Battlefield 1 DLC Maps To Become Free?

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 4, 2017.

  1. Veteran

    Veteran Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,094
    Likes Received:
    21
    GPU:
    2xTitan XM@1590Mhz-CH20
    Wow maps are free....i may buy the base game now...actually thinking about it i dont think ill bother. I get my BF fix from BC2 which not played for over a year. Lots of people playing still and its better than BF3 and 4.
     
  2. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,413
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    GPU:
    -
    My question is:

    When did we, as a gaming community, go from being excited that a game developer is making an expansion pack to a game we love, to being completely and totally greedy and expecting everything to be free, beyond the base game?

    Before someone states "What!? NO! The extra content is not expansion packs! it's content that should have been there from the beginning! Why? Because previous games had more content!"

    1. No, they did not have "more content", it's only perceived content based off of what you think content is. Confused? Games are far more complex then they use to be. All coding in a game is "content". Therefore, the amount of "content" in a game is drastically more then it was ever "back in the day". Take BF1942 (which has a couple expansion packs i might add). Remember how the vehicles exploded? It was extremely basic. We could have BF1 with the same explosions, texture detail, moving parts and etc. That we did back then, and that would be the same amount of content in that specific feature. But we would be unhappy by that, because we expect more. Instead, BF1 vehicles explosions and so many different features about how they work and etc. are far beyond BF1942 in content. But no one cares about that, apparently, they only view "content" as "1 map or 2 maps" "1 vehicle or 2 vehicles" not "1 Complex map with many different features going on throughout or 2 maps that are extremely basic, no destructible environment/buildings, changing "weather" or etc, just very basic" etc.

    2. If we take the "good ol days" games, like BF1942, the whole "already high price" doesn't hold any water. From what i recall (and if i am wrong, feel free to correct me and show proof) this was the price for BF1942 and expansion packs

    BF1942 - 49.99
    Battlefield 1942: The Road to Rome - 19.99
    Battlefield 1942: Secret Weapons of WWII - 29.99

    Total: 99.97
    Total in 2017 USD: $143.41

    $143.41 for the "complete" BF1942 experience

    vs

    $129.99 for the "complete" BF1 experience

    (or $109.98 if you want the basic version of BF1 and purchase the seasons pass separately)



    3. As a gaming community, we're pretty much impossible to to appease, which is pretty sad. People think the DLC/expansions should have been included in the base game, yet if that were to happen, then the games wouldn't get released for another 1-2 years after we already have it. We would lose 1-2 years of patches that fix issues, nerf things, make things stronger, etc. All because we "wanted more content when the game originally released, and don't want to pay for more content".

    So what is a developer to do?

    Release the base game with a plan to include more, paid, content, in the hopes that customers don't make up nonsense ideas that the developer only released a partial game, based off of no evidence, as well as how would that ever be provable, as well as how exactly can you tell a developer what is or isn't in their game should or shouldn't be?

    or

    Release a base game, give some fixes, but stop relatively shortly because you have no additional income coming in after the people bought the base game, all so people won't make up some idea that it's an "unfinished" game?

    or

    Make the development of the game so long that people stop caring about it, or complain that it is taking so long and they want to play it now, but to "reward" this long development time, there will be an excessive amount of content in it. Granted, due to all the additional content, the game will cost more (probably significantly) then what a traditional game is priced, which in the end will piss people off, you'll have less sales because people won't want to purchase it for that much, etc.?

    Yeah, we pretty much make it impossible for game developers to appease gamers.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  3. KissSh0t

    KissSh0t Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,833
    Likes Received:
    7,593
    GPU:
    ASUS 3060 OC 12GB
    Maybe EA could do the Pizza Hutt N00b thing again...... that would certainly get a lot of new players to potentially tempt with a "season pass" promise of future content not yet made.
     
  4. Mr_ALLroy

    Mr_ALLroy Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,013
    Likes Received:
    28
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080 FTW3
    Broaden the playing field and not have to play on TSNP servers with 100+ ping? I don't care that I spent the extra money if it means better access to all maps with low ping servers and more people to join in.
     

  5. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,975
    Likes Received:
    4,342
    GPU:
    Asrock 7700XT
    Not sure how long you've been gaming, but "back in my day" games came with more than 4 hours of fresh content. An expansion pack was often half the price of a new game and came with hours of new content and new features. Today, you might pay $10 for a DLC with maybe 30 minutes of fresh new content.

    You have to keep in mind that it wasn't too long ago when things used to be great for gamers. COD4, for example, was a pretty solid game as-is when it was first released. Activision eventually released something like 5 or so free maps, and they were good quality ones too. Then once they realized how profitable the "Modern Warfare" idea was, they gouged players to buy more of their games and DLC, because why release it for free when sheeple are willing to pay extra for it anyway?

    The content that people are willing to pay for is what's experienced by the player, not the programmers. Besides, are you not aware most games are just recycling the same few engines over and over again? It's not like they're spending the same amount of time developing each game. And even then, many engines recycle the same code from previous generations. Except for first-gen games that utilize a brand new engine, programmers aren't really working any harder than they used to for most new games. Another thing to consider is development teams are GIGANTIC today. Despite the distinct division of workload (which ought to put less stress on each developer) modern games still feel rushed.

    Also, "back in the day", programmers actually did a good job. When they released a game, it was done and I felt they earned my money. Yes, the games were simpler, but they had legitimate quality control, and many weren't based on a pre-made engine. Games rarely needed a day-zero patch, and when a glitch was found, people embraced it as a quirky characteristic of a game; it wasn't a sign of negligence or being rushed. You used to have to go out of your way to exploit a game's problems, and laugh with it; today, you encounter games that accidentally spoil gameplay or you otherwise laugh AT them.

    I often buy indie games because they usually resemble what games used to be like - in order to make money, they need to stand out, and in order to stand out they need to create hours worth of fresh gameplay and a solid game that works the way its supposed to.

    A single anecdote doesn't speak for all. For example, UT2004 (a game from the same era) had over 200 maps to play on, where all of the "expansions" were free, many of which were official maps. Regardless, how many hours of gameplay do you get between the complete versions of BF1942 vs BF1? How many more hours of content do you get from plain un-expanded versions of BF1942 vs BF1? I understand in your perspective that the total content (beyond gameplay) is involved, but most people play games to play games. Why do you think consoles have always been more popular despite their limitations?


    That's not true, at all. In fact many games released by EA have DLC playable content (such as new maps) on release day or within a couple months of release day. And there is still no excuse for the shoddy programming we get. If a development team can't handle making a refined product despite the near limitless cash that can be thrown at development, then don't make it. Gamers want something good and refined, not "adequate" with a high premium. Despite recycling the same engine, many new AAA games still feel very broken.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  6. BangTail

    BangTail Guest

    Messages:
    3,568
    Likes Received:
    1,099
    GPU:
    EVGA 2080 Ti XC
    Don't see the problem here, the early adopters paid full whack and those willing to wait get a discount (or in this case don't have to pay at all).

    Works out well imho and keeps people playing as everyone has access to all content.
     
  7. Aura89

    Aura89 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,413
    Likes Received:
    1,483
    GPU:
    -
    Do you not remember BF1942? Or really most of that battlefields? we are talking about battlefield here, which really doesn't do single player until "recently"

    That being said, 4 hours of content "back in the day" was much easier and cheaper to make then 4 hours of content today

    Honestly, it's pretty amazing how clearly you are showing you do not know what you are talking about, with a statement like that. By that i mean, you clearly have no idea how complex games are these days, compared to "back in the day", and what that means for programming. Anyone "back in the day" could make pong. That doesn't mean they'd be good at making pong with a completely dynamically destructible 3D environment where no two hits would ever create the same impact. Again, COMPLEXITY.

    As to your engine talk, not sure what any of that has to do with anything. Not only does what you talk about, in regards to engines, also apply to "back in the day", but it further enforces my point in the fact of complexity differences between engines today, and "back in the day"

    UT2004 was the epitome of games that were not complex, especially for its time. I'm not sure why you would use that as an example, as again, you are clearly showing you do not understand what complexity means when it comes to programmers.

    How about before reply to my post again with your "feelings" of what things are now vs "back in the day", you come back with facts. You know, become a programmer, build a game "back in the day", and then build one "today". Or, just don't talk about things you do not know about. All you've given is these ideas of "make believe" to suite your needs and wants, no one cares.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017
  8. schmidtbag

    schmidtbag Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,975
    Likes Received:
    4,342
    GPU:
    Asrock 7700XT
    I was never a fan of the BF series. I've played 1942 for a few minutes, I dabbled in LAN parties with BF2, and I put in a few hours at home with BF3, which I got for free on Origin. Though I thought all 3 were well-made games, I found them more tedious than fun. To clarify, no, I'm not a COD fanboy, because I do see the appeal of the BF series. I only ever bought and played COD4.
    Anyway, I'm not referring to just single-player. You can still quantify play time with multiplayer.

    Sure, content used to arguably be easier and cheaper to make, but I feel the developers' jobs have not got any harder or easier, just simply different. Sure, games were less complex but like I said before, there were fewer developers working toward a single game, which means the total effort for each dev likely hasn't changed much. Fewer devs also means less micro-management issues and regressions, suggesting modern devs are working harder while accomplishing less. Meanwhile "back in the day" devs had to work much harder on optimizing games for very limited hardware. This isn't a quick and easy task.

    Proportionately, you usually got a lot more out of your money with older games.


    I'd also like to point out that not all modern AAA games with DLC rip you off or anger people. For example, Borderlands 2, Witcher 3, GTA 4+5, Skyrim, DIRT 3, and Dishonored, were very solid examples of getting a lot for your money with their expansions and/or DLC (especially since many of them had free DLC with a LOT to offer). Though maybe not always flawless, each of these games were also very playable on release day, at least for consoles. The most important thing to consider is each of these games felt complete without their DLC. THAT is what people like myself are expecting; people don't like it when they pay full price for a game only to find that it's tedious, repetitive, lacking, and/or too difficult unless you pay beyond the initial price. Probably the greatest offender of this was The Crew.
    DLC should feel like a bonus, not a necessity.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2017

Share This Page