*** Battlefield 1 ***

Mynight said:
Want a gifboard nex? :D press a hotkey to auto insert gif and hit post :D.
Click to expand...

2bNJDDs.gif


That would be pretty good/handy! :D
 
thecremeegg said:
Then delay the game? Back in the old days games we had a full game and the only additions were the likes of United Offensive which were incredible and only £20.
Nowadays we get a game with about 10 levels, the rest follow and are charged extra for. However you want to try and justify it, content is held back to be charged extra for later down the line, or often not down the line but instead at the time of release!

It needs to die!
Click to expand...

The only thing you've used to describe the difference between the old expansion packs and the content we now call DLC is that the old expansion packs "were awesome"

Remind me again what was so awesome about secret weapons of WWII expansion for 1942 or road to Rome?

These were just the same, offering new game modes, new maps and new weapons / vehicles.

I'd also dispute that content is held back. The DLC for battlefield is usually done by a different team. The main team will move onto the next game once Battlefield One is released. That team will have a year or more's work creating all the expansion stuff as part of the post go live support.

I believe the BF4 DLC was done by DICE LA rather than DICE Stockholm, hence the DICE LA camo unlock on Dragon Valley from Legacy Operations.

Using a more up to date example. DICE Stockholm finished battlefront and is now developing Battlefield one. There is still DLC being released for battlefront, and still some more to come. Given DICE stockholm stopped working on this ages ago, how is it content that's held back when its not even been developed yet ?
 
Last edited:
Agree with above some development teams just do things better than others this has been going on for decades of gaming now.

The only recent thing that annoys me that I don't think was a previous thing is micro transactions.

Buy the game and play it.

But as above some games offer 2 hours worth of dlc and some may offer 40 for the same price and tend to be more cared for than the shorter ones.
 
It's not even so much about different teams doing things better.

These expansions have always been about a way of generating revenue in between releases. Battlefield Vietnam was the next game after battlefield 1942. 1942 came out in 2002. Battlefield Vietnam came next in 2004. Secret weapons of WWII came out in 2003.

The reason Secret weapons came out in 2003 was to give them a revenue stream in between the release of 1942 in 2002 and Vietnam in 2003. Holding the release of the game back to include that content fixes the problem of the gamer's wanting everything for one price, but does nothing to help the developers keep their revenue going in between releases which is the only reason the expansion packs existed.
 
Last edited:
Personally I strongly dislike the paywall effect of DLC packs for games like battlefield due to the way it fractures the community.

However the reason we have this state of affairs is that these days is that AAA development is very expensive, and maintaining servers, ongoing bug fixes, trying to keep up with cheat engines, and well shareholders mean that you don't get much of a game for £30-40, and the players are allergic to subscriptions (Already payed for the game why should I continue to pay for it?).

There is IMO another way which could work for larger franchises such as COD or BF, but it would be subscription. - Wait, put down the pitchforks and hear me out first!

If for instance BF was BF through the ages, and for a subscription, you had the ability to play each era, each version for one sub, and as new maps, modes, eras came along you got them as part of the subscription, at the right price, I think it could work.

You would get engine updates, server updates, content updates, anti cheat measure updates for which ever flavor of battlefield you preferred all as part of the package.
You could drop in and out whenever you wished/ got bored /ran out of disposable income. The community would never be fragmented because you're either in the game or not.

You would be looking forward to the release of battlefield Rome or whatever was the next era to be added, not necessarily because you wanted to play as a Roman, but because you know it would mean your BF vietnam or 2142 was going to get an engine and netcode update.

Could it work?

Note: I should add, that I think Premium worked for BF4, I got way more time out of it than I paid for, but it didn't work at all for Hardlines, and I refused to buy it for SWBF. Maybe if you never had to pay for the game except for a subscription fee, the developers would either drop a game like a hot potato when people cancel their subs, or fix it so that people came back.
 
Last edited:
Not sure about subscription model - what happens if you jump off the bandwagon. I like being able to fire up bf every now and again without having to worry abut additional expense. One model which could work is paying for blocks of game time (per hour) but it would need to be cost effective.

The iissue with subscription is that its too risky for developers.
 
TonyTurbo78 said:
pfffffffffffft.....it'll never catch on ;)
Click to expand...

PFFFFFFFFFT! It already has! :p More 21.9 users than 4k according to steam survey :p

BF 1 should have support from the get go since bf 3, 4, hardline and swbf (+ other DICE/frostbite titles) have it without any patching required. Only the UI for the menu stuff will still probably be 16.9.

I'm hoping that we will see some nice 144HZ g/free sync around bf 1 launch.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom