Battlefield: Hardline

[naticus]

Nothing. It's mediocre in every way. Its a watered down BF4. It is going to be a flop.

 

[Activate: AMD]

Played about 3 hours of the beta in the first 2 evenings it was out and then never felt the need to pick it up again. Its amazing how a game that basically seems like BF4 DLC can manage to feel so much worse in every way than BF4, to the point where if this game actually was BF4 DLC it would be a better game.

IMO hotwire is the only redeeming feature of this game because its the only game mode that offers anything unique, and it was the only one that actually managed to make me smile while playing. If this mode was the focal point of the game, fleshed it out with unique cars and better scenery, and renamed it Need For Speed: Hotwire instead of "battlefield" I might actually buy it.

 

[Porter_]

SMH....at what point are people going to say enough is enough and stop feeding this cancer.

so dramatic. you should get some t shirts made to support your cause.

 

[Comixbooks]

It's a insincere game that Dice made and they know it.... and it shines though as something that isn't what they are good at
which is making a immersive game that doesn't place a stupid soda machine next to a garage while being hit with a invisible sniper.

 

[Sprayingmango]

Lol you people crack me up

 

[DPI]

Played about 3 hours of the beta in the first 2 evenings it was out and then never felt the need to pick it up again. Its amazing how a game that basically seems like BF4 DLC can manage to feel so much worse in every way than BF4, to the point where if this game actually was BF4 DLC it would be a better game.

IMO hotwire is the only redeeming feature of this game because its the only game mode that offers anything unique, and it was the only one that actually managed to make me smile while playing. If this mode was the focal point of the game, fleshed it out with unique cars and better scenery, and renamed it Need For Speed: Hotwire instead of "battlefield" I might actually buy it.

Really, so you're hung up on a word in the title. Very rational.

 

[Activate: AMD]

Really, so you're hung up on a word in the title. Very rational.

I understand reading comprehension isn't a skill everyone possesses, so let me explain my post again for you. They should never have made this game a "battlefield" game because all the parts that fit in with the "battlefield" franchise suck. If they didn't try to shoehorn this crap gameplay into the battlefield franchise by making the primary game modes battlefield-style game modes, and instead designed a game around their most creative game mode it would be a better game. The fact that EA owns a franchise that would fit with that game mode even better (i.e. NFS) is just icing on the cake. It has nothing to do with the name and everything to do with the fact that they took the existing franchise and tried to figure out how to sell more of it (lets make it cops vs robbers!) rather than coming up with something creative and then figuring out which franchise it fits best with (or even releasing it as original IP)

 

[Flogger23m]

I understand reading comprehension isn't a skill everyone possesses, so let me explain my post again for you. They should never have made this game a "battlefield" game because all the parts that fit in with the "battlefield" franchise suck. If they didn't try to shoehorn this crap gameplay into the battlefield franchise by making the primary game modes battlefield-style game modes, and instead designed a game around their most creative game mode it would be a better game. The fact that EA owns a franchise that would fit with that game mode even better (i.e. NFS) is just icing on the cake. It has nothing to do with the name and everything to do with the fact that they took the existing franchise and tried to figure out how to sell more of it (lets make it cops vs robbers!) rather than coming up with something creative and then figuring out which franchise it fits best with (or even releasing it as original IP)

I found Hotwire to be terrible. IMO the game would have been better if they did the following:

- Dropped Hotwire.
- Dropped the vehicles (since they're rather dull).
- Ported over extra weapons from BF4 to make up for lack of vehicles.
- Be "infantry" only.
- Give an option to turn off the damn radio music.
- Make the unlocks less grindy. Make accessories/groups free; get 70 kills with a weapon and you can use any optic you want as an example.
- Make all weapons useable by both factions, since 90% of the weapons aren't used by criminals or American police anyways.
- Dropped the pink camo and golden gun crap. They're slowly pealing away at what separated BF from CoD.

Obviously the lack of vehicles would be odd for a Battlefield game, but it would better differentiate itself as an offshoot of the series better than trying to shoehorn boring vehicles in. Criminals running around with automatic weapons state side itself is hardly believable, but adding mini guns to SUVs and giving them helicopters is even more out of place. Though I suppose BF is not known for presenting faction correct equipment anyways.

I also saw the invisible enemy bug. Sometimes reloading didn't seem to work. A couple of small, but IMO annoying bugs. Best of luck on the devs fixing them before release.

Also partially take back what I said about the weapon recoil earlier. I guess when you unlock the compensators, the recoil is cut down. Some weapons like the Uzi and CZ-75 actually have believable recoil. I suppose it just takes certain attachments for some weapons. They also swapped the properties of the muzzle breaks/compensators which was nice. Funny how a the breaks with side way ports reduced vertical recoil in BF4.

 

[RangerXML]

I found Hotwire to be terrible. IMO the game would have been better if they did the following:

Point by point:

- Dropped Hotwire.

-There are other game modes besides Hotwire, if no one else is playing them, there is a reason behind this.

- Dropped the vehicles (since they're rather dull).

-Again, there are infantry only game modes on Infantry focused maps, like Heist during the beta. Hardline is taking the approach of designing the maps around the game mode.

- Ported over extra weapons from BF4 to make up for lack of vehicles.

-Cause military weapons in a cops and robbers game make sense (see beta 1 for reference).

- Be "infantry" only.

-See points 1 and 2.

- Give an option to turn off the damn radio music.

-There is in the options, and its pretty clearly marked.

- Make the unlocks less grindy. Make accessories/groups free; get 70 kills with a weapon and you can use any optic you want as an example.

-Getting no argument from me here, see EA's stance on everything is an RPG and needs a grind.

- Make all weapons useable by both factions, since 90% of the weapons aren't used by criminals or American police anyways.

-See point 3 and add that an additional complaint was why are bad guys using cop weapons and cops using robber weapons. Plus, you can unlock the weapon as a cross faction unlock once you get Mastery.

- Dropped the pink camo and golden gun crap. They're slowly pealing away at what separated BF from CoD.

-You lost that argument with Battlefield Bad Company and later infantry focused content for BF3 and 4.

Obviously the lack of vehicles would be odd for a Battlefield game, but it would better differentiate itself as an offshoot of the series better than trying to shoehorn boring vehicles in. Criminals running around with automatic weapons state side itself is hardly believable, but adding mini guns to SUVs and giving them helicopters is even more out of place. Though I suppose BF is not known for presenting faction correct equipment anyways.

Again, you are arguing in a sense for more like COD, when you want it to be less like COD, make up your mind.

 

[Activate: AMD]

I found Hotwire to be terrible. IMO the game would have been better if they did the following:

- Dropped Hotwire.
- Dropped the vehicles (since they're rather dull).
- Ported over extra weapons from BF4 to make up for lack of vehicles.
- Be "infantry" only.
- Give an option to turn off the damn radio music.
- Make the unlocks less grindy. Make accessories/groups free; get 70 kills with a weapon and you can use any optic you want as an example.
- Make all weapons useable by both factions, since 90% of the weapons aren't used by criminals or American police anyways.
- Dropped the pink camo and golden gun crap. They're slowly pealing away at what separated BF from CoD.

Obviously the lack of vehicles would be odd for a Battlefield game, but it would better differentiate itself as an offshoot of the series better than trying to shoehorn boring vehicles in. Criminals running around with automatic weapons state side itself is hardly believable, but adding mini guns to SUVs and giving them helicopters is even more out of place. Though I suppose BF is not known for presenting faction correct equipment anyways.

To each their own. I think I agree with some of your changes in the sense that they would make a better game than what we were given, but I still don't think I'd like it very much vs a potential BFBC3. I happened to really like hotwire, I just don't think its anywhere good enough on its own to justify purchasing the game. I liked the way it was kind of like conquest meets demolition derby and I think it was by far the most unique thing they did in Hardline. Was it great? no, but I think it could be stand-alone material IF it was given more attention and development. I also think hotwire suffered for being lumped in with otherwise really obvious and generic game modes. I played maybe 10 rounds of hotwire total... 4 of them were competitive, with people actually playing the mode and blowing up/stealing cars... the rest were total blowouts where it seemed like people just didn't understand how it actually worked.

 

[Armenius]

I found Hotwire to be terrible. IMO the game would have been better if they did the following:

- Dropped Hotwire.
- Dropped the vehicles (since they're rather dull).
- Ported over extra weapons from BF4 to make up for lack of vehicles.
- Be "infantry" only.
- Give an option to turn off the damn radio music.
- Make the unlocks less grindy. Make accessories/groups free; get 70 kills with a weapon and you can use any optic you want as an example.
- Make all weapons useable by both factions, since 90% of the weapons aren't used by criminals or American police anyways.
- Dropped the pink camo and golden gun crap. They're slowly pealing away at what separated BF from CoD.

Obviously the lack of vehicles would be odd for a Battlefield game, but it would better differentiate itself as an offshoot of the series better than trying to shoehorn boring vehicles in. Criminals running around with automatic weapons state side itself is hardly believable, but adding mini guns to SUVs and giving them helicopters is even more out of place. Though I suppose BF is not known for presenting faction correct equipment anyways.

I also saw the invisible enemy bug. Sometimes reloading didn't seem to work. A couple of small, but IMO annoying bugs. Best of luck on the devs fixing them before release.

Also partially take back what I said about the weapon recoil earlier. I guess when you unlock the compensators, the recoil is cut down. Some weapons like the Uzi and CZ-75 actually have believable recoil. I suppose it just takes certain attachments for some weapons. They also swapped the properties of the muzzle breaks/compensators which was nice. Funny how a the breaks with side way ports reduced vertical recoil in BF4.

So... you want them to make Call of Duty without custom weapon skins?

 

[Flogger23m]

Point by point:

-Cause military weapons in a cops and robbers game make sense (see beta 1 for reference).

-There is in the options, and its pretty clearly marked.

-See point 3 and add that an additional complaint was why are bad guys using cop weapons and cops using robber weapons. Plus, you can unlock the weapon as a cross faction unlock once you get Mastery.

Didn't see it in the options. Honestly I was not a fan of the menu which seemed a bit cluttered. But glad that there is an option to turn it off.

The weapons in Hardline are already military grade anyways. Thugs running around with automatic weapons, automatic rifles and name brand handguns. Lets not forget about the explosive devices including hand grenades, grenade launchers and even guided missiles. In the real world they'd be using junky sub $200 handguns and the occasional junky pump shotgun. They may as well port over some of the things from BF4, like the Scorpion EVO.

So... you want them to make Call of Duty without custom weapon skins?

No. A game isn't like CoD if it doesn't have vehicles. In fact, previous CoD games had vehicles in MP. But I would like the unlocks toned down; they make a pretty big difference with some of the weapons I used. STG-58 (don't recall in game name) as stock VS with a compensator was a massive difference in terms of accurate fire. Too many unlocks and things flying in your face takes away from the skill. Those with a lot of time might get artificial leverages over those with only a few hours a week. Obviously, eventually it will even out as they to unlock accessories... but I am still not a fan of excessive unlocks and perks. BF3/4 had enough perks, Hardline seems to expand on them a bit. As in, option flies in your face mid game (distracting).

Custom weapon skins are fine, as long as they make sense. Spray paint desert camo, or green camo. Neon pink tiger stripes is down right ugly and makes the game look like trash.

 

[TheMadHatterXxX]

It's a insincere game that Dice made and they know it.... and it shines though as something that isn't what they are good at
which is making a immersive game that doesn't place a stupid soda machine next to a garage while being hit with a invisible sniper.

^ I agree with him, but only if he gives me a sip of whatever he drank or drug he took.

 

[LeviathanZERO]

I wish there was a NFS game where you could Hotwire a car.
That would be pretty cool. Hell make a whole game dedicated to boosting vehicles with some FPS shooting segments and we got something.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

It's a insincere game that Dice made and they know it.... and it shines though as something that isn't what they are good at
which is making a immersive game that doesn't place a stupid soda machine next to a garage while being hit with a invisible sniper.

DICE did not make Battlefield: Hardline. Visceral Games did. Visceral's best known work to date is the Dead Space trilogy of games.

The only thing DICE had a hand in for Hardline is developing the Frostbite game engine and many game assets from BF4.

You could say that DICE indirectly created it since so much of Hardline is borrowed from BF4. But the new game types, map layout, design work, weapon choice, and the mechanics of those weapons (rate of fire, recoil, etc) are all the work of Visceral. Some of the weapons may share the same names from BF4, but have completely different specs. Specifically the M416 which fires much faster than in BF4, and the RPG-7, which has a more massive blast radius than BF4. Unfortunately, this discussion is where much of the "glorified BF4 mod" ideology comes from, since no one can agree on how much change in design constitutes a completely different game.

 

[Activate: AMD]

I wish there was a NFS game where you could Hotwire a car.
That would be pretty cool. Hell make a whole game dedicated to boosting vehicles with some FPS shooting segments and we got something.

Right? I would think that would make so much more sense for a cops/robbers tie-in than battlefield and would be fun as hell.

DICE did not make Battlefield: Hardline. Visceral Games did. Visceral's best known work to date is the Dead Space trilogy of games.

The only thing DICE had a hand in for Hardline is developing the Frostbite game engine and many game assets from BF4.

You could say that DICE indirectly created it since so much of Hardline is borrowed from BF4. But the new game types, map layout, design work, weapon choice, and the mechanics of those weapons (rate of fire, recoil, etc) are all the work of Visceral. Some of the weapons may share the same names from BF4, but have completely different specs. Specifically the M416 which fires much faster than in BF4, and the RPG-7, which has a more massive blast radius than BF4. Unfortunately, this discussion is where much of the "glorified BF4 mod" ideology comes from, since no one can agree on how much change in design constitutes a completely different game.

You're right when you say that its a completely different game technically, in the sense that it really isn't just a mod. Everything has been sort of re-created from the ground up.... but in such a way that it really could just be a mod without much changing on its face. Unfortunately for Visceral this means that all their hard work winds up getting compared directly to DICE's and it doesn't really look all that favorable, to the point where I would take a re-skin of BF4 with these game modes over Visceral's best DICE impression.

 

[gentoo]

Unfortunately, this discussion is where much of the "glorified BF4 mod" ideology comes from, since no one can agree on how much change in design constitutes a completely different game.

What about Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam? That one expansion that came out and was similar but at the same time quite different (à la Hardline) and was sold for $14.99? Yeah, that's why Hardline really has me salty.

 

[polydiol]

I really enjoyed the beta and I look forward to the final release, I find the criminals hilarious with all their trash talking and being able to play another battlefield variant is a plus for me. I will purchase the game and I will play it along side BF4.

I play video games for fun and what I enjoy with the battlefield series is that I can usually sit in front of my pc for about an hour and get my gaming fix, I'm not the best or most skilled but that doesn't matter to me - its fun for me and that's the only thing that matters.

 

[Porter_]

I really enjoyed the beta and I look forward to the final release, I find the criminals hilarious with all their trash talking and being able to play another battlefield variant is a plus for me. I will purchase the game and I will play it along side BF4.

I play video games for fun and what I enjoy with the battlefield series is that I can usually sit in front of my pc for about an hour and get my gaming fix, I'm not the best or most skilled but that doesn't matter to me - its fun for me and that's the only thing that matters.

ditto. i had fun with the beta so i'm buying it.

 

[AthlonXP]

Got a copy for my birthday in March from my brother in law, ended up getting me this game for my birthday and pre-ordered GTA 5 for me for my Christmas present. I am set with new games now.

 

[SoFGR]

What about Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam? That one expansion that came out and was similar but at the same time quite different (à la Hardline) and was sold for $14.99? Yeah, that's why Hardline really has me salty.

I wouldn't buy hardline if i had to pay money for BF4 first, guess i'm in the minority since everyone and their mothers have bought BF4 by now, 60$ is still too much, it should be 30$ at launch, oh well, G2A / GMG it is then haven't bought a BF hardcopy since BC2 anyway

BF2142 was a disc imported from thailand, around 20$ total - with its cd key printed on top

ranger XML has me covered so far, really like the game, i just need for it to go sub 30$ and upgrade my second hand gtx480 in the meantime, higher speed ram would also be nice, current cpu : 4690K @ 4.4, beta had some very annoying dips to 48-52 fps even with almost every setting set to low /off :S

 

[DPI]

What about Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam? That one expansion that came out and was similar but at the same time quite different (à la Hardline) and was sold for $14.99? Yeah, that's why Hardline really has me salty.

Vietnam isn't really an apples to apples comparison, as I don't recall a full SP campaign in that. And based on my enjoyment of the Dead Space series, Visceral knows how to do a SP campaign right, and probably better than DICE. So I'm actually looking forward to the one in Hardline even though I'll be focused on multiplayer.

Let's face it, if Hardline was a $15 "BF4 DLC", no fewer people would be finding reasons to bitch about it. "It should've been free with BF4 Premium", blah blah blah.

So in the end the developer just has to do what they think is best and what fits their vision. Because if they did every little thing that entitled gamerkids demanded, they'd be out of business very quickly.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

What about Battlefield: Bad Company 2: Vietnam? That one expansion that came out and was similar but at the same time quite different (à la Hardline) and was sold for $14.99? Yeah, that's why Hardline really has me salty.

Bad Company 2: Vietnam had no singleplayer campaign and came with same game modes as Bad Company 2. It also only came with 4 maps. I repeat, 4 new maps and 0 new game modes.

Battlefield Hardline will come with a full single player campaign, 9 brand new maps and 7 game modes...5 of which are brand new to the battlefield series. This does not include any future DLC that may be released also which may expand the game further.

If you wish to judge the game based on the sheer amount of content included in Battlefield: Hardline, then yes, it truly is a separate game and not just a re-skin of BF4. Even if you still believe its a reskin of BF4 or a glorified BF4 DLC, its about 2-3 DLC's worth of content, if not more. BF4 DLC's were $15 each, so paying more than $30-40 makes sense if you are considering quantity. However, it is up to the consumer to decide if all that extra content is worth it. Quantity does not equal Quality. This is the real argument over Hardline. IMHO, I don't foresee getting use out of much of the new content and therefore may not spend my money on this game. I'm just not sure yet.

Vietnam isn't really an apples to apples comparison, as I don't recall a full SP campaign in that. And based on my enjoyment of the Dead Space series, Visceral knows how to do a SP campaign right, and probably better than DICE. So I'm actually looking forward to the one in Hardline even though I'll be focused on multiplayer.

Let's face it, if Hardline was a $15 "BF4 DLC", no fewer people would be finding reasons to bitch about it. "It should've been free with BF4 Premium", blah blah blah.

So in the end the developer just has to do what they think is best and what fits their vision. Because if they did every little thing that entitled gamerkids demanded, they'd be out of business very quickly.

QFT.

 

[brennok]

While the beta ended up being ok, my biggest issue is with the launch game modes.

2 of the 7 are single elimination which I don't play. I didn't realize single elimination modes were that popular since I never bother with them. Checking BF4 I see one game of defuse, but I don't know if Defuse is good or popular.

The third is conquest which I think will be somewhat lacking. I am not a huge conquest fan, but found it pretty uninspiring on the beta map. Maybe it is just the tanks that are missing that hurts the mode. It seemed people mainly fought over the hotel.

The fourth is TDM. I see why people enjoy it, but I don't get into games without objectives. I think it is more the way the spawn system works since there is no main base so you can end up having people spawning behind you.

Hotwire was ok, and potentially I see this being one of the more popular modes. It did get old though since none of the matches were close. It seems like you always won or lost by 400 points depending on if you team felt like driving or just like trying to stop the other team while ignoring the marked cars.

Heist sounded good in theory, but turned into a major campfest on every match I played. Maybe it was just the map, but half the team usually camped outside the building on the rooftops just killing runners.

Bloodmoney felt much the same way in the first beta. It seemed to start out fun until people decided it was better to camp the opposing team's truck and just kill people trying to drop off cash.

Those are all the launch modes which leaves me wondering what mode I would want to regularly play and none of them really grab me.

If I didn't think they would eventually release premium for it, and we knew eventually they would release new maps and modes for free, I would buy it at launch just for the occasional break from BF4. Instead knowing they will probably release a premium option with it with the first DLC I will wait until I can pick it up with premium included for the same price. They are probably also waiting on sales to see if they even have enough sales to justify as the premium model since I think it is still up in the air how much of the community will embrace the game.

 

[McClintoc]

I had fun playing the beta but that's all the BFH I will play. I will not be spending any money on it. For me, it played fine but the game itself just seem like a cartoon. I was not impressed with it, overall.

 

[Flogger23m]

I don't agree that there're is a whole lot of content. Nine maps isn't a whole lot, it is actually low for an mp game. But it certainly isn't a tiny expansion. I think $40-50 would have been more reasonable.

 

[DPI]

I don't agree that there're is a whole lot of content. Nine maps isn't a whole lot, it is actually low for an mp game.

Its not low in the Battlefield universe.

BFBC2 launched with 10
BF3 launched with 9
BF4 launched with 10
BF:Hardline launching with 9

 

[Blade-Runner]

Its not low in the Battlefield universe.

BFBC2 launched with 10
BF3 launched with 9
BF4 launched with 10
BF:Hardline launching with 9

You mean in the current BF universe where DICE/EA gouge users for additional content? Its low when you are expected to pay for additional shitty maps which just fragment the player base.

BC2 launched with 10 and received an additional 4 for free.

BF2142 launched with 10 and received an additional 7 for free, and then a further 3 when Northern Strike was patched in for free.

BF2 launched with 13 and received an additional 4 for free, and then a further 6 when Euro Forces and Armored Fury were patched in for free.

BFV had 18 in total after additional maps were released for free.

BF1942 launched with 17 and received an additional 5 for free.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

You mean in the current BF universe where DICE/EA gouge users for additional content? Its low when you are expected to pay for additional shitty maps which just fragment the player base.

BC2 launched with 10 and received an additional 4 for free.
And had Vietnam DLC with 4 maps for $15. BFBC2:Vietnam was never patched in for free.

BF2142 launched with 10 and received an additional 7 for free, and then a further 3 when Northern Strike was patched in for free.
Northern Strike wasn't free initially. It too was $15 until the 1.51 patch 4 years later in 2011...less than a year from BF3 release and BC2 had already split the community when it launched in 2010.

BF2 launched with 13 and received an additional 4 for free, and then a further 6 when Euro Forces and Armored Fury were patched in for free.
You forgot the Special Forces Ex-Pack, which was $30 initially and never patched in for free, and Euro Force and Armored Fury were initially $15 each. Those last 2 got patched in for free in 2009, 3 years after they were released. That's 3 years of user base fragmentation, meanwhile BF2142 had split the community when it released in 2006.

BFV had 18 in total after additional maps were released for free.
The only Battlefield game that didn't have a post release paid DLC or ex-pack so far. No argument here. 18 total maps is pretty pathetic compared to the others.

BF1942 launched with 17 and received an additional 5 for free.
And had paid ex-packs of Road to Rome and Secret Weapons of WWII, which were never patched in free and cost $15 each

Replies in red.

Oh how people forget. You seem to think this is a new thing with EA/DICE, it most assuredly is not. They get as much money for as long as possible, then start releasing previously paid for content for free when things start to die out or they are about to release something new.

 

[BlankIt]

I do think the game looks a bit cartoony, but not too sure what they can do since I'm sure they use in-house textures, and not DICE's textures.

 

[Blade-Runner]

Replies in red.

Oh how people forget.

I didn't forget anything and I didn't deny that there was DLC for previous games.

I merely pointed out that there was a hell of a lot more additional free content for the base games which make the current map numbers anemic in comparison.

So now instead we get no free maps or community produced content, but plenty of paid DLC hived off onto separate servers. What a fantastic improvement!

 

[Blade-Runner]

They get as much money for as long as possible, then start releasing previously paid for content for free when things start to die out or they are about to release something new.

Surely you jest! Let me know when EA/DICE start releasing all the BF3 & 4 DLC for free, you might be waiting a while!

And even ignoring the free inclusions of booster packs for BF2 and 2142, there was still a hell of a lot more map content for the base game than what we get now.

 

[Blade-Runner]

You mean in the current BF universe where DICE/EA gouge users for additional content? Its low when you are expected to pay for additional shitty maps which just fragment the player base.

BC2 launched with 10 and received an additional 4 for free.

And had Vietnam DLC with 4 maps for $15. BFBC2:Vietnam was never patched in for free.

So what? That's still 5 more maps compared to Hardline. And at least BFBCV actually felt like a substantive worthwhile expansion rather than a couple of crappy maps.

BF2142 launched with 10 and received an additional 7 for free, and then a further 3 when Northern Strike was patched in for free.

Northern Strike wasn't free initially. It too was $15 until the 1.51 patch 4 years later in 2011...less than a year from BF3 release and BC2 had already split the community when it launched in 2010.


Actually it was $9.99, and that still doesn't detract from the fact that there were 17 maps for the base game as compared to 9 for Hardline. And suggesting that BC2 served to split the community from 2142 is a straw man argument considering that it was a full fledged sequel to a different series within the BF universe.

BF2 launched with 13 and received an additional 4 for free, and then a further 6 when Euro Forces and Armored Fury were patched in for free.

You forgot the Special Forces Ex-Pack, which was $30 initially and never patched in for free, and Euro Force and Armored Fury were initially $15 each. Those last 2 got patched in for free in 2009, 3 years after they were released. That's 3 years of user base fragmentation, meanwhile BF2142 had split the community when it released in 2006.

Again so what. Ignoring the expansions and DLC, BF2 still had 8 more maps compared to Hardline. The booster packs were also only $9.99, not $15.00, but more to the point were absolutely dead within 4 to 6 weeks from release, any fragmentation was negligible.

BFV had 18 in total after additional maps were released for free.

The only Battlefield game that didn't have a post release paid DLC or ex-pack so far. No argument here. 18 total maps is pretty pathetic compared to the others.

I would rather have a pathetic 18 maps available to everyone rather than a miserly 9 maps and an expectation that everyone has to shell out for more.

BF1942 launched with 17 and received an additional 5 for free.

And had paid ex-packs of Road to Rome and Secret Weapons of WWII, which were never patched in free and cost $15 each

So what? That's still 13 more maps available for everyone to be played as part of the base game compared to Hardline.

My responses.

 

[CaptNumbNutz]

Surely you jest! Let me know when EA/DICE start releasing all the BF3 & 4 DLC for free, you might be waiting a while!

DICE has never released all the expacks and DLC for the previous games for free. I don't expect them too start now. The free content you keep lavishing about from BF2 (Euro Force and Armored Fury via patch 1.50) and BF2142 (Northern Strike via patch 1.51) came 3-4 years after they initially went on sale. 3-4 years is a helluva long time also. If DICE does ever does release the DLC free for BF3 and BF4, I expect them to wait no less than 3 years. This I pointed out clearly in my previous post.

And even ignoring the free inclusions of booster packs for BF2 and 2142, there was still a hell of a lot more map content for the base game than what we get now.

The only games where there was "a hell of a lot more map content" was 1942 and BF2, and even then not by much. BF1942 and BF2 had more "base" content, but less content released afterwards (in the form of DLC, expacks, or boosters) compared to BF3 and BF4, thus the total cost of ownership of the franchise has remained relatively the same. BF4 might as yet surpass it with the new DLC this year. I did some research and my Google-fu came up with the original prices. I misquoted them in my previous post.

Total maps and Cost of ownership below. Please note, all map information pulled from Battlefield Wikia's, prices pulled from Google searches in the time frame of release date.

BF1942: 16 base maps. 36 total maps including expacks and free.
Total Cost to buy base game and expacks/DLC assuming bought soon after release=$90
($50 base game, 2x expack $20 each)
Cost per map = $2.50, that's $3.24 in 2013 dollars

BF:Vietnam: 23 total maps including free
Total Cost to buy base game= $50
Cost per map = $2.17

BF2: 16 base maps. 30 total maps including expacks, boosters, and free.
Total Cost to buy base game and expacks/DLC assuming bought soon after release=$100 ($50 base game, $30 spec forces expack, 2x boosters $10 each)
Cost per map = $3.33, that's $3.97 in 2013 dollars

BF2142: 10 base maps. 20 total maps including expack and free
Total Cost to buy base game and expacks/DLC assuming bought soon after release=$60 ($50 base game, 1x $10 DLC)
Cost per map = $3.00

BFBC2: 10 base maps. 18 maps total including dlc and free (VIP map pack 7 was the only one with original new maps not variations of base maps)
Total Cost to buy base game and expacks/DLC assuming bought soon after release=$75 ($60 base game, 1x $15 DLC)
Cost per map = $4.17

BF3: 9 base maps. 29 total after all the DLC
Total Cost to buy base game and expacks/DLC assuming bought soon after release=$110 ($60 base game, $50 premium got you all DLC)
Cost per map = $3.45

BF4: 10 base maps. 30 total maps so far. 1 additional DLC on its way this year.
Total Cost to buy base game and expacks/DLC assuming bought soon after release=$110 ($60 base game, $50 premium got you all DLC)
Cost per map = $3.33

So $90 for all of BF1942, $100 for all of BF2, $110 for all of BF3 and BF4. In 13 years, Grand total cost of ownership for the games has increased $20. If you factor in inflation in that same time frame, the cost of ownership is same if not slightly cheaper (something costing $100 in 2005 cost $120 in 2013). Sure, my "cost per map" figure doesn't figure in the free maps, but if I did the figure them in it would paint an even worse picture for the older games as the cost per map would increase. I also did not factor in sales since that would throw things off further (e.g. you could get BF4 premium on sale for $39.99 from other companies than EA on release date). Your point about free content in previous games doesn't hold much weight since most of that free content DICE released happened after another BF game had already been released and divided the community as most people go on to the latest and greatest.

People always paint a rosy picture of the past and I'm trying to point out that in the grand scheme of things, cost of this franchise has not changed much. This isn't a new thing with the Battlefield franchise as you are implying. The reality is the cost of the battlefield franchise hasn't changed in 13 years. You get the same, if not more for your buck than you did in 2002 once you start factoring in all the additional content like different weapons and game modes. If you think EA/DICE is gouging the consumer now, then you have to concede that its always been that way.

Will BF:Hardline buck this trend? No idea. However, it won't take much to avoid being the worst cost/content ratio that was BFBC2.

 

[Blade-Runner]

DICE has never released all the expacks and DLC for the previous games for free. I don't expect them too start now. This I pointed out clearly in my previous post.

So in other words you are backpedaling now, because its not even a question of ALL the expacks and DLC, but ANY content whatsoever. Further to my point, let me know when EA/DICE release ANY free maps whatsoever, not the entirety of all DLC for BF3&4.

The only game where there where "a hell of a lot more map content" was 1942, and even then not by much. BF4 might as yet surpass it with the new DLC this year.

Nope, your entire argument is based on a false equivalency...paid DLC is not the same as additional free base maps available to everyone irrespective of the contortionist rationalizations you need to apply.

I did some research and my Google-fu came up with the original prices. I misquoted them in my previous post....bla, bla, bla, bla.

And again with the false equivalencies. Never at any point did I suggest that one had more content than the other, only that there was more base content available to EVERYONE, which is the point of the matter no matter how much you attempt to obfuscate it.

Doing a cost comparison does not prove anything, except that EA has attempted to incentivise people to pay MORE for content by including less from the outset.

And that's not even taking into account free community created content which heavily contributed to the success of the earlier BF games. Hell everyone I knew didn't buy BF42 for the vanilla content, it was to exclusively play desert combat! Your mathematical crunching is entertaining nonetheless, I am surprised you didn't take it a step further by breaking it down into average cost per map to amplify your misconceived perspective.

I don't see you making any headway on this argument of yours. People always paint a rosy picture of the past.

My argument, which is unassailable, is that the previous BF games had more content available to EVERYONE, thus mitigating the need to pay for more expansion packs.

Nothing you have said at all refutes that fact. And there is obviously a business motivation driving that strategy because otherwise why adopt that approach, its pretty obvious that its to drive the sale of DLC.

This isn't a new thing with the Battlefield franchise as you are implying.[/U][/B]

The strategy of including less and paying for more is as recent as BF3, but not at all a new modus operandi for EA.

The reality is the cost of the battlefield franchise hasn't changed in 15 years. You get the same, if not more for your buck than you did in 2002 once you start factoring in all the additional content like different weapons and game modes.

Keep telling yourself that, I guess you have to if you are happy to repeatedly throw money at EA/DICE for any malformed BF turd they squeeze out.

If you think EA/DICE is gouging the consumer now, then you have to concede that its always been that way.

Nope, I don't concede that, I categorically dispute it.

 

[chameleoneel]

BF3 didn't even get good until the last two DLC packs. If you want to be mad about a game for content: be mad about that one.

BF4 has high quality maps all around. There's only two in the entire suite, which I actually dislike. I don't mind paying reasonable money, as long as it's good stuff. I think premium is reasonable. assuming the content is good.

It'd be nice if they could get back to how they did things with the Bad Company games. A mix of free and payed extras. However, they were also trying to build up a new sub-brand on consoles and then later tried to get PC guys in on it, too. I also think they probably had different management with different ideas than they do, now.

It'd also be nice if we didnt lose modes between games. I miss a couple of modes from BF3.

 

[piscian18]

Replies in red.

Oh how people forget. You seem to think this is a new thing with EA/DICE, it most assuredly is not. They get as much money for as long as possible, then start releasing previously paid for content for free when things start to die out or they are about to release something new.

I disagree, EA has definitely changed course. BC2:Vietnam wasn't announced or released until long after the original game came out. They didn't have the season pass 4xdlc pack thing until BF3 which they announced near or before launch.

Yes DLC has existed since the dawn of time but you can not be blind to the fact that Launch value has lessened with each release since BF3. They're blatantly withholding content.

 

[yourgrandma]

I don't think Bc2 Vietnam 2 was dlc. It could be played without owning bc2 making it the cheapest game in the series to play. It pretty much had all new assets as well making it the best post launch expansion they've released so far imo.

I think the big part of the argument is that the feel and the way it plays has not changed from bf3 at all which in the first place felt like a cod ripoff. Everything that has been released felt like it could have been a expansion to bf3. I hate bf3, I want a entirely new game not this rehashed crap. I'm doubting even battlefront will offer that at this point.

 

[Flogger23m]

Yeah, even if the series is known for few maps and it does have a bunch of game modes (80% of which are worthless) 9 maps is still not many.

 

[DPI]

Yeah, even if the series is known for few maps and it does have a bunch of game modes (80% of which are worthless) 9 maps is still not many.

Didn't stop BF3 from being a great game and it launched with "only" 9 maps. Would it be nice if it shipped with more, sure, more is always better right? Would I assume the game would be double the fun with double the launch maps? No. I also don't believe in the statement "DLC maps fragment the community" because the base/vanilla maps are always the strongest and most played even long after all DLC maps have released. And in some respects the Battlefield community is so toxic that I dont think its one worth "holding together" assuming this notion of 'fragmentation' is even a thing. I'm talking mostly about all the console teenagers that drag their runny noses across Battlelog forums and complain about everything.

The multi-quote marathon between Blade-Runner & CaptNumbNutz going round & round about the good 'ol days of "free maps" is meritorious but those days are long gone, its a DLC-driven era now. Thank consoles. We can accept or stick to playing old games.

Factoring that I got hundreds of hours each from BFBC2, BF3, BF4, and then clocked about 30 hours in Hardline Beta 1, and 25-27 hours in Hardline beta 2, a Hardline purchase became a no brainer on that basis. I got more hours out of each Hardline beta than the last 5 or 6 so-called AAA titles purchased in the past year. No, hours aren't everything, and there's gotta be a quality to the hours; OTOH don't keep playing something you don't enjoy.