Star Wars: Battlefront

My worry and I think it's a justified worry is that the game is still 6 months away and the first DLC has been announced. They have gone on the record and said they will add another 5 DLC's later.If a game company was putting everything into the initial release and concentrating every resource to that then how would they know exactly how many DLC's they would do in the future. They wouldn't. They would work on them after the initial release and see how things go. It seems premeditated to me.

Believe me when I say I want to be positive about this. As an avid fan of the originals I've waited 10 damn years for this. I just want it to be right.


Ben
 
I was actually really enthusiastic about it when it was announced. I'm not one of the "EA is ruining the world" people either. I mean take Battlefield and put SW in it. How can you mess that up? Well they're accomplishing that. I'll wait until it's released, but I'm not preordering. I'm waiting for a review first.

Two things.

1. I would take any review with a gram of salt. Early reviews almost never involve enough playtime to really get a sense of the problems underneath the hood in a game. Balance issues, glitches and gimmicks that ruin gameplay, that stuff isn't necessarily obvious in the first week of playing, or even in the first two months. I suggest waiting at LEAST two months after release before buying to see if: (a) issues with stability and server capabilities crop up; (b) the game ends up embraced by a wide enough audience and actually lasts a while (see also: Titanfall -- failed this one); (c) obvious glitches/crappy balancing pops up (e.g. USAS + 12g Frags + IRNV = easy mode). I always wait 2-4 months, sometimes longer, before buying.

2. I'd avoid the big gaming sites like IGN and Gamespot. Those guys are bought and sold by major companies and the lowest any of them ever gets is something like an 80%/B-ish grade on their big AAA releases. Look to independent gaming reviews that happen AFTER release if you want the real story, but even then, read them very, very carefully. Gaming review sites rely on advance copies of games, and only retain the favor of companies like EA by posting positive reviews or at least not-too-negative ones or neutral ones. But they'd have to really **** the bed with a AAA title for the game to get a truly bad review. I read reviews for information and description, and I read them carefully. I also disregard the scores for AAA titles because they're basically useless and suffer from "grade inflation."

I'm not too upset about the whole DLC thing unless something came out proving they were purposely leaving out content to make it DLC. I played BF3 and 4 and got the Premium "service". I didn't like it, but the DLC was cheaper and I had a group to play with that was really fun. So I didn't care as much about the cost.

What about all the games where the DLC is already on the damn disc, you just have to pay more money to unlock the damn thing?

The DLC thing is actually two things in my mind. On the one hand, I don't mind paying for DLC in general. Functionally, it's the same as expansion packs from back in the day. The only question is one of value.

The other side of it, though, is with at least my personal history with DLC and EA. In BF:BC2, their "free DLC" ended up being a bunch of existing maps either reoriented or added to different, crappy game modes like Squad DM and regular DM. I was...unimpressed. Much of the DLC was found ON the discs, so what you were actually "downloading" was whatever code unlocked it on the disc. That's shady practice, but it's how EA rolls anymore. But yeah, they have a history of doing this.


Now, in some cases, I can understand wanting to put a game out but needing a little more time to add stuff. The thing is, the stuff that ends up being added better be worth it. That's not always the case with these games. Another issue with DLC is that it has been, in my experience, either dull or poorly balanced/designed. In BF3, the Armored Fist (or whatever it was) DLC basically had a really poorly balanced Rush mode that heavily favored attackers. They very, very gradually rebalanced this, I think, but I lost interest in the game. So, even though I was a "premium" member, I basically stopped playing after that DLC release. The other DLC I just never bothered with.

When it comes to EA/DICE games, my advice is tread very, very carefully.

So you think saying they are withholding content is even an option????

They addressed it specifically. All I can say is they'd have to be pretty dumb to go on record saying as such if the opposite is true. People will find out. If they do plan to intentionally withhold content, it'd probably be best for them to remain coy and not address it at all.

People already have. Hence EA's bad rep.


Ben
 
Last edited:
They have found out DICE is lying about Battlefront DLC? News to me.

No, more that they've found out DICE has done this sort of thing in the past -- included content on the disc that's basically locked away until the DLC drops.

To be fair, not ALL disc-related DLC is evil. Sometimes it's a question of assets and production schedules and QA. Like, you have a lot of the work already done, but there's fine-tuning left to be done, balance testing to run, optimization, more assets to be added later, yadda yadda yadda. So, you ship the disc with as much stuff as you can, but none of it's really ready til the DLC actually goes live. Thus, it looks like the DLC is "already on the disc" because people can find some files on there that relate to DLC, but in truth, what's there is more like a skeleton or building blocks for future DLC rather than the full deal itself.

This tends to be more true with early DLC, but they might include SOME assets for later DLC on the disc. If it could be proven that the DLC was all right there, that would be pretty damning, since the implication is that you already paid for the content, so why are you paying again just to "unlock" what's there? But I doubt anyone can conclusively prove that.


What I can, however, say from personal experience is that, in the past, "new content" has actually be more like "recycled old content." That hasn't been true in the more recent DICE games I've played (which stopped at Battlefield 3), but honestly, I have enough criticisms of DICE/EA outside of the DLC issues to warrant being cautious anyway. The DLC stuff is much less of a controversy for me anymore. I'm more concerned with things like game design, balance, having stupid unlock systems that turn the entire game into a metagame about unlocking crap and ranking up, and especially support.

Frankly, the support issues alone are enough to make me wary. Patches which break or don't fix an existing problem can linger around for at least a month, sometimes longer. I think Battlefield 2 never actually even resolved the "red tag" bug where friendlies would appear as enemies and you'd TK them. This has been going on since the first Battlefield game, too, where Patch A rebalanced something but screwed something else up, and Patch B took months to come out, then fixes it but introduces a new problem.
 
In that case we'd have to trust what they say and trust is earned. As of late they haven't earned that from me.



Be
 
What have they said that wasn't true? Just curious but have they ever previously made the public claim that Battlefield content wasn't expressly withheld for DLC and the opposite was later proven to be true?

It's one thing to not like their DLC practices but have they ever said something in that regard that just patently was not true? I'm genuinely curious. I don't keep up with DICE much anymore so maybe I missed it.

Here we have a situation where DICE is saying in no uncertain terms that they are not withholding Battlefront content. Unless DICE has a storied history of lying, I don't know what more you'd want. Someone asked them a question and they answered it.
 
As Dan said in his post they had DLC on their games discs that was unlocked later for a price.They want people to believe what they say after doing something shady like that. All I'm saying is that they say one thing about Battlefront but in past games they've done just the opposite. So until they start proving otherwise I take what they say with a grain of salt. To be fair they might actually be telling the truth but I'm going on their past actions until they show me otherwise. After all a leopard doesn't change his spots.


Ben
 
I don't miss the space battles. I think a comprehensive treatment belongs in a different game on a different scale. BF2 did a decent job, game wise, but it really didn't feel "true." I'm fine with leaving out the space battles and focusing on the ground. It'll be just like BF1.
 
^Looks really nice. I'm excited about the more accurate and larger number of weapons. I was a bit disappointed that there seems to be only one Luke character model. I would have liked to have seen the ESB Luke at Hoth instead.
 
Well...i think how it looks is great. I'm more concerned with the gameplay mechanics of the AT-ST and the other land vehicles. I think it'll make or break the game.

Also wondering how helpful I'll be when i see two Jedi duking it out.
 
Back
Top