@cavethug: Im enjoying the game, but EA paid for ten years of the Starwars license, typically there is a clause requiring them to make a certain number of games of the license expires. No way does the success of this game make another starwars game more or less likely. It only makes another battlefront more or less likely.
...guess Im in the minority, Im a huge star wars fan and ive been enjoying the hell out Battlefront. Spaceship combat is a bit wonky. But i thought i would only enjoy one or two of the modes, but i like Walker Assault (all i played for the first few days), i like hero battle, i like pretty cargo. If you are a serious shooter player, i could see it being a bit to basic and not full featured enough. But im only middling at most competitive shooters...and im enjoying this. I guess it helps that i never had high expectations. I wanted a gorgeous starwars shooter, and thats what i got. I dont have fond memories of previous battlefront games because i didnt have them. I havent had any lag or games crashing and no problems at launch. I could see if you wanted single player or didnt feel the 60 was justified, but i played the demo and knew what i was buying. The rest of it is just pissed of interwebs, what a surprise.
@jack00: ....that figure is wrong. Second, developers also work 80 hour weeks particularly at crunch time, and frequently get laid off after a game goes gold. If game development was so lucrative we would see more development studios for AAA games...instead of less. Sorry you think 60 bucks is all games are worth, spoiled child. When I got Final Fantasy III (VI) for Snes in 1994, it cost 75 bucks...adjusted for inflation that would be 100 now. But no, you re 60 and taxes is too much to pay. Games are cheaper now than they were back then, despite development costs being much higher. They dont give a shit about making quality games? How dare you. You think developers go to work thinking "how can i get money from gamers and **** making a good game?" Only children think that way, professionals take pride in what they do. We cant all be spoiled aholes throwing shade on the internet like you.
@elheber: microtransactions are more like having a burger and making someone pay for regular toppings (ketchup, mustard, pickles) but then also offering small fees for things like specially colored wrapping paper, or a black burger bun that tasted identical to the regular bun.
@freeryu: Yeah, i mean there are unlockables, and there are treasures to find. Higher difficulties. I like the Multiplayer, i play their hoard mode with a few friends. Playing the multiplayer in turn ends up making you much better at the regular game, then i go back and beat it on a harder difficulty. But if you dont like the gameplay then i dont see why replaying it would have any benefit....the set pieces in UC2 and UC3 are fairly great (the hotel and train in the first game, the convoy attack in 3).
@beuneus12: ....none of the microtransactions in UC multiplayer mattered, they were all cosmetic. I generally only buy map packs if im enjoying multiplayer, and story content. People get bent out of shape about dlc...its fairly simple, just dont buy it if you dont think its worth it. I have yet to see any micro transaction that fundamentally changed the single player game play. Ive never played a game and thought o, they broke this on purpose just to sell dlc. All the whiners out there. Just dont buy it, no reason to bitch about it. Games are cheaper now than they were 20 years ago when adjusted for inflation, yet development costs have gone up. Thanks to used game sales developers cant expect to have a long tail on most games, only Nintnedo first party, madden for about 6 months, and Fifa retain value, almost everything drops to 20-30 bucks after a year, if not two. People are just being cheap. If you dont think its worth it, dont buy it, but im sick of entitled gamers bitching about it. People think its worth it or else they wouldnt be making enough money on it to warrant spending the development time.
Bigbudd0045's comments