Well, Battlefield Bulletin posted it on Twitter a little while ago like it was now official, so I don't know to be honest.
Still sucks either way.
*EDIT*
If it's inaccurate, I'm sure one of the CMs will let us know shortly.
Nope not surprised at all, I am (and always have been) a big advocate for the premium model over the so-called "live-service" model.
What "live service" really means is that they push games out there the door that aren't even finished and then spend the majority of the "live service" just fixing bugs and adding content that should have been in the game to begin with.
And don't even get me started on the MTX aspect of the live service model.
@Ironhead841 wrote:Nope not surprised at all, I am (and always have been) a big advocate for the premium model over the so-called "live-service" model.
What "live service" really means is that they push games out there the door that aren't even finished and then spend the majority of the "live service" just fixing bugs and adding content that should have been in the game to begin with.
And don't even get me started on the MTX aspect of the live service model.
Totally agree with you, I would take the Premium Model over the Live Service any day, there is simply no comparison.
The equivilent of one DLC. for the entire lifespan of the game. Awful just awful.
What if they bring out premium content DLC next year for the game? Would you still buy it?
To be honest, probably not. The only caveat would be if it significantly increased the player count, then maybe.
It would also depend on what that premium content was too, I suppose.
@UP_LordPlumber wrote:
@RayD_O1Obviously. Any bit of logic would tell you that paying for content would bring more maps, weapons, vehicles etc.
I would gladly spend 50 euros extra on this game if it means every 3 or so months we're getting a DLC with 4 maps and a bunch of new stuff to play with
Me too in future BF's, I always felt I got my money's worth with Premium. 👍
