Battlefield 1

[lars573]

De-colonization is not a current phenomenon, so not a very apt comparison. The fact that Battlefield and EA are very proud of spamming DLCs is irrelevant, unless you believe that complaining about Nazi gangs beating up foreigners is nonsensical, because Nazi gangs always attacked foreigners.

Oh but it is. As your complaining about something that's not only over and done (digital DLC being the norm). But has been done for quite sometime.

Even if Battlefield maps have a size of 20 square meters, not adding 20 square meters, where French and Russians fought and died in WWI is ridiculous history-wise and very shameful, if they are sold later as DLCs.

In Battlefield 1942 the Italian army, Free French forces, and sub-factions like the USMC, SS, SAS, RAF, Luftwaffe were only available through the expansion packs. Where's your butthurt for that? It's the exact same situation as France and Russia being held back for DLC later.

[Crandar]

Oh but it is. As your complaining about something that's not only over and done (digital DLC being the norm). But has been done for quite sometime.

If it is over and done, it a bit difficult also being the norm. I really can't explain it more simply. I won't whine about Hitler, who is over and done, but I will protest about Nazi thugs who aren't over and done. It's not rocket science.

In Battlefield 1942 the Italian army, Free French forces, and sub-factions like the USMC, SS, SAS, RAF, Luftwaffe were only available through the expansion packs. Where's your butthurt for that? It's the exact same situation as France and Russia being held back for DLC later.

Yeah, not really the same, but I would still complain, if I was a member of the forum in 2002 and that was a thread about Battlefield 1942 and not about Battlefield 1.

[Husar]

I absolutely get the frustration about DLCs *buys a DLC*, but they're so pretty...

Actually I often buy games later as a complete package with Season Pass or all DLCs included because I just don't think a Tomb Raider or so is worth 90 bucks even with a few cave-DLCs tacked on. If the DLCs are more like smaller addons similar to what we had ages ago, then I think they can be justified, although usually DLCs are way overpriced if you compare the work required to make a full game and the work to make a few assets and then compare the prices...

I still buy some depending on the company, the contents and so on, but I also leave a lot of other games for sales and then sometimes for when they are 10€ or less on the other hand, because my overall budget for games does not change much just because they want more money per game now...

[Montmorency]

Okay, they can release French and East fronts as expansion packs, and then offer DLC for the expansion packs.

[Husar]

Okay, they can release French and East fronts as expansion packs, and then offer DLC for the expansion packs.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
My point was that back then you'd buy a game for, say, 50€ and a year later they would release an expansion/addon for 30€ that had a lot of new content, such as several new nations, units, a few new game mechanics, new maps and also a few new missions, campaigns and multiplayer modes in case of an RTS game. So in many cases the content seemed to justify the price more or less. My point was that a DLC that works in a similar case can be perfectly fine in my book, but a new character skin for 5€ is not. Mostly because a new character skin is maybe a day of work for one designer and an entire game for 50€ already pays for 100+ people working for a year or two on an entire game.
The relation is just off in the latter case.

[Montmorency]

I'm thinking of Smugglers V recently, which had a DLC for the main game, a standalone "expansion", and a DLC for that expansion.

[Fragony]

I absolutely get the frustration about DLCs *buys a DLC*, but they're so pretty...

Actually I often buy games later as a complete package with Season Pass or all DLCs included because I just don't think a Tomb Raider or so is worth 90 bucks even with a few cave-DLCs tacked on. If the DLCs are more like smaller addons similar to what we had ages ago, then I think they can be justified, although usually DLCs are way overpriced if you compare the work required to make a full game and the work to make a few assets and then compare the prices...

I still buy some depending on the company, the contents and so on, but I also leave a lot of other games for sales and then sometimes for when they are 10€ or less on the other hand, because my overall budget for games does not change much just because they want more money per game now...

I always wait for the definative edition with single-player games at least. There are soooooo many good games that are more than 3 year old or more. The Arkham-city game with all DLC I bought for 15 euro. Different thing with game like Battlefield, feels like arm-twisting

[edyzmedieval]

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4...efield-stream/

Streaming the final version starts on the 12th of October.

Release - 21 October.

[Fragony]

Sounds tempting, I like the gritty feel of Battlefield 1, it's also much less chaotic than the previous games. I plead for a different kind of unlocking system so everything works better, actually forcing you to unlock the multiplayer. Get to know the maps fighting AI routine, everybody will already know how what to do once they unlocked it and try something else, making infantry battles much less chaotic and makes more sense being just a footsoldier with an objective. After that 3 vs 3 with the rest being AI. After that 6 vs 6, later being able to play with more and using vehicles yourself. The Battlefield-games can be glorious when everybody knows what they are doing but the potential to be really good from the start is a mess

[edyzmedieval]

Uncapped FPS for Battlefield 1 PC players, which clearly is a good thing for those who have high end rigs and want to max out everything.

http://wccftech.com/battlefield-1-pc...tiplayer-maps/