|
On July 18 2012 12:30 Candadar wrote:
This might shock you, but this is in fact a gaming discussion forum. For discussing games. And we are their customers, and people will complain if they are dissatisfied with the direction things are going. In the games discussion thread. On a video game discussion forum. It will never cease to amaze me how people are so willing to protect and even support a publisher manipulating them more and more for as much money as possible with as little content as possible.
Thanks for inventing an argument and assigning it to me whilst ignoring what I actually said. Why don't you "discuss" it a little further with yourself here on this gaming forum.
|
+1 to Brett.
It's not like EA does it because they just hate us or something. Every single person involved, including us, the consumers, are what allow these things to happen. C level executives and board members lead movement towards 9 month development cycles with endless paid DLC (less so for the former point for BF, but still) because time and time again, we the consumers have proven that we will pay for it, and these are where the optimum numbers are. This force is backed by the public nature of the company, being driven by others, the shareholders, who in the end want to profit from it, as with the employees. If these businesses and shareholders and internal economists saw that they could get x% of an increase in active consumers if they decreased the price of each item for y% to produce a z% growth, then, by god, they would do it.
When it comes to these things, the vote with your wallet mantra really is true. Sure, your purchase might not really effect the numbers, and that's probably true, but it's not like your single vote will effect who gets more people in the Electoral College. You're given the opportunity to try to change how things are going, and if you don't like how things are going, then you should take that chance, no matter how slim the odds are that you'll tip anything to your favor.
And in the end, no matter which game studio we're talking about, they're still businesses. No matter how much they do or do not want to make a good game, at a certain point profit is incredibly important. If that means they have to do a few "evil" things to keep the project going to deliver us something we want and they want to produce, so be it. Because with that profit motive, none of those C level executives or shareholders will approve of such an action.
Our government, for the US people here, is often accused of being abused by the system of monetary bureaucracy but, unfortunately, it's an element present in most every part of our modern lives.
|
On July 18 2012 12:37 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:30 Candadar wrote:
This might shock you, but this is in fact a gaming discussion forum. For discussing games. And we are their customers, and people will complain if they are dissatisfied with the direction things are going. In the games discussion thread. On a video game discussion forum. It will never cease to amaze me how people are so willing to protect and even support a publisher manipulating them more and more for as much money as possible with as little content as possible. Thanks for inventing an argument and assigning it to me whilst ignoring what I actually said. Why don't you "discuss" it a little further with yourself here on this gaming forum.
They are a company with share holder obligations; all of you going on about regression because of expansion packs, more frequent releases and so forth need to drop the sense of entitlement.
Oh no I think it's pretty clear what you said.
I addressed that in my post. I don't know how so many people can have such a severe case of Stockholm's Syndrome.
Me wanting more from a company instead of them taking away what was standard in the past and charging for previously free content and not wanting this cut & run style does not make me fucking entitled. It makes me a concerned consumer.
But I won't convince you and you won't convince me. No internet argument is worth having, so I'll back off and let you think what you want to think. I'm just disappointed in the way that things are panning out. I'll still give this game all the chances in the world however like I always do.
|
On July 18 2012 12:45 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:37 Brett wrote:On July 18 2012 12:30 Candadar wrote:
This might shock you, but this is in fact a gaming discussion forum. For discussing games. And we are their customers, and people will complain if they are dissatisfied with the direction things are going. In the games discussion thread. On a video game discussion forum. It will never cease to amaze me how people are so willing to protect and even support a publisher manipulating them more and more for as much money as possible with as little content as possible. Thanks for inventing an argument and assigning it to me whilst ignoring what I actually said. Why don't you "discuss" it a little further with yourself here on this gaming forum. Show nested quote +They are a company with share holder obligations; all of you going on about regression because of expansion packs, more frequent releases and so forth need to drop the sense of entitlement. Oh no I think it's pretty clear what you said. I addressed that in my post. I don't know how so many people can have such a severe case of Stockholm's Syndrome.
LOL
Thanks Dr Freud. But in future keep the amateur psychology to yourself.
In reality, I merely pointed out that the best way to deal with this is to vote with your wallet. This is not the same as being an EA apologist, friend.
In actual fact, I don't buy DLC. Ever. I don't appreciate it, personally. And thus I exercise the only power I have as a consumer which is to not buy the stuff. That doesn't mean I go around spewing useless hyperbole about the downfall of the gaming industry and how evil this company or that is. That's just asinine.
|
On July 18 2012 12:32 Silidons wrote:
BF4 is an EXPANSION on BF3. You can't count games like 2142, it's not an expansion, it's an entire different game in a whole different era! BF4 is just an EXPANSION on the current game.
Where have you found information on Battlefield 4? Thus far, as well know is it uses the same engine, updated. It could take place in 2169 for all we know, or perhaps they are returning to some 20th century war. We know nothing. If it's another in the year "201x" game, then I will be saddened, but we dunno yet.
I think it's a pitiful way to announce a game, but that won't make me dash my hopes.
Post below me: DICE died to you in 2006 my friend. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=353662¤tpage=3#57
|
RIP DICE, Bioware and Westwood.
I just got my hands on Red Alert 2 again.. Holy shit that game's good. Tanya!
It's a shame what EA has done to so many brilliant studios.
|
On July 18 2012 12:51 Brett wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:45 Candadar wrote:On July 18 2012 12:37 Brett wrote:On July 18 2012 12:30 Candadar wrote:
This might shock you, but this is in fact a gaming discussion forum. For discussing games. And we are their customers, and people will complain if they are dissatisfied with the direction things are going. In the games discussion thread. On a video game discussion forum. It will never cease to amaze me how people are so willing to protect and even support a publisher manipulating them more and more for as much money as possible with as little content as possible. Thanks for inventing an argument and assigning it to me whilst ignoring what I actually said. Why don't you "discuss" it a little further with yourself here on this gaming forum. They are a company with share holder obligations; all of you going on about regression because of expansion packs, more frequent releases and so forth need to drop the sense of entitlement. Oh no I think it's pretty clear what you said. I addressed that in my post. I don't know how so many people can have such a severe case of Stockholm's Syndrome. LOL Thanks Dr Freud. But in future keep the amateur psychology to yourself. In reality, I merely pointed out that the best way to deal with this is to vote with your wallet. This is not the same as being an EA apologist, friend. In actual fact, I don't buy DLC. Ever. I don't appreciate it, personally. And thus I exercise the only power I have as a consumer which is to not buy the stuff. That doesn't mean I go around spewing useless hyperbole about the downfall of the gaming industry and how evil this company or that is. That's just asinine.
I'll have you know I have a doctorate in sociology, psychology, doctorateology and arguing on the internet...ology.
|
On July 18 2012 13:04 Candadar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:51 Brett wrote:On July 18 2012 12:45 Candadar wrote:On July 18 2012 12:37 Brett wrote:On July 18 2012 12:30 Candadar wrote:
This might shock you, but this is in fact a gaming discussion forum. For discussing games. And we are their customers, and people will complain if they are dissatisfied with the direction things are going. In the games discussion thread. On a video game discussion forum. It will never cease to amaze me how people are so willing to protect and even support a publisher manipulating them more and more for as much money as possible with as little content as possible. Thanks for inventing an argument and assigning it to me whilst ignoring what I actually said. Why don't you "discuss" it a little further with yourself here on this gaming forum. They are a company with share holder obligations; all of you going on about regression because of expansion packs, more frequent releases and so forth need to drop the sense of entitlement. Oh no I think it's pretty clear what you said. I addressed that in my post. I don't know how so many people can have such a severe case of Stockholm's Syndrome. LOL Thanks Dr Freud. But in future keep the amateur psychology to yourself. In reality, I merely pointed out that the best way to deal with this is to vote with your wallet. This is not the same as being an EA apologist, friend. In actual fact, I don't buy DLC. Ever. I don't appreciate it, personally. And thus I exercise the only power I have as a consumer which is to not buy the stuff. That doesn't mean I go around spewing useless hyperbole about the downfall of the gaming industry and how evil this company or that is. That's just asinine. I'll have you know I have a doctorate in sociology, psychology, doctorateology and arguing on the internet...ology.
Mmm and you have some severe delusions, schizophrenic maybe?
You are not the center of the universe, when people are talking about the consumer, I would argue that you are not it. You are very naive to simply discard the fact that the consumer being discussed here is merely a vocal minority of the consumer population, however the opinions of such vocal consumers are far more important than you amke them out to be. You need to respect both sides of the argument.
I do not approve of this BF4 business, however if I read this correctly (and I might not have) then the beta is toward the end of next year, in which case the game will at the earliest come out for Christmas 2013, which is still pretty long away, and quite possibly next-gen (though whether this helps or hinders is debatable).
I think the most crucial mistake here was to reveal it, though. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but if nobody heard about a BF4 (which I would not believe to be an expansion as some are suggesting) until next year, allowing CoD to bring out another game or two inbetween, this comparison wouldn't even be occuring.
|
On July 18 2012 13:12 FireSA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 13:04 Candadar wrote:On July 18 2012 12:51 Brett wrote:On July 18 2012 12:45 Candadar wrote:On July 18 2012 12:37 Brett wrote:On July 18 2012 12:30 Candadar wrote:
This might shock you, but this is in fact a gaming discussion forum. For discussing games. And we are their customers, and people will complain if they are dissatisfied with the direction things are going. In the games discussion thread. On a video game discussion forum. It will never cease to amaze me how people are so willing to protect and even support a publisher manipulating them more and more for as much money as possible with as little content as possible. Thanks for inventing an argument and assigning it to me whilst ignoring what I actually said. Why don't you "discuss" it a little further with yourself here on this gaming forum. They are a company with share holder obligations; all of you going on about regression because of expansion packs, more frequent releases and so forth need to drop the sense of entitlement. Oh no I think it's pretty clear what you said. I addressed that in my post. I don't know how so many people can have such a severe case of Stockholm's Syndrome. LOL Thanks Dr Freud. But in future keep the amateur psychology to yourself. In reality, I merely pointed out that the best way to deal with this is to vote with your wallet. This is not the same as being an EA apologist, friend. In actual fact, I don't buy DLC. Ever. I don't appreciate it, personally. And thus I exercise the only power I have as a consumer which is to not buy the stuff. That doesn't mean I go around spewing useless hyperbole about the downfall of the gaming industry and how evil this company or that is. That's just asinine. I'll have you know I have a doctorate in sociology, psychology, doctorateology and arguing on the internet...ology. Mmm and you have some severe delusions, schizophrenic maybe? You are not the center of the universe, when people are talking about the consumer, I would argue that you are not it. You are very naive to simply discard the fact that the consumer being discussed here is merely a vocal minority of the consumer population, however the opinions of such vocal consumers are far more important than you amke them out to be. You need to respect both sides of the argument. I do not approve of this BF4 business, however if I read this correctly (and I might not have) then the beta is toward the end of next year, in which case the game will at the earliest come out for Christmas 2013, which is still pretty long away, and quite possibly next-gen (though whether this helps or hinders is debatable). I think the most crucial mistake here was to reveal it, though. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but if nobody heard about a BF4 (which I would not believe to be an expansion as some are suggesting) until next year, allowing CoD to bring out another game or two inbetween, this comparison wouldn't even be occuring.
People are calling it an expansion because there's nothing more to add to the current generation battlefields. Much like anything after CoD MW2 is considered an expo. Because it didn't do anything but add three new weapon skins and change skills around. Sure they charged 60 dollars for it, but it was not a game in itself and simply should not have sold for that much money. The "consumer" you're talking about is fucking 14 year old kids that get their parents to buy these games for them. Much like voting, if only intelligent people who actually knew what the hell was going on bought video games, we'd have a higher standard for released games and these half assed "full releases" that are just a few different maps would never see the light of day. I can remember when games released with 15 full maps. Now they release with 5. It's bullshit.
|
On July 18 2012 12:53 Crisium wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 12:32 Silidons wrote:
BF4 is an EXPANSION on BF3. You can't count games like 2142, it's not an expansion, it's an entire different game in a whole different era! BF4 is just an EXPANSION on the current game. Where have you found information on Battlefield 4? Thus far, as well know is it uses the same engine, updated. It could take place in 2169 for all we know, or perhaps they are returning to some 20th century war. We know nothing. If it's another in the year "201x" game, then I will be saddened, but we dunno yet. I think it's a pitiful way to announce a game, but that won't make me dash my hopes. Post below me: DICE died to you in 2006 my friend. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=353662¤tpage=3#57
they were nice to me in BFBC2. i got every "expansion" (new maps etc etc) for free...don't see how thats bad. thats why i loved them so much. but when bf3 came out...ea had taken over too much.
|
commence the milking and mass production of lower quality BF games!!
|
On July 18 2012 13:57 BlindKill wrote:
commence the milking and mass production of lower quality BF games!!
That started with 3. Less destructible environments was the first step. Let's see what else they tone down.
|
On July 18 2012 12:38 Avtonikov wrote:
+1 to Brett.
It's not like EA does it because they just hate us or something. Every single person involved, including us, the consumers, are what allow these things to happen. C level executives and board members lead movement towards 9 month development cycles with endless paid DLC (less so for the former point for BF, but still) because time and time again, we the consumers have proven that we will pay for it, and these are where the optimum numbers are. This force is backed by the public nature of the company, being driven by others, the shareholders, who in the end want to profit from it, as with the employees. If these businesses and shareholders and internal economists saw that they could get x% of an increase in active consumers if they decreased the price of each item for y% to produce a z% growth, then, by god, they would do it.
When it comes to these things, the vote with your wallet mantra really is true. Sure, your purchase might not really effect the numbers, and that's probably true, but it's not like your single vote will effect who gets more people in the Electoral College. You're given the opportunity to try to change how things are going, and if you don't like how things are going, then you should take that chance, no matter how slim the odds are that you'll tip anything to your favor.
And in the end, no matter which game studio we're talking about, they're still businesses. No matter how much they do or do not want to make a good game, at a certain point profit is incredibly important. If that means they have to do a few "evil" things to keep the project going to deliver us something we want and they want to produce, so be it. Because with that profit motive, none of those C level executives or shareholders will approve of such an action.
Our government, for the US people here, is often accused of being abused by the system of monetary bureaucracy but, unfortunately, it's an element present in most every part of our modern lives.
EA hates me. I learned this when they killed Bullfrog and Westwood.
I can disagree with Activision. I think the business model Activision uses is greedy but you know what? They ruined their own IPs. Do you know what EA does? They buy studios and then run them into the ground. That is just evil.
|
Just want to say a few things... somebody said "BF4 is an expansion on the current game" lol what? Nobody even knows what BF4 is yet except DICE.
Also... the game is $60. $70 is for the limited edition which comes with some perks.
|
On July 18 2012 14:39 aike wrote:
Just want to say a few things... somebody said "BF4 is an expansion on the current game" lol what? Nobody even knows what BF4 is yet except DICE.
Also... the game is $60. $70 is for the limited edition which comes with some perks.
The fact that they're calling it BF4 and not bf19x or 21x is very telling. Meaning we are going to have the same vehicles, the same weapons, the same sort of maps. Meaning it'll be more like an expo than an actual game of it's own. BF3 already has 98% of weapons used by most countries nowdays. 96% of vehicles used by most countries. Really all they're missing is prototypes. Unless they add waterborne combat it's gonna be more of the same shit.
|
On July 18 2012 14:46 Infernal_dream wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 14:39 aike wrote:
Just want to say a few things... somebody said "BF4 is an expansion on the current game" lol what? Nobody even knows what BF4 is yet except DICE.
Also... the game is $60. $70 is for the limited edition which comes with some perks. The fact that they're calling it BF4 and not bf19x or 21x is very telling. Meaning we are going to have the same vehicles, the same weapons, the same sort of maps. Meaning it'll be more like an expo than an actual game of it's own. BF3 already has 98% of weapons used by most countries nowdays. 96% of vehicles used by most countries. Really all they're missing is prototypes. Unless they add waterborne combat it's gonna be more of the same shit.
There are only so many guns dude... Do you want them to make a Battlefield 1777: MURICA! game? lol I don't understand.
|
On July 18 2012 14:58 aike wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2012 14:46 Infernal_dream wrote:On July 18 2012 14:39 aike wrote:
Just want to say a few things... somebody said "BF4 is an expansion on the current game" lol what? Nobody even knows what BF4 is yet except DICE.
Also... the game is $60. $70 is for the limited edition which comes with some perks. The fact that they're calling it BF4 and not bf19x or 21x is very telling. Meaning we are going to have the same vehicles, the same weapons, the same sort of maps. Meaning it'll be more like an expo than an actual game of it's own. BF3 already has 98% of weapons used by most countries nowdays. 96% of vehicles used by most countries. Really all they're missing is prototypes. Unless they add waterborne combat it's gonna be more of the same shit. There are only so many guns dude... Do you want them to make a Battlefield 1777: MURICA! game? lol I don't understand.
That's the point. There are only so many guns. So stop making a new fucking game in the same exact year span and instead release worthwhile dlc's (cough cough, or free ones). The point of a NEW game, is NEW shit. Not the same fucking guns and vehicles on new maps. That's called an expansion. Which is exactly what's going to happen, hence people calling it an overpriced expo. I want them to make a battlefield in a new fucking time era. This era has been played to death (as has ww2 honestly). Would you honestly buy bf4 right now? No, because you know in your head it's going to contain the same exact shit bf2 and 3 had. With even LESS destructible environments. Since apparently frostbite engine cant handle buildings blowing up like they should.
|
If this turns out to be a sequel to Battlefield 2142, I wonder if enough people would care, considering Planetside 2 is on the horizon.
|
heh I just get my bf3 copy. nice timing EA ! Well I dont like when developers focus on the new project when there is still the old one. (3more DLC to come for BF3 and they are already working on BF4 ?) BF2013 !
|
Meh. I have no problems nor am I surprised. BF3 has problems, but I still have a blast playing it and so do my friends. Some people are quick to jump to conclusions, but they have to remember that the beta doesn't start until fall 2013 like some have said and we don't know the actual release date of the full game either. In all, I can easily just say "it's EA" and I could always skip this like I did with their Close Quarters and Premium feature. The only expansion I'm looking forward to is Armored Kill.
I am curious to see what will be different in BF4 since it's the same feeling with the new Medal of Honor. The latest game is using DICE"s Frostbite 2 engine, but it is a stripped down Battlefield game. I see no reason for any BF3 owners to buy the new Medal of Honor since you can just buy Close Quarters if you want a fast pace cqb fps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
