Media Star Wars BattleFront

[Python]

Of course they will be separate games, why offer up a fair amount of content when you can split and sell them individually and still have people flock to buy it. I fear we're in this loop for the foreseeable future, the only time it will change is when more people start to get sick of being ripped off and vote with their wallets. The problem there is that I bet a large amount of the millions of sales for this game were via parents for their nagging kids who don't care about such things as it isn't there money. All of that said, I can't see the sequel to this selling nearly as well if they don't change their ways, it isn't even that fun to play, I got bored during the beta and I'm a huge star wars fan, and an FPS player, I should have loved it completely. But I don't because it offers so little in terms of value, or probably more importantly to me, game play. I'm back with Battlefield 4 and happy...

 

[simsim90]

A game based on the prequels would be worth it. The amount of planets, weapons, customisation, seperatist droids, ships and vehicles let alone the amount of Jedi and Sith, Jango and Grevious to play as.

Insane.

 

[a2themonster]

there is no way they will release a game based on JUST the original trilogy...no way...theyd have to be nuts to do that

 

[PermaG]

If they were the caring sorts, they would release stuff like that as free DLC.

But I know better. Hopefully those that do not will learn from this.

 

[Python]

A game based on the prequels would be worth it. The amount of planets, weapons, customisation, seperatist droids, ships and vehicles let alone the amount of Jedi and Sith, Jango and Grevious to play as.

Insane.

If that had been in this game as it were in it's predecessor, it may have been a bit easier to swallow at the $160 (UK price) price despite the shallow gameplay. I know the prequels aren't loved, but the characters and vehicles do make for a fun game going on experience.

 

[darthviper107]

I don't know how they're going to do a game just on Episode VII stuff, unless they wait until IX is out and they do it for the whole trilogy.

 

[simsim90]

I don't know how they're going to do a game just on Episode VII stuff, unless they wait until IX is out and they do it for the whole trilogy.

Only logical way. Prequel game out next summer/christmas when Ep VIII is released then another game of the sequels for Ep IX

 

[RIDDICK]

 

[koon]

Separate games for each era is dumb. It's the same engine, and should have been a shell that supported DLC from all the movies and provide choice for players in game rather than a need to swich disks to load up each time you feel like playing a different era. Having the same and larger player base rather than splitting it into three groups is pretty important. People more likely to keep a good game with lots of content updated rather than get a new game, and then most importantly the player base won't decay like they would with sequels. Most important thing about online only, is maintaining that player base.

I reckon Titanfall messed up by splitting up Xbox one and the 360 players. Shadowrun, an amazing shooter had no player base and couldn't pick up momentum even though the game was so good.

Not keen to get a new Battlefront at all. So how are the matches online right now? Many players on each server?

 

[Python]

It's okay guys ,EA have finally explained the lack of content...

This had to be released in time to match the release of the movie on order to capitalise on it's hype. I guess lowering the price to make up for the embarrassing amount the game did include wasn't an option...

 

[darthviper107]

It's also probably due to the metrics on how much people play single player games--the number of people that actually play the single player on games like COD and Battlefield is ridiculously low. Even on games that are only single player the percentage that finishes is super low. Gamers make a demand on how much content they want there to be in a game but don't actually play it once they get it. I don't blame them for not making something that most people won't bother with.

 

[PermaG]

fook EA

 

[Python]

It's also probably due to the metrics on how much people play single player games--the number of people that actually play the single player on games like COD and Battlefield is ridiculously low. Even on games that are only single player the percentage that finishes is super low. Gamers make a demand on how much content they want there to be in a game but don't actually play it once they get it. I don't blame them for not making something that most people won't bother with.

So we keep being told, I'm not sure I buy this, just look at Doom, rubbish multiplayer, it's selling on the campaign. The only reason people don't play the Battlefield campaigns is because they are really bad, we haven't had a good once since Bad company 2 which was a brilliant campaign.

 

[simsim90]

It's also probably due to the metrics on how much people play single player games--the number of people that actually play the single player on games like COD and Battlefield is ridiculously low. Even on games that are only single player the percentage that finishes is super low. Gamers make a demand on how much content they want there to be in a game but don't actually play it once they get it. I don't blame them for not making something that most people won't bother with.

Bad single player games with great multiplayer obviously sell on one point not the other.

 

[darthviper107]

So we keep being told, I'm not sure I buy this, just look at Doom, rubbish multiplayer, it's selling on the campaign. The only reason people don't play the Battlefield campaigns is because they are really bad, we haven't had a good once since Bad company 2 which was a brilliant campaign.

Black ops 3 achievements: https://steamcommunity.com/stats/311210/achievements

The achievement for completing the campaign on any difficulty is called Another Side of the Story which has only been completed by 8.6%

Bioshock Infinite (singleplayer only):https://steamcommunity.com/stats/BioShockInfinite/achievements/

The achievement for completing on Normal difficulty or above is called Saw the Elephant which has only been completed by 37%

 

[Cixx]

SP> MP

 

[RavenEye]

So we keep being told, I'm not sure I buy this, just look at Doom, rubbish multiplayer, it's selling on the campaign. The only reason people don't play the Battlefield campaigns is because they are really bad, we haven't had a good once since Bad company 2 which was a brilliant campaign.

I'll take a BF campaign over a COD any day js. And with BF1 coming out I can't for some WW1 story.

 

[Frank Jaeger]

Yeah I have enjoyed all the BF SP

 

[Python]

Black ops 3 achievements: https://steamcommunity.com/stats/311210/achievements

The achievement for completing the campaign on any difficulty is called Another Side of the Story which has only been completed by 8.6%

Bioshock Infinite (singleplayer only):https://steamcommunity.com/stats/BioShockInfinite/achievements/

The achievement for completing on Normal difficulty or above is called Saw the Elephant which has only been completed by 37%

Well there will of course be exceptions. Black ops 3 isn't a very good campaign from what I hear also, this is probably why people don't complete it. I didn't play the third bioshock, not yet anyway but that's a surprising one if it is anything like the first two.

 

[darthviper107]

I didn't choose those games because of abnormally low completion rates, all games have low completion rates. Here's an article from a few years ago, they mention that Red Dead Redemption has a completion of like 10%:
https://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gadgets/08/17/finishing.videogames.snow/