Continued...
It doesnt matter how great the game is if you have the same 7 maps for 2yrs. Further it is at odds with their own boasts about longest dev time, most expensive BF ever implying they were going all out.
Why would they invest so much building the framework to crunch out 128 player, 60fps, 4k resolution next gen Battlefield and only have 7 maps at launch with a planned delivery of continual Seasonal content that brings grand total of 9 after 2yrs.
Surely they had 15 maps planned from the get go? Surely theyve been at this long enough that they know the 2nd year deliverables in new content is just as important to have planned out. Wheres the upgrade incentive to Premium or Season 2 pass? Thats what they should have to create and hold engagement.
Considering the dev time and investment boasts and how they believed they were delivering an all out BF experience that was an all DICE hands on deck how did they settle for so little content as their best BF ever?
They dont have great/alot of destructible environments, they took out water, theres no levelution, and the weather effects are poor. They were advertised as Natural Catastrophes Tornado, Rockslide, Volcanic explosion, yet weve only seen the Tornado & Sandstorm. Compared to previous BFs the weather is very poor, doesnt last long, less atmospheric/dynamic. It seems Catastrophes have been canned completely. Thats not love. Its *.
When you think of all the advantages BF was able to offer with the new Frostbite engine over the years Destructible Environments, Weather, Levelution, that no other franchise could handle that have been totally wiped out - how then can they say prior to launch this was their biggest all out, total DICE project theyve ever undertaken?
@ATFGunr wrote:
@TheSaltI agree with a lot of what you said, but I’ll challenge you on DLCs. I 100% think the DLC model is superior. If I’d known that Live Service would mean 1 map per season I’d have had to reconsider getting into it. I’ve played since 1942. The mod community then added a lot of content. The DLCs were consistent and reliable content. I was happy to pay $15 for 4-5 maps and new weapons. It was steady and reliable. I know what I was getting. I was shocked we got season 6 and nothing else is promised. They aren’t obligated to do anything else. Live service doesn’t make any promises. Yes DLC divides the players into haves and have nots, and guess what? I never had an issue finding a match in vanilla maps or DLC. Servers ran those maps. Clans supported those maps for both groups. Live service, no browsers, crappy servers etc all contributed to killing of clan play in 2042. EA did this to themselves. BF3 and 4 were huge as they gave us what we want, now it’s what they want and it’s underwhelming. So yes to DLCs imo.
Yeah i bought premium dlc everytime and yes unfortunately it did divide the community. It supported the lowest common denominator ie standard version. DLC servers would last a month here in Australia at best. I had to play West US to play those maps with any regularity. Was frustrating as. It killed the community in that for 3yrs we played 9 Vanilla base maps by yr 2 no one was playing. The problem was DLC maps if added in server rotation it would kick all those with standard edition from server everytime the DLC map they didnt own came up. This made it near impossible to keep the server populated.
I wrote about this at the time. That the standard edition was holding Premium to ransom. They tried if your friend has Premium play for free and other free w/ends in effort to look after Premium buyers. I suggested as i am again (however many years later) that the Vanilla base standard game with 9 maps needs to go. Instead of being $79 it should be $89 but with 13 starting maps, and the 4 x Premium DLC map packs $69 should be $59 but only release 3 maps instead of 4 with each DLC. Basically deliver larger base and 1 less Premium. They get the same $ for same maps but the Vanilla base is larger over the 2yr lifecycle.
Here we are again. BF2042 launched with 7 x 128 player maps. Its literally disgusting.
@ATFGunr wrote:
Clans supported those maps for both groups. Live service, no browsers, crappy servers etc all contributed to killing of clan play in 2042. EA did this to themselves. BF3 and 4 were huge as they gave us what we want, now it’s what they want and it’s underwhelming. So yes to DLCs imo.
Theyve been killing clans since they started new Frostbite Engine in BFBC1, no support like BF2MC * they even launched with No Conquest for over 14months was crazy. Every title since we asked for it. No response. They built Battlelogs for clans but no functionality to use the private servers for matches. They then launched BF3 worldwide tour $150mill marketing budget. It even had Richard Branson Virgin Gaming $1.6mill Xbox tournament being advertised yet DICE refused to add eSport functionality. Within 12mths it was cancelled. MLG wanted to take BF3 4v4 on but DICE told them to wait. Even when EA wanted to use XBL Arena and enter eSports in a big way (remember E3 Madden $1mill tourny?) they put a new executive in charge of eSports who was supposed to be looking at Battlefield and their sports games and wanted to partner with Xbox rather than reinvent the wheel everytime. Never happened. Its all lip service promoting clans as all they end up doing is stacking public servers against randoms because they have no love, no functionality/support from EA DICE. Its the same every launch.
