Retired wrote on Aug 31, 2016, 08:51:
It is reskinned Battlefront.

I remember reading the same comments about BF4
Re skinned BF3 etc etc.
Every BF game since 3 is a re skin
Re skinned maps and vehicles too. Nothing new

/s

It is reskinned Battlefront. Looks and feels like console. iish. Deleted.

Well, the same old DLC shit, unfortunately every video of BF1 I see looks amazing, so I'm going to have to give in and buy it. I skipped BF:Star Wars and Hardline at least.

I would like it if EA would just be honest, and charge 100 bucks(or 110 I guess) for the full game, day one. Missing maps and weapons in a FPS is just intolerable, and if they have separate classes behind the DLC wall also? Ugh. Just call the $60 version of the game the Demo version.

Sepharo wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 21:58:
16 maps in the DLC? How many in the base game?

Right now their site only lists five current maps revealed.

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 15:14:
Pretty sure the season passes for previous BF games were not 50 bucks, then again I never bought the season pass until some time later when they were discounted. (which sticker shock of Battlefront's pass cause a bit of a uproar).

Just checked my receipts. BF3 Premium Service was $49.99 on Amazon at release. BF4 Premium Service was also $49.99 on Amazon at release, but they offered a $5 credit on the game itself, which I applied to the Premium. So, yeah, unfortunately this is nothing new.

16 maps in the DLC? How many in the base game?

For some historical context:

The two expansions for 1942 cost a combined $50, the same price as this season pass (ignoring inflation). BF2 had three expansions for the same combined price. This expansion policy has been in place since the beginning of series.

They should rename that to "Splintering the community pack"

Because that is what it is doing. fucking paying for maps, AGAIN? After the BF4 disaster with their expansions? You know what this will result in, 3 maps will be popular, from the vanilla game, and nobody plays any of the other modes or maps... sigh

DangerDog wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 13:54:

SpectralMeat wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 10:21:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os7LWIolRjU

kills not counting towards ticket loss on conquest mode sounds dumb, maybe it'll work out when playing the game. I guess this is their answer to "too many snipers" and "nobody plays the objective" but you would think they could just give a point boost to people capping and defending and gamify people into playing the objective.

I'm still not convinced that the gamer hype surrounding this Battlefield is real, I think the WWI setting is going to be a flash in the pan. I still wish it was 2143 setting or Bad Company 3 even.

I'd like to see how it plays out before saying it's a bad design decision. There's definitely an issue with people just sniping or screwing around and not doing anything productive.

SpectralMeat wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 15:27:

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 15:14:
Pretty sure the season passes for previous BF games were not 50 bucks, then again I never bought the season pass until some time later when they were discounted. (which sticker shock of Battlefront's pass cause a bit of a uproar).

And if I'm not mistaken, only Bethesda upped the price of the season pass halfway through it's DLC. Apon checking it was 30 then went up to 50.

You may be right. I seem to recall other games having $50 season passes as well.

We always go round and round on this, pretty sure if you add up the cost of the expansions since BF1942 it works out to be pretty close to the $130 mark per game (full retail).

Does anyone pay full retail for their games? I know I don't, usually end up spending $47 or so on what's suppose to be $60.

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 15:14:
Pretty sure the season passes for previous BF games were not 50 bucks, then again I never bought the season pass until some time later when they were discounted. (which sticker shock of Battlefront's pass cause a bit of a uproar).

And if I'm not mistaken, only Bethesda upped the price of the season pass halfway through it's DLC. Apon checking it was 30 then went up to 50.

You know what, you're probably right. I seem to recall other games having $50 season passes as well.


This comment was edited on Aug 24, 2016, 15:33.

SpectralMeat wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 13:50:

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 13:14:
50 bucks for the pass. LOL.

"Um guys... we tried to price gouge our customers hoping the Star Wars name would get them to buy it... but if we don't charge 50 bucks for the pass in the next game then it will be REALLY obvious!" -EA Exec.

Not that I am disagreeing with your point here but to be fair every other season passes are $50 and up. It is not an EA thing.
I just wish these season passes would go on sale as often as the games do.

Pretty sure the season passes for previous BF games were not 50 bucks, then again I never bought the season pass until some time later when they were discounted. (which sticker shock of Battlefront's pass cause a bit of a uproar).

And if I'm not mistaken, only Bethesda upped the price of the season pass halfway through it's DLC. Apon checking it was 30 then went up to 50.

SpectralMeat wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 10:21:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os7LWIolRjU

kills not counting towards ticket loss on conquest mode sounds dumb, maybe it'll work out when playing the game. I guess this is their answer to "too many snipers" and "nobody plays the objective" but you would think they could just give a point boost to people capping and defending and gamify people into playing the objective.

I'm still not convinced that the gamer hype surrounding this Battlefield is real, I think the WWI setting is going to be a flash in the pan. I still wish it was 2143 setting or Bad Company 3 even.

The Half Elf wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 13:14:
50 bucks for the pass. LOL.

"Um guys... we tried to price gouge our customers hoping the Star Wars name would get them to buy it... but if we don't charge 50 bucks for the pass in the next game then it will be REALLY obvious!" -EA Exec.

Not that I am disagreeing with your point here but to be fair every other season passes are $50 and up. It is not an EA thing.
I just wish these season passes would go on sale as often as the games do.

50 bucks for the pass. LOL.

"Um guys... we tried to price gouge our customers hoping the Star Wars name would get them to buy it... but if we don't charge 50 bucks for the pass in the next game then it will be REALLY obvious!" -EA Exec.

ASLayerAODsk wrote on Aug 24, 2016, 12:51:
Yup, buy the game twice, why does noone call a 'Season Pass' what it is, 'double dipping'. So many noobs just bending over, thinking that it's 'ok'

Remember when EA wasn't the only company that was ritually brutalized for coding expansion packs for their games?

I remember when Warcraft II: Beyond the Dark Portal came out, I was over the moon. Nowadays just the idea that a studio is actively planning on building more content for the game after launch is akin to dickslapping the public across the face.

If your argument is that it's a shitty value, then yeah you'd have an arguable point. If your argument was that they cut some core parts out of the game to resell in a later DLC, then yeah you'd have an arguable point. But just being against the idea of post-launch expansions on principle is ridiculous.

Dungeons and Dragons were releasing expansion books back in the 70's for christ's sake. Stop acting like EA is the only one who's figured this out, and that it's universally hated to build content for a game post-launch.

How many times does this argument need to be made?

*cue EA shill overture music*

Yup, buy the game twice, why does noone call a 'Season Pass' what it is, 'double dipping'. So many noobs just bending over, thinking that it's 'ok' sigh.
Remember when maps were community made and the game modes werent so unbalanced, repetitive, and crap? oh yeah, then EA happened.

edit : oh yeah, then they started REMAKING old maps for new engines and let us have that for 'free'.

Too bad about splitting up the community again with map/DLC pay wall but it's EA, no surprises there. Thankfully my group and I easily get our money out of premium but it would be nice and better for the community if at least the maps were free so it didn't break up the server selection so much.

Also FYI it looks like you can subscribe to EA Access for 1 month for $5, buy BF1 with 10% discount, then cancel EA Access and come out ahead. By like $10 or whatever. But still!

speaking of which, the Beta is coming up soon, it's open to all on Aug 30th I think? Maybe the 31st. Anyways, they say that the "insiders" who signed up for the newsletter are getting in "sooner" than that, with no real revelation about what that means, probably 24 hours earlier. If anyone knows more lemme know.

*EDIT found it:

24 hours earlier, so 30th for insiders, 31st for everyone else

For me, if I like the Battlefield game coming out, it means buying both the base game and Premium straight away, no questions asked. The Beta will tell me what to do but it's highly, highly likely I'll thump my wallet at it.