So, folks didn't like the idea of it all together. When 1942 first launched it was $50 and multiplayer only, which was HUGE back thing because internet still wasn't readily available for everyone. Enough to have various expansion packs, etc. Vietnam as well, and they all sold really, really well. Let me guess, you never looked any of this up and ran on the whole "EA bad" idea instead of actually looking it up or asking those who play this series?
#Do pepople still play battlefield 1942 free#
I expect it to be like what they've done in the past in regards to factually giving out free maps. I don't think 1 got zero free maps, so.yes.
#Do pepople still play battlefield 1942 series#
"Do you think EA are going to give out free maps" Well yes, they did for BFV, Battlefront 2, BF4, almost every BF title btw got a series of free maps. You didn't need to fucking buy those packs for 1942 or BF2 etc, you don't need to buy any of the cosmetic shit in BF2024.Īgain.the maps are FREE for BF 2042, so I'll take getting free maps any day, I don't buy any of that cosmetic shit, thus don't care. On disk or digital is irrelevant, those where as much "one and done purchases" as this one is. Those old Battlefields also had PAID expansion packs bud, calling it DLC based on the distribution doesn't fucking change that it was content proved for a price after the fact. I don't even know how much that SP mode really set them back tbh. The fact that the game was delayed so they can work on it more, the fact that its cross gen on like 6 platforms shows they are not skimping out on this one. I felt this way when folks kept crying about the whole Resistance Fall Of man thing, so shit.5 titles isn't enough? I feel with shit like this, a extremely fair amount of time was given to judge if such a thing should continue. How much fucking fails do we really need and money wasted for a mode not played solely for someone to bitch about it being bad, and then bitch about it being gone lol. They spent close to 13 years trying, it was never really liked. When teams worked hard to try to do something to add value to it, it simply wasn't received well almost every time. They tried, even with Activision got rid of the mode for a Call Of Duty, we still got a BF with that mode, I don't think people have much of a place to really bitch about this now, when the publisher put in that effort for those who even fucking wanted that mode and for years now, it has been the least played thing in a BF title. So respect to EA for even continuing that for so many years, even with Acitivsion was out here getting rid of their single player even though those titles overwhelming have better single player modes. So if the other half is working on Battlefront 3's single player mode or another Mirror's Edge I personally have nothing against that, simply that it had no real place in Battlefield and I don't see a reason for the community to keep asking for something that has genreally always been poorly received and an afterthought. I like the Mirrors Edge series and I actually like Battlefront 2's single player, they should just have that part of DICE 100% focus on SINGLE PLAYER TITLES if they fucking want them to get better, instead of this half in, half out crap.
Keep in mind, I personally thing Homefront sucks, but shit THATS not what we are getting from a BF campaign or something lol. It was maybe less the average to cause even to say average is to say this shit would stand up as a regular single player release like that Homefront game. The single player games by them are just horrid, I've never bought a BF for it and I think I only completed 1 of them (BF1) and it was just.average. That doesn't sound like something DICE wants, that sounds like something EA wants, they own the IP and team.Īgreed.
0 kommentar(er)
