Look at id with the Rage tools. Games are so complex these days that releasing the tools for modders is a serious undertaking. The days when Carmack could just dump the Objective-C source for QuakeEd on the FTP site and walk away are gone.
most games I have worked on required to send your changes to a build server, I can only see this getting 10x more complex with next-gen having massive environments. I would be interested to hear how the crysis 3 team handled that as they use a publicly availiable engine but their work is a lot more complex than the average mod / portfolio shots.
yea with the amount of internal tools and scripts and plugins most studios have with engines nowdays its a huge cost to make it a user friendly package for joe average. and most of the time they dont want their internal tools floating around. Frostbite seems to be EA's new baby so I doubt they want the competition to get their hands on it and start poking around at features to copy or rip off. its been a huge investment to them.
Most modders can handle user unfriednly package. Those who can't won't mod anyway.
I think the problem about not making tool public lies in diffrent category and we all know where ;p.
Most modders can handle user unfriednly package. Those who can't won't mod anyway.
I think the problem about not making tool public lies in diffrent category and we all know where ;p.
Most modders produce garbage. Only around 5% of mods are anything worthwhile. As tools and technical aspects become increasingly complicated, so will modders fail even more.
The greedy excuse is easy, and true. But its only a part of it. Doing BF3 and 4 is very complicated, and mod tools would be expensive to do and underutilized.
Most modders produce garbage. Only around 5% of mods are anything worthwhile. As tools and technical aspects become increasingly complicated, so will modders fail even more.
Look at id with the Rage tools. Games are so complex these days that releasing the tools for modders is a serious undertaking. The days when Carmack could just dump the Objective-C source for QuakeEd on the FTP site and walk away are gone.
That's because of megatextures; not the general complexity of todays gaming. Apples and Oranges really.
The greedy excuse is easy, and true. But its only a part of it. Doing BF3 and 4 is very complicated, and mod tools would be expensive to do and underutilized.
I have to admit, I did find it kind of insulting, when DICE suggested that BF3 wasn't going to be moddable, because the code was too complicated for modders to understand. As if they have the world's collection of coding geniuses, and no one else could possibly understand it.
As you point out, there would probably be a lot of crap, and if it's crap, people won't play it. But many advances in games, have come from mod ideas. Hell, each version of Tribes had weapons/upgrades that were introduced by mods, and became popular.
Mods don't have to be ground breaking though. Usually the game has some shortcomings, that mods overcome. For me, in battlefield 3, I would implement code focused on completely eliminating spawn camping.
And don't forget, modding doesn't just mean changing game code. It can simply be well designed maps.
actually, the biggest reason why you won't see any form of modding in BF3/4 is down to the way EA has chosen to run their server system, along with the battlelog page etc.
how are you supposed to run your mods if everything has to run through battlelog and you can't run your own server, just rent them?
ultimately it probably boils down to the battle against piracy: in order to stop people pirating games effectively, games need to be always connected to a licensing network, which means you can't run mods.
I have to admit, I did find it kind of insulting, when DICE suggested that BF3 wasn't going to be moddable, because the code was too complicated for modders to understand. As if they have the world's collection of coding geniuses, and no one else could possibly understand it.
Whenever I read something like that I think it's code for, "Our tools are good enough for internal use but there's no way they're ready for public consumption". Which is fine but what they're telling you is that they're really rough around the edges and the developers aren't willing to incur the costs of either (a) supporting people trying to use these tools or (b) polishing them to an acceptable standard.
As someone said above, there's the issue these days of under utilization. So you spend 3 months getting your tools awesome and put them out there. How many people are going to make mods for your game? Unless you're a huge title, probably not very many. There's very little return on investment there.
Back in the day that issue didn't exist. We all made Doom mods or we all made Quake mods. These days ... the communities are spread super thin.
actually, the biggest reason why you won't see any form of modding in BF3/4 is down to the way EA has chosen to run their server system, along with the battlelog page etc.
how are you supposed to run your mods if everything has to run through battlelog and you can't run your own server, just rent them?
ultimately it probably boils down to the battle against piracy: in order to stop people pirating games effectively, games need to be always connected to a licensing network, which means you can't run mods.
True, that's another reason, I was thinking about that yesterday. They would have to modify Battlelog to include mod support, and even then to have MP mods would have to spend money renting servers.
There's another huge point in favor of making games moddable : it means that the tools are getting polished and tested to a point that it also benefits the in-house artists. Better tools = less time wasted on technical workarounds = less stress and less wasted man-hours.
For instance : I would bet that whoever uses Source Film Maker internaly at Valve is quite glad that the tool went through a solid beta testing outside the company. It certainly helped making the system as stable and easy to use as possible. Same for Kismet in Unreal Engine really.
Now of course not every engine is meant to be commercially licensed like Source and UE are. But still, there are huge benefits in making tools as stable as possible. It's more of a long term investment...
Most modders produce garbage. Only around 5% of mods are anything worthwhile. As tools and technical aspects become increasingly complicated, so will modders fail even more.
That's not true at all?
I mean what exactly defines a mod as being 'garbage'? Yes, maybe having a weapon that looks like out something in Final Fantasy in Skyrim, while not the most 'lore-ish' thing ever, isn't something you can call 'garbage' if there is effort put into it.
Ontop of that, you're only looking at things form one side, many people who tend to say "Oi, them pricks in me mods are sullying the suaver waver" only 'notice' the bad mods, and not the whole thing as a package on say a Mod-Site, with thousands of mods coming out that are reskins, etc, you will most likely gaze all over them and only focus on the one that you don't like, not the ones that have had some work put into it, no matter how small.
It's in our human nature, it will take a hundred good mods to counteract 1 bad mod, and that's really unfair to any community. Not every mod can become the next Counter Strike, especially when you're averaging between 20-50 mods a day, from reskins to scripts to overlay UI and hooking programs.
Nextly, yes, the tools are getting complicated, but wasn't that always the case? I mean are you honestly telling me porting a model in Source when it first came out was easier then something new coming out?
No, it took years before people even wrestled Source to a 'moddable' engine status, and even that in some cases now is debatable honestly.
It's going to be the same with newer engines, I'm pretty sure a few years from now people will laugh and say "Oh, remember how easy it was to mod Rage?", and as others have mentioned, if someone is going to mod a game, they will, those who don't, won't, even if you offer them the tools on a silver platter. Case in point would have to Hellgate, unmoddable games that the community created the tools to mod with.
Lastly, don't forget a large number of engines today use Middleware...stuff, in their games, usually from big companies like Adobe, MS, etc. Trying to mod these 'Libraries' will actually land you in legal hot waters.
Case in point would have to be Relic and Warhammer DOW2, where people couldn't mode the maps because it used some kind of Meta data that was registered under a company, WHICH in turn was registered under Adobe.
So while Relic was perfectly fine with modding, they couldn't allow certain things to be modded due to legal middleware reasons, and people were borderline trying illegal things, like program hooking, etc.
All in all, modding isn't dead or most stuff coming out isn't garbage. It's just that as a modder, if you're going to put time into modding a game that might get you into trouble, ask yourself, is it worth it? Or would you rather create your own indie game instead from A to Z with a workable engine?
actually, the biggest reason why you won't see any form of modding in BF3/4 is down to the way EA has chosen to run their server system, along with the battlelog page etc.
how are you supposed to run your mods if everything has to run through battlelog and you can't run your own server, just rent them?
ultimately it probably boils down to the battle against piracy: in order to stop people pirating games effectively, games need to be always connected to a licensing network, which means you can't run mods.
That's why I've been proposing a store to sell mods. They sell the mod, then you can 'select' it for your rented server. That way they maintain control over it... who can use it, and, if the mod is doing something to violate the system, the company could remove it completely.
I mean what exactly defines a mod as being 'garbage'? Yes, maybe having a weapon that looks like out something in Final Fantasy in Skyrim, while not the most 'lore-ish' thing ever, isn't something you can call 'garbage' if there is effort put into it.
Ontop of that, you're only looking at things form one side, many people who tend to say "Oi, them pricks in me mods are sullying the suaver waver" only 'notice' the bad mods, and not the whole thing as a package on say a Mod-Site, with thousands of mods coming out that are reskins, etc, you will most likely gaze all over them and only focus on the one that you don't like, not the ones that have had some work put into it, no matter how small.
It's in our human nature, it will take a hundred good mods to counteract 1 bad mod, and that's really unfair to any community. Not every mod can become the next Counter Strike, especially when you're averaging between 20-50 mods a day, from reskins to scripts to overlay UI and hooking programs.
Nextly, yes, the tools are getting complicated, but wasn't that always the case? I mean are you honestly telling me porting a model in Source when it first came out was easier then something new coming out?
No, it took years before people even wrestled Source to a 'moddable' engine status, and even that in some cases now is debatable honestly.
It's going to be the same with newer engines, I'm pretty sure a few years from now people will laugh and say "Oh, remember how easy it was to mod Rage?", and as others have mentioned, if someone is going to mod a game, they will, those who don't, won't, even if you offer them the tools on a silver platter. Case in point would have to Hellgate, unmoddable games that the community created the tools to mod with.
Lastly, don't forget a large number of engines today use Middleware...stuff, in their games, usually from big companies like Adobe, MS, etc. Trying to mod these 'Libraries' will actually land you in legal hot waters.
Case in point would have to be Relic and Warhammer DOW2, where people couldn't mode the maps because it used some kind of Meta data that was registered under a company, WHICH in turn was registered under Adobe.
So while Relic was perfectly fine with modding, they couldn't allow certain things to be modded due to legal middleware reasons, and people were borderline trying illegal things, like program hooking, etc.
All in all, modding isn't dead or most stuff coming out isn't garbage. It's just that as a modder, if you're going to put time into modding a game that might get you into trouble, ask yourself, is it worth it? Or would you rather create your own indie game instead from A to Z with a workable engine?
I'd call garbage if its a crap model, with a crap texture, bad / pointless map, pointless content, and really, how many mods even get completed? How many mods even get to a playable, solid state?
ModDB has literally thousands of mods in there, and yes, most are garbage because they dont stand up to any acceptable level of quality.
Maybe im jaded. Back in college and when I was working in architecture in 3d viz, I used to do tons of modding and learned most of my skills from that. I modded Homeworld, Homeworld 2, BF1942, BFVietnam, BF2, and C&C Generals.
The thing is, even back then I wanted to do pro quality work, as such I didnt accept assets that were less than retail quality into the mods. As such, I really have no inclination to cut some slack to modders, specially now that im out of the scene and working professionally - 95% of mods cant hold a candle to the regular game content, and that makes them garbage in my book.
And dont get me started on mods from existing IP. Why do people get outraged when a C&D comes their way? You are using someone else's IP, they are in their right to block you. I also got tired of the dozens of people who join a mod and vanish from the earth after a few weeks.
Aside from a few successful addons or total conversions that pop up every year, most of it is irrelevant. And you did hit on a point that I totally agree with, with UDK, Unity, CryEngine, My impression is that mostof the really skilled guys are doing their own game, and not bothering with doing a map or a weapon, even good ones, that nobody will play.
Not sure if this was posted already, but if you pre-order through Origin, for $70, you get early beta access, Premium expansion pack, and "bonus content".
I'm a little confused at the Premium thing though, because that's $60 still for BF3. PC games are usually $50, so that's $20 in extra features. Split that up between the extras and that means the expansion pack is $7? Watch "Premium" be the name of the first map pack !!
Not sure if this was posted already, but if you pre-order through Origin, for $70, you get early beta access, Premium expansion pack, and "bonus content".
I'm a little confused at the Premium thing though, because that's $60 still for BF3. PC games are usually $50, so that's $20 in extra features. Split that up between the extras and that means the expansion pack is $7? Watch "Premium" be the name of the first map pack !!
I think it's like the BF3 release that came with Back to Karkland. Technically it was a premium map pack, but then you had to buy the Premuim Pass again if you wanted subsequent DLC's.
No way is EA going to give this game and all DLC's out for 70 bucks.
I think it's like the BF3 release that came with Back to Karkland. Technically it was a premium map pack, but then you had to buy the Premuim Pass again if you wanted subsequent DLC's.
No way is EA going to give this game and all DLC's out for 70 bucks.
Yeah, no, if BF3 showed anything, is that you can go all the way to 90$, and you still don't have access to all the content with your 'premium' or 'pass' license.
I would like people to hold and actually find out what these 'extra' cost entails first before getting it.
Yeah, no, if BF3 showed anything, is that you can go all the way to 90$, and you still don't have access to all the content with your 'premium' or 'pass' license.
BF3 with Back to Karkland was 60 bucks. Then Premium came out, that was 50 bucks and you essentially bought Karkland twice. So that's 110 for a game plus DLC.
Then if you wanted to buy all of the player/weapon upgrades/unlocks that was extra on top of the game + premium.
Not sure that's correct. BF3 Premium: Back to Karkand came out. Then there was the premium sub, which gets you everything. Two packages. But of course you can also buy the different segments dlc on their own; but the sub gets you them all.
I have no problem with companies offering this and you shouldn't either. It keeps more people playing. Some people don't want to grind for a hundred hours to unlock their favorite guns. So pay a few bucks and boom they can have fun. It really is their choice and I think it is awesome that we as gamers and creators have these options now.
from a corporate point of view it makes more sense to make the game a bit of a grind and charge for upgrades rather than create a good balanced leveling up system that doesn't feel like a grind and actually enhances the fun. So for that reason I'm against all micro transactions because they ruin the fun and pacing of games, thats just how I feel personally.
I have no problem with companies offering this and you shouldn't either. It keeps more people playing. Some people don't want to grind for a hundred hours to unlock their favorite guns. So pay a few bucks and boom they can have fun. It really is their choice and I think it is awesome that we as gamers and creators have these options now.
While I agree, there is also the flip side of it. We've already paid for the weapons, but the developers keep them out of our reach until we've reached a certain goal. So why would I have to pay to get access to these weapons. It almost feels as if they created the 'XP' system, so it would become a new revenue stream.
But, since the game was designed around XP to release weapons, I don't mind it if someone wants to pay their way through. I personally prefer earning them, since it's like receiving awards along the way (other than some pat on the back with a shiny new image of a medal). I know there was a large part of the community pissed about it though.
Bloooooooooooody hell man, its called progression, advancement! Most games start you out weak then you get stronger as you progress. They're not keeping all this stuff from you just to charge you for it.
Bloooooooooooody hell man, its called progression, advancement! Most games start you out weak then you get stronger as you progress. They're not keeping all this stuff from you just to charge you for it.
It's also called something you didn't have to do in games before. I'm not saying that's WHY they did it, but I'm saying some people perceive it that way.
And like Frell mentioned, DLCs that you can buy on day one, is BS. Why weren't they just included with the game? DLCs USE to be maps that were developed after the game was released. They weren't completed before it went gold. Now, they have completed maps, but they don't include them, because they can squeeze another $15 out of you. And again, before DLC was possible, your game use to come with all of it.
It's also called something you didn't have to do in games before. I'm not saying that's WHY they did it, but I'm saying some people perceive it that way.
And like Frell mentioned, DLCs that you can buy on day one, is BS. Why weren't they just included with the game? DLCs USE to be maps that were developed after the game was released. They weren't completed before it went gold. Now, they have completed maps, but they don't include them, because they can squeeze another $15 out of you. And again, before DLC was possible, your game use to come with all of it.
i never understand this attitude. maps cost money to make.....on every DLC I have worked on it has always been a completley seperate budget for DLC than the main title. if BF4 is budgeted at X amount of dollars, how do you expect those other maps to magically appear? ofcourse they want you to pay for extra content they invested their money and time to develop, who gives a shit when it comes out. most DLC is started towards the end a project in that 3-4 month period artists and level designers cant do anything and by the time the rest of the game is ready its ready to ship because new maps are a lot simpler than say new campaign sequences which require heavy scripting, programming and all that extra support. or maybe they should just lay all the artists and designers off so they are not sitting idle while bugfixing and submission goes on.
I have worked on 3 different DLC packs in my time and not once was something "removed" from the main development and made DLC as a cash grab.
any way you go about it people are going to bitch and moan. ok, so within your budget you can have 9 awesome maps that will give 100s of hours of entertainment. how is that not worth 60 bucks? or.....they add more maps but because of budgeted time and money they are not able to polish them all and people then bitch and moan about that.
I bought the 1st couple bf3 map packs for 15 bucks instead of dropping 50 on premium....and was totally satisfied. its 15 bucks... I spend that much on lunch every day almost. on top of that, once the last 2 expansions came out, i saw an option to get premium and it noticed i already had the 3 other map packs and only cost me 20 bucks. for 2 map packs, which was pretty cool of them to even have that option, instead of having a flat rrate of 50 for premium, it adjusts to what you have already purchased to save you some cash.
holy fucking LOL at the entitlement so many people in the comments on youtube and ign and shit like that.
so you are saying, if you guys love BF4.....you want to have to wait 3-6 months to get new maps? whats the acceptible period if not day 1 for some cool new stuff that will keep me playing the game longer? the sooner the better, more people will keep playing the game. boo hoo it only came with 10 awesome maps to play on and a full campaign! I want 30 maps with every game I buy! jesus, call the waaaaaambulance. or you know......just dont buy it? for every person bitching about that shit there is 10 more that will buy it, its a business ofcourse they want to make money. I would do the exact same thing if it was proven to make me millions more dollars.
You know what, you're right. Next time MS releases an OS, it should only boot up your computer and show you a clock and your mouse. Then they can sell every piece of the OS afterward, as a 'DLC'. It doesn't matter than everything else was developed at the exact same time, you have a fancy clock, and you should be happy with that.
Don't take it so damn personally. I understand that someone's effort goes into making the DLCs, and yes, that does cost money. That's why it was generally acceptable to pay for it after a game has been released.
But it's different when you release it along side the game. What makes those maps unique, that they weren't included? Are you telling me the maps that come with the game didn't require any extra development costs? Obviously they did, so why are they included? Is there a cost that determines how many maps I'll get with the game, before I have to pay for more?
Maybe I'm just too old school, since I use to buy games, like mario bros, and I had every level on day one. But god forbid someone have an opinion, without getting pissed on and told they riding around in their wambulance. Well fire up the siren, because I guess it's time to ride
games are usually budgeted at a cost vs return or sales projections so if a company wants to only invest 40 million in a game to get a certain return on their investment.....why would they go over by 10-20 million when they could recoup those costs as DLC? when I was making MP maps for SOCOM we guestimated that each MP map cost atlest 1million to produce. and that was given a super tight turn around.
A lot of the time they have a whole seperate team working on DLC either as outsource or internally but it costs a shit ton of money to produce and simply giving them away for free is pretty much burning money.
Im not taking it personally at all, I dont really care about how game companies run their business, if I like something I will buy it, if I dont like it or dont agree with them I simply just dont buy it. My point is people feel entitled to millions of dollars worth of dev time for free simply because it was developed in tandem to the original title? your point is totally vailid and it really comes down to what do people expect for their 60 bucks. an 8 hour singleplayer and 8-12 maps for most big MP games that provide 100s of hours of fun is pretty acceptible to me.
here is an example. DICE Invested probably millions of dollars into their map packs. I really want to play the aftermath expansion pack, it looks awesome. I know im going to have to pay 15 bucks for it when it comes out either way if i want to play it. would I rather have it when all my friends are still playing the game on Day 1 or 7 months down the road when they have all moved on to some other game. I know im going to be giving that 15 bucks to dice either way. DLC is not some high class aged wine, that takes time for the goodness to age and mature before being consumed.
if they are pouring additional resources into it with expandd dev costs, ofcourse they expect to recoup them regardless of how long it comes out after the game ships. if its obvious the conent was supposed to be in the original game then yea I would be mildly annoyed for 2 mins and then move on with my life. in the case of expansions on the scale of multiplayer maps its a different story, especially when the BF packs all had pretty different themes/envionments/weather etc.
content is content, its up to you what you deem acceptible for what you pay for. I wasnt attacking you at all in the post more so the fact that peoples expectations of the amount of content you should get for your money are so vastly overblown vs the actual cost of development. look at snes games like donkey kong country vs battlefield in terms of complexity, and content. they were 60 bucks back then too and with inflation games should cost way more now. *I remember when a chocolate bar was 25 cents.....*
hell yea everyone is entitled to their opions and I totally get it, people dont like to spend money, who doesnt want free stuff. Im just cant stand to see people being so reactive "IM NOT BUYING THIS SHIT" then when it comes out gobbling its balls saying how good it is for the 1st week before going back to outraged indignification that a business tries to get money from them for something they want more of to enjoy.
At the end of the day it pretty much comes down to how much you value 15 bucks. like i said i spend 12 bucks to see a movie for 1hr30 mins or 15 for lunch to enjoy eating for 20 mins. in terms of cost to value ratio for 4 maps, new game modes, vehicles and guns that im going to play for several months on end, I have no complaints about that even if its availiable day 1, ill probably buy it 2-4 weeks fown the road anyways.
Not sure that's correct. BF3 Premium: Back to Karkand came out. Then there was the premium sub, which gets you everything. Two packages. But of course you can also buy the different segments dlc on their own; but the sub gets you them all.
No, they double dipped in the DLC payout, those people who 'payed extra' before the Pass/Premium bundle were essentially paying a portion twice.
In several cases, people lost access to the maps they had bought previously because they didn't have the Premium version later on, and Customer Service couldn't do anything about it because it was technical issue that apparently was hard to fix.
This is also the reason EA threatened many people with a bans for Sim City if they forced a Credit Refund via the bank, it's because that's what many people did with BF3, maybe not large enough to make a market dent in EA, but was still pretty nasty, it was sadistically funny to see my friend lose his brains and vow vengeance on EA and swear he would never buy another game that comes out yearly at a rate of 90$, wonder if all of his EA-Managed account games are banned too...
I have no problem with companies offering this and you shouldn't either. It keeps more people playing. Some people don't want to grind for a hundred hours to unlock their favorite guns. So pay a few bucks and boom they can have fun. It really is their choice and I think it is awesome that we as gamers and creators have these options now.
Maybe if FPS games had automatic filters in place which party/group you with people of your skill like DOTA2 does, then yes, I agree.
However, since FPS don't have an automatic system like this in place, you're going to see a skill disparity allocated to gear disparity, which doesn't make sense at all from a balance POV, especially on a MP game, not a SP game.
Also, I don't how I feel about the statement that it's awesome as a new revenue stream...I was under the impression good dev's would release content constantly to keep the community active and to bring in new people, not create a bunch of items found in the basic package of the game, put a couple of 'speed' options and call it a day for well over half a year, that just sounds...like something a person outsourcing the work would say.
I've seen this happen countless of times, it would be really nasty if BF4 went that route too.
I'm not sure people are saying the same thing in here or any other site, and you bringing in the same blanket argument of that of someone trolling in a YT video is not a correct assumption to make (also, why the bloody hell are you reading YT comments?! Are you crazy mate, that's the last you should do!)
Also, you are talking about yourself in this case, which doesn't equate to anything to other companies do, just because you guys did something 'good' in your company doesn't mean other companies are doing anything 'good'.
And the issue is this, you make a game, you publish it, and be done with it, voila, done, at this point several things happen.
A) Art team is idle, so they start on some DLC. Art team is idle, so they start on next project.
C) Art team is idle, they get fired.
Problem is, with certain companies and their history, you can physically check the data on a game, and see content located in as early as Revision1 packages that is locked away and has to be payed for, which just boggles the mind.
They basically CUT out content and offer it as DLC, this is even before the game is gone Gold or has a demo version out. Entire Chapters sometimes watered down or outright cut and can be bought back with 'DLC'.
That's not the art team working on the next DLC and it being put up on offer, that's literally content taken out from the original 60$ price and being unlocked later with what amounts to a simple unlock key you download for 2KB in one of the older compressed packages.
I guess this is one of the reasons publishers hate PC's, because it way too easy to see what files have cut content and which ones are actual DLC.
To be clear, I agree that developers should charge for extra DLCs. They should not be free, as I have seen people try claiming, because they felt 'wronged' in some way (in relation to BF3). They had the right to charge for all the DLCs, and I paid for premium to get them. I do feel like I got screwed a bit, because I bought the limited edition, and premium essentially nullified any benefits I was suppose to get with the limited edition.
Here's the thing, and the distinctions I'm trying to make. It's a fine line between what should be considered a DLC and base content. If it's available day 1, I think it should be included with the game. I prefer DLC development to begin after the game was released (or at least in the works). Each DLC for BF3 got better as they were released, and I think that was a result of time and knowledge/learning.
Basically, they are deciding, at the start of development, that there will be DLC support, and they want to have a DLC on day one. That means, they are dedicating development money on that DLC, before they know the game will be successful. I wonder if they still feel developing the first DLC for Medal of Honor was still a good idea (since the game was considered a financial failure).
For BF4, digital downloads are getting guaranteed a DLC. That's fine, but that doesn't mean the DLC has to be there on day one. And I think that DLC should remain something unique to those people, and not become part of a package later (aka the Karkand pack).
And I know it's hard, from the consumer perspective, to know how long a DLC has actually been in development. Obviously, they could start a DLC's development while the game is getting developed, then released 3 months later, and it would feel to the consumer, like it was developed during those 3 months. What I'm saying is, I would prefer all attention go into getting the game right, then DLCs.
So what about mass effect 3? There's that dlc that came with every version of the game, but you could unlock it by either a. having bought the collector's edition of the game, or b. buying the dlc. So what you're saying is that even if you didn't buy the collector's edition of the game, you should still get that dlc for free just because it's on the disc? Have you ever thought that it might be alot more cost efficient to just put the dlc on the disc so that nobody has to spend 5 hours downloading 5 gigs of data with their 56 k internet? Or the amount of energy that 5 gigs of data being downloaded by 500 000 people might use? So I guess people shouldn't buy the new tupac album either because he made those songs ten years before he died right? lol
You really aren't following me. You clearly have your own opinion of what I'm saying, and fail to really read it. Quoting the very first line of my last post, "developers should charge for extra DLCs". Where do I say it should be free? Did I even say that once? Stop repeatedly suggesting that I think the DLC should be free.
What I'm saying is, the DLC should not be in development until after a game is released. Anything developed, during the months of the game development, should be part of the game. If you make 10 maps, then 10 maps should be included. It should not be a DLC.
So what you're saying is that it should be free and integrated into the game, if it's made at the same time... So I wasn't wrong in my assumption that you want free DLC, it just depends on the timing of development... Like it really matters when it's made as long as it's budgeted separately.. I like it how I'm being told I'm not listening, but every single one of my points wasn't even acknowledged.. tsk tsk. Without extra funding specifically for that DLC, it straight up wouldn't exist. Then everybody would be choked about the lack of extra content..
IT IS NOT A DLC IF IT IS DEVELOPED WITH THE GAME! Do you know what dlc stands for? "DownLoadable Content". If it is in the game, you did not download it. And who the hell still uses 56k? (especially for console gaming)
I am saying it should not be budgeted separately. If you have 20 employees available, all 20 should be making the game. Not 15 for a 'base' game, and 5 more to create content that we want to sell in addition to the game.
I'll bet EA is working on Battlefield 5 right now, all at the same time as working on Battlefield 4. Should Battlefield 5 be included with Battlefield 4 just because it's being made at the same time as Battlefield 4? It's probably using alot of the same content too (models, textures, programming, engine, shaders, lighting prefabs, etc..). There's probably a 150 empoloyees working on 4, and 150 working on 5. You're saying that they should have all 300 working on 4 then right?
Or how about the assasins creed franchise? UBI already said it started development on assasins creed 3 about 3 years ago, so long before brotherhood and revelations were released.
so they had 2 assasins teams making the games. each one of about 2-300 people. should they just pile 600 people on each assassins game and then roll the whole team onto the next one at once? I know any time there is more than 2-3 people working on a level it gets extremely complicated and almost counter productive. you can only have so many cooks in the kitchen, so if additional resources are added to the project *ie: additional development costs beyone what was budgeted for said title* then if they would give you that additional conent as part of the "base game" because it was developed in tandem.....then they would be losing money before the game is even released, which you know what that means.....layoffs as soon as it goes gold.
most of the time extra people are hired for DLC if its developed at the same time, specifically to work on it because they have enough team members on the base game. who gives a shit if its on the disc and unlocked by little code? if you read your eula you technically dont even own the disc, just a liscence to the software which is whatever the the developer deems it to be, and can change or take back at any time.
in response to who uses 56k......well there are tons of areas with horrible interent access and many people still use dialup. up until a couple years ago they still vastly outnumbered those with high speed/cable setups. hard to believe I know, but I have been in multiple meetings where download size was discussed specifically for that reason. I really dont enjoy sitting there waiting for 1-2gb to download even if it only takes 15-20 mins. a 35kb unlock for data that I got for pre-ordering the game, buying the special edition or buying a map pack is pretty ok with me.
there is pretty much no point in getting upset about things like this because even if game studios had that day 1 content finished, and waited 2 weeks to relase it to save themselves a vocal minority bitching about it being "day 1 DLC", they would find something else to bitch about anyways. at the end of the day, the only reason game companies exist is to make money. I almsot wish they never coined the term DLC and just continued calling it expansions or additional content or something without the word download in it. I dont care about method of delivery as long as I have the OPTION to get more content for the product I enjoy. Until the day someone puts a gun to my head and say"you must buy this mother fucker" then I really dont care.
Its only going to get more vague what was and wasnt developed in tadem with the game as we get more and more into digital downloads for games, and personally I cant wait. I used to love having a box and disc in my hand when I was 15, now I look at my shelf and think damn thats a lot of space and wasted resources/energy to create all that plastic. Steam has gone about it the right way, when consoles finally catch up to that I think there will be a lot less bickering about things you cant change anyways.
ANNNNNYWAYS....Back ontopic of the original thread, damn I cant wait for BF4 that demo looked sweet and I cant wait to see the new MP content they must be hard at work on *looks at rens expectantly*
No, because they are 2 separate games. I see you're at ubisoft... I wouldn't expect Assasin's Creed Black Flag to come with Last of Us, because they are simultaneously developed. They are 2 completely different entities. DLCs are not. They are content for the game.
And you bring up exactly part of my point. When the DLC is developed together, the elements/assets are shared. The later DLCs end up with new content. They may reuse some of the previous content, but it still includes content that I did not have before. That is also part of why I think it has value, when developed later.
Edit:cross post. I think I answered Pixel's point too. But I agree, I don't want this thread derailed. I knew better than to bring something like this up here, with people in the industry who clearly see things differently than the consumers. When it comes down to it, I vote with my dollars, and as it's been stated, I'm free not to buy it if I don't want it. That's exactly why I have no intentions on buying premium again. I'll choose the maps based on their merits.
Unless some kind of massive failure occurs, DICE/EA will have my money for BF4. I'm still looking forward to seeing how much of that gameplay will transfer to the multiplayer. I'm hopeful that most of it will. We need the new consoles to become more 'official' so devs can officially announce games for them
Replies
I think the problem about not making tool public lies in diffrent category and we all know where ;p.
Most modders produce garbage. Only around 5% of mods are anything worthwhile. As tools and technical aspects become increasingly complicated, so will modders fail even more.
The greedy excuse is easy, and true. But its only a part of it. Doing BF3 and 4 is very complicated, and mod tools would be expensive to do and underutilized.
[/Conjecture]
That's because of megatextures; not the general complexity of todays gaming. Apples and Oranges really.
I have to admit, I did find it kind of insulting, when DICE suggested that BF3 wasn't going to be moddable, because the code was too complicated for modders to understand. As if they have the world's collection of coding geniuses, and no one else could possibly understand it.
As you point out, there would probably be a lot of crap, and if it's crap, people won't play it. But many advances in games, have come from mod ideas. Hell, each version of Tribes had weapons/upgrades that were introduced by mods, and became popular.
Mods don't have to be ground breaking though. Usually the game has some shortcomings, that mods overcome. For me, in battlefield 3, I would implement code focused on completely eliminating spawn camping.
And don't forget, modding doesn't just mean changing game code. It can simply be well designed maps.
how are you supposed to run your mods if everything has to run through battlelog and you can't run your own server, just rent them?
ultimately it probably boils down to the battle against piracy: in order to stop people pirating games effectively, games need to be always connected to a licensing network, which means you can't run mods.
As someone said above, there's the issue these days of under utilization. So you spend 3 months getting your tools awesome and put them out there. How many people are going to make mods for your game? Unless you're a huge title, probably not very many. There's very little return on investment there.
Back in the day that issue didn't exist. We all made Doom mods or we all made Quake mods. These days ... the communities are spread super thin.
True, that's another reason, I was thinking about that yesterday. They would have to modify Battlelog to include mod support, and even then to have MP mods would have to spend money renting servers.
For instance : I would bet that whoever uses Source Film Maker internaly at Valve is quite glad that the tool went through a solid beta testing outside the company. It certainly helped making the system as stable and easy to use as possible. Same for Kismet in Unreal Engine really.
Now of course not every engine is meant to be commercially licensed like Source and UE are. But still, there are huge benefits in making tools as stable as possible. It's more of a long term investment...
That's not true at all?
I mean what exactly defines a mod as being 'garbage'? Yes, maybe having a weapon that looks like out something in Final Fantasy in Skyrim, while not the most 'lore-ish' thing ever, isn't something you can call 'garbage' if there is effort put into it.
Ontop of that, you're only looking at things form one side, many people who tend to say "Oi, them pricks in me mods are sullying the suaver waver" only 'notice' the bad mods, and not the whole thing as a package on say a Mod-Site, with thousands of mods coming out that are reskins, etc, you will most likely gaze all over them and only focus on the one that you don't like, not the ones that have had some work put into it, no matter how small.
It's in our human nature, it will take a hundred good mods to counteract 1 bad mod, and that's really unfair to any community. Not every mod can become the next Counter Strike, especially when you're averaging between 20-50 mods a day, from reskins to scripts to overlay UI and hooking programs.
Nextly, yes, the tools are getting complicated, but wasn't that always the case? I mean are you honestly telling me porting a model in Source when it first came out was easier then something new coming out?
No, it took years before people even wrestled Source to a 'moddable' engine status, and even that in some cases now is debatable honestly.
It's going to be the same with newer engines, I'm pretty sure a few years from now people will laugh and say "Oh, remember how easy it was to mod Rage?", and as others have mentioned, if someone is going to mod a game, they will, those who don't, won't, even if you offer them the tools on a silver platter. Case in point would have to Hellgate, unmoddable games that the community created the tools to mod with.
Lastly, don't forget a large number of engines today use Middleware...stuff, in their games, usually from big companies like Adobe, MS, etc. Trying to mod these 'Libraries' will actually land you in legal hot waters.
Case in point would have to be Relic and Warhammer DOW2, where people couldn't mode the maps because it used some kind of Meta data that was registered under a company, WHICH in turn was registered under Adobe.
So while Relic was perfectly fine with modding, they couldn't allow certain things to be modded due to legal middleware reasons, and people were borderline trying illegal things, like program hooking, etc.
All in all, modding isn't dead or most stuff coming out isn't garbage. It's just that as a modder, if you're going to put time into modding a game that might get you into trouble, ask yourself, is it worth it? Or would you rather create your own indie game instead from A to Z with a workable engine?
That's why I've been proposing a store to sell mods. They sell the mod, then you can 'select' it for your rented server. That way they maintain control over it... who can use it, and, if the mod is doing something to violate the system, the company could remove it completely.
Oh nevermind lol EA
ModDB has literally thousands of mods in there, and yes, most are garbage because they dont stand up to any acceptable level of quality.
Maybe im jaded. Back in college and when I was working in architecture in 3d viz, I used to do tons of modding and learned most of my skills from that. I modded Homeworld, Homeworld 2, BF1942, BFVietnam, BF2, and C&C Generals.
The thing is, even back then I wanted to do pro quality work, as such I didnt accept assets that were less than retail quality into the mods. As such, I really have no inclination to cut some slack to modders, specially now that im out of the scene and working professionally - 95% of mods cant hold a candle to the regular game content, and that makes them garbage in my book.
And dont get me started on mods from existing IP. Why do people get outraged when a C&D comes their way? You are using someone else's IP, they are in their right to block you. I also got tired of the dozens of people who join a mod and vanish from the earth after a few weeks.
Aside from a few successful addons or total conversions that pop up every year, most of it is irrelevant. And you did hit on a point that I totally agree with, with UDK, Unity, CryEngine, My impression is that mostof the really skilled guys are doing their own game, and not bothering with doing a map or a weapon, even good ones, that nobody will play.
I'm a little confused at the Premium thing though, because that's $60 still for BF3. PC games are usually $50, so that's $20 in extra features. Split that up between the extras and that means the expansion pack is $7? Watch "Premium" be the name of the first map pack
I think it's like the BF3 release that came with Back to Karkland. Technically it was a premium map pack, but then you had to buy the Premuim Pass again if you wanted subsequent DLC's.
No way is EA going to give this game and all DLC's out for 70 bucks.
I would like people to hold and actually find out what these 'extra' cost entails first before getting it.
Premium subscription gets you everything, no?
Just wanted to say thanks for posting my silly animation.
Then if you wanted to buy all of the player/weapon upgrades/unlocks that was extra on top of the game + premium.
I have no problem with companies offering this and you shouldn't either. It keeps more people playing. Some people don't want to grind for a hundred hours to unlock their favorite guns. So pay a few bucks and boom they can have fun. It really is their choice and I think it is awesome that we as gamers and creators have these options now.
No clue why anyone would ever want to spend money for unlocks, but hey it doesn't affect me and it's only giving others options.
While I agree, there is also the flip side of it. We've already paid for the weapons, but the developers keep them out of our reach until we've reached a certain goal. So why would I have to pay to get access to these weapons. It almost feels as if they created the 'XP' system, so it would become a new revenue stream.
But, since the game was designed around XP to release weapons, I don't mind it if someone wants to pay their way through. I personally prefer earning them, since it's like receiving awards along the way (other than some pat on the back with a shiny new image of a medal). I know there was a large part of the community pissed about it though.
Lets complain about EA nearly forcing you to buy the map packs by including new guns/unlocks that can be used against you but you can't use.
I'm fine with DLC and all, but making it so you're pressured into buying it or else it will hinder your experience is bullshit.
More aimed at used games but its the same general concept:
It's also called something you didn't have to do in games before. I'm not saying that's WHY they did it, but I'm saying some people perceive it that way.
And like Frell mentioned, DLCs that you can buy on day one, is BS. Why weren't they just included with the game? DLCs USE to be maps that were developed after the game was released. They weren't completed before it went gold. Now, they have completed maps, but they don't include them, because they can squeeze another $15 out of you. And again, before DLC was possible, your game use to come with all of it.
9gag watermarks on ctrl + alt + del.... oh how I hate that site and their watermarks.
i never understand this attitude. maps cost money to make.....on every DLC I have worked on it has always been a completley seperate budget for DLC than the main title. if BF4 is budgeted at X amount of dollars, how do you expect those other maps to magically appear? ofcourse they want you to pay for extra content they invested their money and time to develop, who gives a shit when it comes out. most DLC is started towards the end a project in that 3-4 month period artists and level designers cant do anything and by the time the rest of the game is ready its ready to ship because new maps are a lot simpler than say new campaign sequences which require heavy scripting, programming and all that extra support. or maybe they should just lay all the artists and designers off so they are not sitting idle while bugfixing and submission goes on.
I have worked on 3 different DLC packs in my time and not once was something "removed" from the main development and made DLC as a cash grab.
any way you go about it people are going to bitch and moan. ok, so within your budget you can have 9 awesome maps that will give 100s of hours of entertainment. how is that not worth 60 bucks? or.....they add more maps but because of budgeted time and money they are not able to polish them all and people then bitch and moan about that.
I bought the 1st couple bf3 map packs for 15 bucks instead of dropping 50 on premium....and was totally satisfied. its 15 bucks... I spend that much on lunch every day almost. on top of that, once the last 2 expansions came out, i saw an option to get premium and it noticed i already had the 3 other map packs and only cost me 20 bucks. for 2 map packs, which was pretty cool of them to even have that option, instead of having a flat rrate of 50 for premium, it adjusts to what you have already purchased to save you some cash.
holy fucking LOL at the entitlement so many people in the comments on youtube and ign and shit like that.
so you are saying, if you guys love BF4.....you want to have to wait 3-6 months to get new maps? whats the acceptible period if not day 1 for some cool new stuff that will keep me playing the game longer? the sooner the better, more people will keep playing the game. boo hoo it only came with 10 awesome maps to play on and a full campaign! I want 30 maps with every game I buy! jesus, call the waaaaaambulance. or you know......just dont buy it? for every person bitching about that shit there is 10 more that will buy it, its a business ofcourse they want to make money. I would do the exact same thing if it was proven to make me millions more dollars.
Don't take it so damn personally. I understand that someone's effort goes into making the DLCs, and yes, that does cost money. That's why it was generally acceptable to pay for it after a game has been released.
But it's different when you release it along side the game. What makes those maps unique, that they weren't included? Are you telling me the maps that come with the game didn't require any extra development costs? Obviously they did, so why are they included? Is there a cost that determines how many maps I'll get with the game, before I have to pay for more?
Maybe I'm just too old school, since I use to buy games, like mario bros, and I had every level on day one. But god forbid someone have an opinion, without getting pissed on and told they riding around in their wambulance. Well fire up the siren, because I guess it's time to ride
A lot of the time they have a whole seperate team working on DLC either as outsource or internally but it costs a shit ton of money to produce and simply giving them away for free is pretty much burning money.
Im not taking it personally at all, I dont really care about how game companies run their business, if I like something I will buy it, if I dont like it or dont agree with them I simply just dont buy it. My point is people feel entitled to millions of dollars worth of dev time for free simply because it was developed in tandem to the original title? your point is totally vailid and it really comes down to what do people expect for their 60 bucks. an 8 hour singleplayer and 8-12 maps for most big MP games that provide 100s of hours of fun is pretty acceptible to me.
here is an example. DICE Invested probably millions of dollars into their map packs. I really want to play the aftermath expansion pack, it looks awesome. I know im going to have to pay 15 bucks for it when it comes out either way if i want to play it. would I rather have it when all my friends are still playing the game on Day 1 or 7 months down the road when they have all moved on to some other game. I know im going to be giving that 15 bucks to dice either way. DLC is not some high class aged wine, that takes time for the goodness to age and mature before being consumed.
if they are pouring additional resources into it with expandd dev costs, ofcourse they expect to recoup them regardless of how long it comes out after the game ships. if its obvious the conent was supposed to be in the original game then yea I would be mildly annoyed for 2 mins and then move on with my life. in the case of expansions on the scale of multiplayer maps its a different story, especially when the BF packs all had pretty different themes/envionments/weather etc.
content is content, its up to you what you deem acceptible for what you pay for. I wasnt attacking you at all in the post more so the fact that peoples expectations of the amount of content you should get for your money are so vastly overblown vs the actual cost of development. look at snes games like donkey kong country vs battlefield in terms of complexity, and content. they were 60 bucks back then too and with inflation games should cost way more now. *I remember when a chocolate bar was 25 cents.....*
hell yea everyone is entitled to their opions and I totally get it, people dont like to spend money, who doesnt want free stuff. Im just cant stand to see people being so reactive "IM NOT BUYING THIS SHIT" then when it comes out gobbling its balls saying how good it is for the 1st week before going back to outraged indignification that a business tries to get money from them for something they want more of to enjoy.
At the end of the day it pretty much comes down to how much you value 15 bucks. like i said i spend 12 bucks to see a movie for 1hr30 mins or 15 for lunch to enjoy eating for 20 mins. in terms of cost to value ratio for 4 maps, new game modes, vehicles and guns that im going to play for several months on end, I have no complaints about that even if its availiable day 1, ill probably buy it 2-4 weeks fown the road anyways.
In several cases, people lost access to the maps they had bought previously because they didn't have the Premium version later on, and Customer Service couldn't do anything about it because it was technical issue that apparently was hard to fix.
This is also the reason EA threatened many people with a bans for Sim City if they forced a Credit Refund via the bank, it's because that's what many people did with BF3, maybe not large enough to make a market dent in EA, but was still pretty nasty, it was sadistically funny to see my friend lose his brains and vow vengeance on EA and swear he would never buy another game that comes out yearly at a rate of 90$, wonder if all of his EA-Managed account games are banned too...
Maybe if FPS games had automatic filters in place which party/group you with people of your skill like DOTA2 does, then yes, I agree.
However, since FPS don't have an automatic system like this in place, you're going to see a skill disparity allocated to gear disparity, which doesn't make sense at all from a balance POV, especially on a MP game, not a SP game.
Also, I don't how I feel about the statement that it's awesome as a new revenue stream...I was under the impression good dev's would release content constantly to keep the community active and to bring in new people, not create a bunch of items found in the basic package of the game, put a couple of 'speed' options and call it a day for well over half a year, that just sounds...like something a person outsourcing the work would say.
I've seen this happen countless of times, it would be really nasty if BF4 went that route too.
I'm not sure people are saying the same thing in here or any other site, and you bringing in the same blanket argument of that of someone trolling in a YT video is not a correct assumption to make (also, why the bloody hell are you reading YT comments?! Are you crazy mate, that's the last you should do!)
Also, you are talking about yourself in this case, which doesn't equate to anything to other companies do, just because you guys did something 'good' in your company doesn't mean other companies are doing anything 'good'.
And the issue is this, you make a game, you publish it, and be done with it, voila, done, at this point several things happen.
A) Art team is idle, so they start on some DLC.
C) Art team is idle, they get fired.
Problem is, with certain companies and their history, you can physically check the data on a game, and see content located in as early as Revision1 packages that is locked away and has to be payed for, which just boggles the mind.
They basically CUT out content and offer it as DLC, this is even before the game is gone Gold or has a demo version out. Entire Chapters sometimes watered down or outright cut and can be bought back with 'DLC'.
That's not the art team working on the next DLC and it being put up on offer, that's literally content taken out from the original 60$ price and being unlocked later with what amounts to a simple unlock key you download for 2KB in one of the older compressed packages.
I guess this is one of the reasons publishers hate PC's, because it way too easy to see what files have cut content and which ones are actual DLC.
Here's the thing, and the distinctions I'm trying to make. It's a fine line between what should be considered a DLC and base content. If it's available day 1, I think it should be included with the game. I prefer DLC development to begin after the game was released (or at least in the works). Each DLC for BF3 got better as they were released, and I think that was a result of time and knowledge/learning.
Basically, they are deciding, at the start of development, that there will be DLC support, and they want to have a DLC on day one. That means, they are dedicating development money on that DLC, before they know the game will be successful. I wonder if they still feel developing the first DLC for Medal of Honor was still a good idea (since the game was considered a financial failure).
For BF4, digital downloads are getting guaranteed a DLC. That's fine, but that doesn't mean the DLC has to be there on day one. And I think that DLC should remain something unique to those people, and not become part of a package later (aka the Karkand pack).
And I know it's hard, from the consumer perspective, to know how long a DLC has actually been in development. Obviously, they could start a DLC's development while the game is getting developed, then released 3 months later, and it would feel to the consumer, like it was developed during those 3 months. What I'm saying is, I would prefer all attention go into getting the game right, then DLCs.
What I'm saying is, the DLC should not be in development until after a game is released. Anything developed, during the months of the game development, should be part of the game. If you make 10 maps, then 10 maps should be included. It should not be a DLC.
I am saying it should not be budgeted separately. If you have 20 employees available, all 20 should be making the game. Not 15 for a 'base' game, and 5 more to create content that we want to sell in addition to the game.
so they had 2 assasins teams making the games. each one of about 2-300 people. should they just pile 600 people on each assassins game and then roll the whole team onto the next one at once? I know any time there is more than 2-3 people working on a level it gets extremely complicated and almost counter productive. you can only have so many cooks in the kitchen, so if additional resources are added to the project *ie: additional development costs beyone what was budgeted for said title* then if they would give you that additional conent as part of the "base game" because it was developed in tandem.....then they would be losing money before the game is even released, which you know what that means.....layoffs as soon as it goes gold.
most of the time extra people are hired for DLC if its developed at the same time, specifically to work on it because they have enough team members on the base game. who gives a shit if its on the disc and unlocked by little code? if you read your eula you technically dont even own the disc, just a liscence to the software which is whatever the the developer deems it to be, and can change or take back at any time.
in response to who uses 56k......well there are tons of areas with horrible interent access and many people still use dialup. up until a couple years ago they still vastly outnumbered those with high speed/cable setups. hard to believe I know, but I have been in multiple meetings where download size was discussed specifically for that reason. I really dont enjoy sitting there waiting for 1-2gb to download even if it only takes 15-20 mins. a 35kb unlock for data that I got for pre-ordering the game, buying the special edition or buying a map pack is pretty ok with me.
there is pretty much no point in getting upset about things like this because even if game studios had that day 1 content finished, and waited 2 weeks to relase it to save themselves a vocal minority bitching about it being "day 1 DLC", they would find something else to bitch about anyways. at the end of the day, the only reason game companies exist is to make money. I almsot wish they never coined the term DLC and just continued calling it expansions or additional content or something without the word download in it. I dont care about method of delivery as long as I have the OPTION to get more content for the product I enjoy. Until the day someone puts a gun to my head and say"you must buy this mother fucker" then I really dont care.
Its only going to get more vague what was and wasnt developed in tadem with the game as we get more and more into digital downloads for games, and personally I cant wait. I used to love having a box and disc in my hand when I was 15, now I look at my shelf and think damn thats a lot of space and wasted resources/energy to create all that plastic. Steam has gone about it the right way, when consoles finally catch up to that I think there will be a lot less bickering about things you cant change anyways.
ANNNNNYWAYS....Back ontopic of the original thread, damn I cant wait for BF4 that demo looked sweet and I cant wait to see the new MP content they must be hard at work on
And you bring up exactly part of my point. When the DLC is developed together, the elements/assets are shared. The later DLCs end up with new content. They may reuse some of the previous content, but it still includes content that I did not have before. That is also part of why I think it has value, when developed later.
Edit:cross post. I think I answered Pixel's point too. But I agree, I don't want this thread derailed. I knew better than to bring something like this up here, with people in the industry who clearly see things differently than the consumers. When it comes down to it, I vote with my dollars, and as it's been stated, I'm free not to buy it if I don't want it. That's exactly why I have no intentions on buying premium again. I'll choose the maps based on their merits.
Unless some kind of massive failure occurs, DICE/EA will have my money for BF4. I'm still looking forward to seeing how much of that gameplay will transfer to the multiplayer. I'm hopeful that most of it will. We need the new consoles to become more 'official' so devs can officially announce games for them
Enough said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9yVV6g3q7g#at=25