I dunno, it literally just looks like a mod for BF3 or BF4. Which would have been fine for just a graphics update and some QoL improvements back in the day, but now all this will be is a Skinner box designed to force you to buy as many microtransactions as possible… Which begs the question of why bother playing this when you could just play BF4 which seems pretty similar but won’t be harassing you endlessly to give EA more money?
That’s how I see it too. Having fun with BF2142 and BF3 playing with bots. I have no intention of giving them money for this expensive online-only spinoff.
The way they use the term ‘expansion’ in the article confused me. They are just talking about how the free content updates have been moved to be sooner than originally planned. They aren’t taking about DLC or an entire paid expansion.
It’s probably good the content comes out sooner seeing as how many lose interest at the current drip feed if content. I wish they would fix the games actual problems though. Or even just the hardware issues.
Bought the PS5 version at launch which is something I dont do with many games. Been fairly happy with the game but it does look a lot like Capcom is moving quickly towards enshittification with this much monetization.
The game is no world, but I do like it a lot more that Rise. There’s a lot more to explore, endemic life is more rich and combat feels more weighty.
Might give rise another go on pc later tough. Got bored with it on Switch near the end of high rank base game.
Base World and base Rise both had quite weak endgames as well. Rise was literally unfinished at launch. It only really takes off as a complete experience once the paid expansion comes out (not title updates).
Oddly enough world base game felt fairly long. Took me quite a while to get to the high rank and even longer to get to the final boss.
Honestly lack of automatic traversal and bunch of busywork made it a lot more easier to get distracted and explore. Lack of artian weapons made it more rewarding to farm weapons made from different monsters.
Maybe the game just got too streamlined with Rise and wilds. Focus shifted too much towards making fights more of a spectacle and add in bunch of unnecessary narrative.
Hardly surprising that the sales have been soft since launch considering the shocking user reviews. The game is pretty good, but when it barely runs on most users machines people are going to either keep waiting for it to improve or write it off forever. All the die-hard fans who are even interested in the endgame content already have the game.
Even outside of the performance problems, it’s become clear the pattern is to release the base game which is ok, then eventually release an expansion that makes it feel like a complete experience. A lot of people that started with world or rise are just going to hold off for the expansion
The base price increase would still raise the total with DLC. Not including the DLC is still worth talking about, since there are plenty of ways to enjoy a game without it.
I don’t understand looking at Sims 4 as an example. The game has had progressive additions for a long time; it’s basically a live service game, and now comes free.
It’s rare for anyone to feel they want all the DLC - usually it would just be a few things they want and have fun with.
I actually do want all the DLC in a game like that. The fact it’s prohibitively expensive just means I’ve never actually bought any and stick to the Sims 3, a game where I do have all the expansions.
True, but iirc sims 4 also released in a more cut-down state than sims 3 - in fact it was one of the pioneers of “paradoxification” of games and victim of other bullshit that EA was trying to pull, just like with simcity.
Anyway, my point was that with EA the up-front price they charge is not awfully relevant, because you have lootboxes, p2w, mtx, gambling, dlc of varying dollar value etc. so you might end up paying a crapload, live service or not.
well DLC has always cost money on top of the base game so i’m not sure what your point is.
edit:
you’re ignoring that if you buy all DLCs you get much more content compared to old $60 games. If you want to look at this fairly you need to come up with some way of quantifying the content involved which is not easy to do.
I do agree that some DLCs are clearly designed as money grabs (like most premium/gold launch editions). But i disagree with lumping all DLC into that category, especially bigger expansions that release a year or more later.
The ones by big publishers? No, they’re feature complete at best for the sake of the game loop but sell the rest in overpriced DLCs. The base game is the hook, that’s why Epic keeps giving some away for free or are sold at a heavy discount on Steam. You only need to scroll down to notice.
agree to disagree i guess. i don’t find base games to be any less feature complete than they ever were. they fact that DLCs are sold on top of the base game does not change that.
For me, the $70 price tag threw me off, but I’m not a diehard MH fan.
I just checked the steam store and there’s already over $300 of cosmetic microtransactions? And the OST is… $75??? I get that it’s a “7 disc album” but damn does that feel expensive.
I hate using this analogy because it showcases how much of a glutton I am but: a full release game should feel like a full meal. It can leave you wanting more but it should satisfy first. DLC is meant to be dessert. Something nice and extra after the fact. Wilds felt like an appetizer. Like it was prepping you for something more.
ign.com
Aktywne