Same Price. Less Game. No Thanks.
All previous titles have had single player and co op modes. if this game is intended to be multiplayer only, we shouldnt be charged $60
Forum Discussion
15 Replies
@Elph13 wrote:All previous titles have had single player and co op modes. if this game is intended to be multiplayer only, we shouldnt be charged $60
But with everything coming and what this game is going to have that doesnt seem like that high of a price tag for the hours of fun you will get.
@Elph13 wrote:All previous titles have had single player and co op modes. if this game is intended to be multiplayer only, we shouldnt be charged $60
I've paid less than 20 cents an hour for all the enjoyment I've gotten from multiplayer on BF4. Worth every penny.
@ZombieP1ow wrote:...No campaign doesn't really make a difference.
This is pretty much my take on it.
I'm not a typical BF player, I suck royally at PVP, so past campaigns have allowed me some access to the games, but I recognise it was never about the Campaign mode.
With no campaign and a focus on the maps, that should give me a better chance to 'git gud'... 😉
- @Elph13 the older battlefeilds did not have campaigns maybe till modern combat. I do like battlefeild campaigns, hopefully this fixes the crappy multiplayer start offs like BF3 and BF4.
But considering how big this game is gonna be it's worth it, that's my opinion but we are not getting less. I mean I already copping the Ultimate Edition. - @Elph13 Battlefield originally was a multiplayer only series. Battlefield 2 was multiplayer only, and is still considered by most long time fans to be the best. I think Bad Company was the first to have a single player.
I didn't even play the single player except in Bad Company.
The value is in how much you play the game. A 10 hour single player game can be worth $60 if it's replayable. You get 80-100 hours off replays and who cares? You got your money's worth.
You sit on BF2042 for 6 months, guess what? You got your money's worth and a lot more! lol
