All fake perception of getting something more than what you paid for. The customers see the "extra value" in it and can justify the cost more, even though it's going to be standard free content anyway....
Star Wars: Battlefront
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
All fake perception of getting something more than what you paid for. The customers see the "extra value" in it and can justify the cost more, even though it's going to be standard free content anyway....
Riceball
Master Member
Exactly, a lot of publishers these days hold firm to a release date no matter how complete or debugged a game might be. If they said that they're going to release a game on X date then come hell or high water it's going to be released on X date. What happens in the mean time is that the dev team continues to work on debugging and completing content that weren't complete in time for the release date. That's why a lot of games now a days have all sorts of updates and patches on the first days of release, and later, because they want the game out and don't care about how complete it is so long as it installs and is in some form playable.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yep. You don't even have to be in the industry to figure this out. SO many games release with Day 1 DLC and have massive post-release patches. And many of them also are released with on-disc DLC that is later "unlocked" through patches. A bunch of this is about release dates.
I think a bunch of it is also about ensuring that the game remains "fresh" for appx. 1-2 years, until a new game can be released. The relatively recent "season pass" concept also plays into this, since it provides an instant influx of cash to developers and the impression taht the game will be supported for some time.
I don't mind DLC as much anymore. It's the nature of the beast nowadays, and longing for the old days of larger up-front releases and expansion packs after the fact is pointless. But I gotta say, the EA/Activision approach to game cycles...it's just kinda tiresome. Especially considering how they almost NEVER provide hotfixes for clear in-game balance problems or design problems, and will only OCCASIONALLY hotfix a connection issue.
I remember back when Battlefield Bad Company 2 came out, there was a period after some patch where the X360 gameplay had HORRIBLE rubberbanding. That was allowed to continue for over a month. In other cases, there's often at least a 3-6 month period where some no-talent uber-build of a weapon and/or class loadout just totally unbalances the game. In BF3 it was the USAS shotgun with 12g frag rounds and an IR scope that basically let you see through walls. It was the ultimate noobcannon and it ruined gameplay. When DICE changed the scope to not operate that way, a group of players lost their damn minds. In another case, they put a patch out that had the underslung shotgun when loaded with flechette ammo basically one shot anyone because each individual flechette round was being given the full damage of the rifle to which it was attached. That lasted about a month and a half before it was patched.
DICE is notorious for awful support in this regard. So, all you pre-order junkies and day-1 enthusiasts, just bear in mind that whatever you play on Day 1 it will play vastly differently by day 365, albeit with long periods of brokenness in between in one form or other.
Not to mention they will start nerfing the heck out of anything the crybabies whine about... I honestly don't know how some people play multiplayer FPS games if they haven't figured out how to deal with people using different weapons. It's not like they gave someone an instakill gun.
Solo4114
Master Member
Well, that's the thing. Some folks wine, sure, but in other cases they really have let ubercombos in that needed a rebalancing. The USAS + 12g frags + the infrared vision was truly unbalanced. You had no need to aim really. In BFBC2, the M60 had next to no recoil and extreme damage. When you see EVERYONE using the same gun, you know something's up...except DICE often let that stuff go for months on end.
crabra comander
Master Member
LOL...give EA a chance guys...I skipped Hardline so my money talks, but I was also disappointed with Evolve's DLC and limited replayability. But I wasn't as disappointed with Evolve as I was with Destiny. But I digest...
This looks...pretty decent. Not for nothing, but I'm assuming by keeping the flight controls limited the ground planet should make for some tight battles.
I'm a little suspect of the release date and not really getting an E3 preview or any other gameplay updates, but at the end of the day, I'll enjoy swinging a lightsaber around or downing a AT-AT in a Snowspeeder.
This looks...pretty decent. Not for nothing, but I'm assuming by keeping the flight controls limited the ground planet should make for some tight battles.
I'm a little suspect of the release date and not really getting an E3 preview or any other gameplay updates, but at the end of the day, I'll enjoy swinging a lightsaber around or downing a AT-AT in a Snowspeeder.
Solo4114
Master Member
Yeah, but here's the way I look at it.
1. EA's track record in terms of their marketing approach is a known factor.
2. DICE's awful support for products they release is also a known factor.
3. Gameplay for the Battlefield series has evolved...very slowly. Fundamentally, it's been pretty similar across multiple releases for at least 7-ish years. So, gameplay is at least likely to hew towards the same as that, although we may see some variations. By this, I mean it's basically terrestrial battles with a mix of air and land vehicles, 4-6 "classes" or "races" or whatever that will be better at this but not as good as that, a series of weapons that are unlocked by level, and probably attachments to those weapons that are also unlocked.
With all that in mind, everything GOOD about the game is pretty much entirely theoretical and wishful thinking at the moment. "But it could be so cool!" True. But it is also very likely to NOT be as cool as you think it will be.
My advice:
Wait for at least 2-3 months after release for some patches to come out, and for the shine to be off the penny, and THEN see what people think.
1. EA's track record in terms of their marketing approach is a known factor.
2. DICE's awful support for products they release is also a known factor.
3. Gameplay for the Battlefield series has evolved...very slowly. Fundamentally, it's been pretty similar across multiple releases for at least 7-ish years. So, gameplay is at least likely to hew towards the same as that, although we may see some variations. By this, I mean it's basically terrestrial battles with a mix of air and land vehicles, 4-6 "classes" or "races" or whatever that will be better at this but not as good as that, a series of weapons that are unlocked by level, and probably attachments to those weapons that are also unlocked.
With all that in mind, everything GOOD about the game is pretty much entirely theoretical and wishful thinking at the moment. "But it could be so cool!" True. But it is also very likely to NOT be as cool as you think it will be.
My advice:
Wait for at least 2-3 months after release for some patches to come out, and for the shine to be off the penny, and THEN see what people think.
Lucas told Dave Filoni that Fett lived and then there's this:
http://epicstream.com/news/Did-Disn...urvived-the-Sarlacc-Pit-in-Return-of-the-Jedi
http://epicstream.com/news/Did-Disn...urvived-the-Sarlacc-Pit-in-Return-of-the-Jedi
*Censored word* EA! They have been the same way since the 90's. Also, whenever they buy a new studio it is the same thing. The games/gamers suffer. A game series might be amazing... that is until EA buys said studio. EA pushes studios to release half-bummed, half-finished products that a lot of the times do not work.
Seems a lot of people are thinking the same.
http://m.au.ign.com/articles/2015/04/22/star-wars-battlefront-dev-addresses-dlc-concerns
i mainly want the game offline for me and my son so I want a complete game upfront. They say there will be more than 8 levels but that's a pretty lowball number to start with. Nowadays developers release so many incomplete products and force you to be online and download if you want something even close to a completed product. Not all are like that but the number is growing .
Ben
http://m.au.ign.com/articles/2015/04/22/star-wars-battlefront-dev-addresses-dlc-concerns
i mainly want the game offline for me and my son so I want a complete game upfront. They say there will be more than 8 levels but that's a pretty lowball number to start with. Nowadays developers release so many incomplete products and force you to be online and download if you want something even close to a completed product. Not all are like that but the number is growing .
Ben
Last edited:
Sounds like Bungie with Destiny anymore. One boohoo and out goes the good stats.
8 or more means 9 maybe 10. That's nothing compared with most games and the originals. And remember they are multiplayer maps which are generally smallish. They obviously want to make more money on DLC despite what they say. I mean why not include the battle of Jakku at the get go. Granted that one is free but I garuantee the rest won't be. They aren't even including space combat like the originals or a campaign mode. They can deny it all they want but I garuantee they will make you buy a campaign mode,space combat and other planets and maps later at a cost instead of just including them to start with.Ben
Last edited:
Solo4114
Master Member
Bear in mind that "maps" can often mean "different configuration of the same map for a different game mode." EA/DICE did this all the freakin' time with Bad Company 2. They'd announce the upcoming release of 6 more "maps" when it would be "Map ABC" only rejiggered for team deathmatch instead of conquest or rush. So, it might still be 4 maps total, but those 4 maps might be from different angles or with different objectives for different game modes.
Timmythekid
Sr Member
Ummmm....did anyone else hear that Dice has apparently confirmed that the walkers are on rails, akin to something about a 'train' mode in Battlefield? You can use the weapons, but what I read is that they are not actually functional as vehicles. I've only seen this report once, but I'm getting a real sinking feeling about this game.
Yeah I heard they were on rails and not controlable by players. Maybe they'll make them unlockable as a DLC later on for extra $. Vehicles were one of the best things in the originals. Me and my son spent hours attacking the Hoth base while we took it in turns being the walkers or the rebel gunners.
Ben
Ben
crabra comander
Master Member
Well, the AT-AT weren't known for their seped...why have the ability to control something that is only required to bee-line for one objective?
Now if they rail speeders or Snowspeeders...we have a problem.
Now if they rail speeders or Snowspeeders...we have a problem.
Timmythekid
Sr Member
Yeah, they're slow, but man, I, and now my boys too, still LOVE jumping in an AT-AT and assaulting Hoth in BF. I mean, the whole POINT of this genre is supposed to be sandbox warfare. Saying, 'yes, you can have the most iconic ground vehicle in SW, but only as a rail-shooter." seems to defeat that idea a bit. This...this is not exactly sounding what I've been waiting ten years for. Oh well, at least split-screen is still in.
Similar threads
