I know better than to say you can't make such a law, because I will get responses literally like "the law should be, sell a whole game and DLC be separate, not break a game in half and sell the second half as DLC." I just don't see how it can ever be anything but subjective opinion here, and none of the anti-DLC responses are impressing me in that regard. Just seems to me like someone saying all the harry potter books should be one book for one book price because it's about the same guy or something. And exactly how many pages must a harry potter book be to be one book, vs. two split in half, etc... Does the International Bureau for Weights and Measures have a definition for that..? Because novels come in all different numbers of pages, size of pages, etc.
 
Last edited:

TwistedAegis

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
8,958
There is DLC that is the original game lamely split into parts to make you pay more (See ME3 day1 DLC). Then there is legitimate DLC that was planned early but clearly (IMO) seperate from the main game / needed more time to develop (Back to Karkand for BF3). The problem is a lot of people just lump it all together as "DLC = the devil".
 

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,527
If they include commander and a comm rose that is actually useful... Then I will buy it.
 

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
This thread and the crusade against developers trying to make a profit is one of the reasons PC gaming is being hurt in the long run.

Yes developers push the envelope (think the ME3 ending and DLC on disc) but you guys rail on anyone who tries to get compensated for there work.

Let me get out the worlds smallest violin to play a tune for these multimillion/billion dollar companies that now generate more revenue than the entire movie industry.

I think I am safe in generally stating that most gamers aren't opposed to developers making profit, in fact I would bet that most would want to ensure that developers who put out great games are rewarded for their effort so they can continue to develop high caliber games in the future.

I have no problem with the likes of Bohemia Interactive, CD Projekt, Valve, Bethesda, etc being profitable seeing as their games are fantastic and they make a point of supporting the community, what I have a problem with is developers trying to screw out every last cent of profit at the expense of users.

If it was such a cash cow that you all think it is in your fantasy land then it would still be the same, but it is not. Companies don't move to another market just to stick it to you, get over yourselves... the problem is YOU.

They don't move to other other markets to "stick it you", they do it to maximize revenue and profit at the expense of users. And you are right, the problem is us....or more specifically a very large segment of apologists and apathetic users who will make any excuse to rationalize this type of bullshit behavior.

If you hate a game like BF3 then I don't really know what to tell you, as it is a great game and premium was worth it. Millions of people bought it across all platforms, and the game has a healthy population. 800,000 people bought premium. Instead of enjoying the game you like to wallow in your butthurt and claim that other people are stoopid... you might want to look in the mirror.

BF3 sold well based on the goodwill of the brand, the expectation of users that it would be a true sequel to BF2, various promises made by DICE in the lead up to release about included features and the expectation that any issues at release would be addressed in follow up patches. MANY people, including myself, pre-ordered the game as soon as it was announced based on the simple fact that it was BF3.

Are people likely to blindly buy BF4 again in view of all the issues yet to be fixed with BF3? I sincerely doubt it, particularly given the very large undercurrent of resentment and cynicism across forums about the fact that all the issues which people have been complaining about since the alpha are going to be left as is with BF3, but will be addressed in BF4.

With respect to DLC, I have resigned myself to the fact that EA is too short sighted to see past its own balance sheet (despite the fact that it has been proven time and time again that free and community generated content improves sales) and will always charge for additional content.

What really grinds my gears is the fact that they are more than happy to churn out $DLC and start working on an early sequel, but anything else which involves implementing constructive feedback or addressing fundamental issues is simply abandoned or ignored. But hey, I guess we can always shell out another $60 to get the fixed version in a years time right?
 
Last edited:

Ironchef Chris Wok

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
178
I play BF3, and I'm still shocked today by how much more dumbed down it is compoared to BF2. Sure, more weapons customizations, but fewer classes, no lean, no commander mode, and the dumbed down communication panel drives me INSANE. Don't get me started on the server side stuff and connection problems i had for the first 4 months.

If BF4 goes down this route... ugh.
 

Inu

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 29, 2004
Messages
2,022
I'm just hoping that Planetside 2 ticks all the boxes that BF3 failed miserably at fulfilling. That way I can consign the series to the same absolute irrelevance that I hold Call Of Duty.

This.

Also, i don't care if BF4 is the best game ever made. If more support isn't shown for BF3, i have no reason to invest further in battlefield products. The money is there, why they don't do anything to fix the glaring PC issues with BF3 is beyond me. VOIP, hello?
 
Last edited:

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
31,590
But what do you want to do, pass a law? I know better than to say you can't make such a law, because I will get responses literally like "the law should be, sell a whole game and DLC be separate, not break a game in half and sell the second half as DLC." I just don't see how it can ever be anything but subjective opinion here, and none of the anti-DLC responses are impressing me in that regard. Just seems to me like someone saying all the harry potter books should be one book for one book price because it's about the same guy or something. And exactly how many pages must a harry potter book be to be one book, vs. two split in half, etc... Does the International Bureau for Weights and Measures have a definition for that..? Because novels come in all different numbers of pages, size of pages, etc.

Yeah, it's not a simple situation or solution and I never suggested it was, but what it comes down to is, personally, how little content are you willing to accept and still pay full price?

Mainly I was just pointing out that your analogy was incorrect. No one is saying "all books should be one book", because that would be akin to saying all games should be shoved into one game. What people are saying is that it seems (again, like you said, can't be proven but you can use references with other titles) that some games are having pieces cut out of them and then being sold at a later date, while still selling the base game for full price.

I guess for people to see it happening it has to be super obvious. Like the game cuts off in the middle with a screen saying "Want to know what happens? Buy the ending for $19.99!"
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
650
Not really feeling like giving EA any heat at this point. I mean, BF4's release at soonest will be about this time or later 2013... BF3 will be 1 year old in 3 months, basically putting a 2 year span between the two. It's a quicker timeframe than full on BF titles of the past, but it's no CoD.
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
So DICE won't abandon BF3, according to DICE:

“DICE and EA are dedicated to continuing our support for Battlefield 3,” [BF3 community manager Ian Tornay] said. “Just as we’ve continued to support and maintain Bad Company 2, we intend to continue providing the best Battlefield 3 experience we can well into the future and past the release of End Game and Battlefield 4.

What exactly is this support that Bad Company 2 has been receiving since BF3's announcement? The "we haven't hit the killswitch on the game's multiplayer" kind of support?
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
Oh and this from the same article:

Tornay added that DICE is listening to fan feedback on Battlefield 3 and is expected to act on the several major issues for Battlefield 4.

Notables include a better VOIP solution; a Battle Recorder; a Spectator Mode’ and more robust eSports support.

Wasn't all of this shit promised with BF3 at some point?
 

Rattle

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,816
They would need a huge and drastic overhaul to their useless netcode for me to even consider paying for another fps game from them. I paid $40 for BF3 LE with b2k and $25 for premium and I still feel like an ass. Client side hit detection FTW lmao, PC title my ass. The biggest issues with BF3 are the lame and shitty consolitis attached to it. P2P pings lmao, why even bother? Add VOIP, add the recorder add whatever else you can, a polished turd is still a turd. Fix netcode and the dozen other bugs and exploits.
 

Cerulean

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
9,477
I love how most of the people in this thread haven't played BF3 / don't even own it and are raving about how much BF3 sucks and how much BF4 will suck even more. :D
 
Top