TLZ
Banned
If there's no campaign, why are they charging anything at all upfront? This should be free to start and pay for seasons whenever they're out.No campaign, no BR and $70. Nah I'm good
What exactly are people paying $70 for?
If there's no campaign, why are they charging anything at all upfront? This should be free to start and pay for seasons whenever they're out.No campaign, no BR and $70. Nah I'm good
Thanks. I read into it some more. Not even sure what you get with seasons then. New specialists?Maps, guns and specialists will be free ......... you only pay for COSMETICS IF YOU WANT TO LOL
To be honest the older versions of Battlefield had single player mods which were basically multiplayer maps with bots. I think since BF3 they have removed them, but I am not sure.This thread really shows the age of some members in here lol
Winging that the game is full price with no single player
Battlefield games pre-Bad Company had NO single player and were still full price AND were some of the best PC games ever warranting the full price tag.
Battlefield is a MP only game and always will be.
The single player crap in recent BF games was that…. Crap.
Imagine playing the games that don't have multiplayer. You are paying for one-off experience 70$ for one single player movie ticket.just burn your money man, it's a better experience than buying this crap.
Why have 10 maps when you can just have one?
This is a free to play game being sold as a full priced game.
I'm not shocked you're supportive of this, it's the future you've been advocating for a while.
Why the fuck would I pay premium prices for a product that is 1/3rd smaller? Why would I pay more for less?Why on earth would they slash the price for their multiplayer game just because they cut the single player campaign? People don't buy Battlefield for the campaign. Nobody has ever stood in line at midnight for a Battlefield launch just chomping at the bit to play the single player.
If there's no campaign, why are they charging anything at all upfront? This should be free to start and pay for seasons whenever they're out.
What exactly are people paying $70 for?
No, it isn’t in my opinion.so i don't play these type of games, for those who do, a question: is this smart of them to not have a campaign mode? i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it? just wondering.
ok, just wondering, there must be a reason the publisher thought it was not needed, seems like an odd decision but i don't know enough about the appeal of these types of games to understand it.No, it isn’t in my opinion.
People drastically underplay how popular these campaigns are. People want them, and they want them done well. Ask Activision
I can't really speak for anybody else but I always assumed it has to do with people feeling uncomfortable having to spend additional money to get a fully encompassing experience from their game, so petty stuff like skins being locked behind a paywall might be upsetting. Excluding expansions it just feels better if everything is included to reasonably earn or unlock without the need to pay for it. Personally it doesn't bother me any as long as what they are putting on offer appeals to me and is priced within reason or whatever is within my comfort level.Why do paid cosmetics trigger people so much? You get the full game and all maps/weapons/specialists with that $70.
I can't really speak for anybody else but I always assumed it has to do with people feeling uncomfortable having to spend additional money to get a fully encompassing experience from their game, so petty stuff like skins being locked behind a paywall might be upsetting.
Thanks. I read into it some more. Not even sure what you get with seasons then. New specialists?
I don't get the hate for no single player. Maybe I am too old, but BF was never about single player originally. 100% pure multiplayer for the first several games. Then Bad Company changed that. Then they added it in to the main games and they should have never done it because look what happens when you take it away. WAHHHH!!!!
For multiplayer games the definition of content can vary. I mean people played CS1.6 for ages. Session based games are mostly about sessions itself - game mechanics and so on.i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it?
This is literally how every major MP shooter works these days.
Maps, guns, modes are free. Seasons are cosmetics only.How will this not fracture the player base?
yeah, usually they have a single player and a multiplayer, imagine getting content for your money, imagine that.To be honest the older versions of Battlefield had single player mods which were basically multiplayer maps with bots. I think since BF3 they have removed them, but I am not sure.
Imagine playing the games that don't have multiplayer. You are paying for one-off experience 70$ for one single player movie ticket.
Multiplayer games can be played for years, single player games - not really.
If there's no campaign, why are they charging anything at all upfront? This should be free to start and pay for seasons whenever they're out.
What exactly are people paying $70 for?
For the name pretty much.If there's no campaign, why are they charging anything at all upfront? This should be free to start and pay for seasons whenever they're out.
What exactly are people paying $70 for?
Maps, guns, modes are free. Seasons are cosmetics only.
but 70,Season pass and all this BS.
A multiplayer videogame.If there's no campaign, why are they charging anything at all upfront? This should be free to start and pay for seasons whenever they're out.
What exactly are people paying $70 for?
I love my single player games, but man, I couldn't imagine ever wanting to play a huge MP game like Battlefield in single player.Hard pass for me. I don't play these games for MP experience. Oh well.
I know really. I've had a few friends make that comment and I just don't get it. I can't grasp why anyone would buy BF just for single player.I love my single player games, but man, I couldn't imagine ever wanting to play a huge MP game like Battlefield in single player.
What aspects of Tarkov do you think they'll bring over? I'd love a weapons handling system like in Tarkov. Checking mags for ammo count, no bullet pooling, could be done easily.If they do an Escape From Tarkov mode, the hype will be justified. That's the next logical step from BR's and Call of Duty is behind in this, Battlefield taking the reins might be cool.
My personal honest opinion is no.. It's a mistake in my eyes and many consumers are excluded.. Contrary to belief there are a lot of people that still crave a good single player fps. How can you charge $70 for a game in this economy that is online only when you have COD Warzone for free.so i don't play these type of games, for those who do, a question: is this smart of them to not have a campaign mode? i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it? just wondering.
Sorry, but that's such a silly comment. You are basically saying Battlefield is known as being online so keep it online only. Yeah ok.Single player campaigns in Battlefield games are almost entirely worthless and a waste of time.
Edit:
I'm just glad there is no one armed ladies sporting katana's in a WWII setting. LOL
They've said there's going to be a F2P mode and there's going to be crossplay, but it hasn't been addressed yet. They said they'll be talking about it later. Makes sense though, they don't want to blow their load all at once. Especially with E3 being so close.My personal honest opinion is no.. It's a mistake in my eyes and many consumers are excluded.. Contrary to belief there are a lot of people that still crave a good single player fps. How can you charge $70 for a game in this economy that is online only when you have COD Warzone for free.
Fuck EA!
Personally, I think it's incredibly smart for them. It allows them to focus more on what the Battlefield series is known for, multiplayer. When it comes to development costs, campaigns are always more expensive than multiplayer components. Both in time AND finances. To completely cut that out, means that all the time and money that would be going into that, can just all go into multiplayer now. Which is something they haven't done in a long while. So I think it's exciting to see them go back to the series' roots, and do it again. Especially after BFV's gameplay was handled so poorly. Is there enough potential content? It's subjective, it's all up to the person of course. But again, having that freedom from development time and campaign costs will allow them to focus harder on a roadmap that features free seasons that will last until the next Battlefield iteration. So I think there will be, for sure. It just depends on their release schedule. Can't be too soon, can't be too late.so i don't play these type of games, for those who do, a question: is this smart of them to not have a campaign mode? i mean, is there enough potential content that players would enjoy without it? just wondering.
Just paid cosmetics per 3 months. That's all. It's not that big a deal.Nah, I’ll pass. No campaign is definitely enough for me to skip this. I actually enjoy the COD and Battlefield campaigns. Paid seasons? What are they thinking? Didn’t they already experience enough controversy with BF5?
Again. The "seasons" are free, all content that comes with them like specialists, guns, maps, etc. Basically gameplay related components, will all be free. The "battle passes" that are released with ever new season are paid for, but they're solely cosmetic based.Nah, I’ll pass. No campaign is definitely enough for me to skip this. I actually enjoy the COD and Battlefield campaigns. Paid seasons? What are they thinking? Didn’t they already experience enough controversy with BF5?