Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

[Rambo]

Ok i better not say too loud incase EA is listening :laugh:

But would you pay more than RRP or retail price for a better or a more epic BF that you want?.

Its hard to say right now because we have no idea what this will be like but if they made my ideal BF,ships planes,BIG,heaps of maps! i would pay 50% more $$.

While 42 and bf2(oh and heck BFv) was fantastic money per value its hard to know how BF3 will be.

Since they make cheaper games now, why dont they make more expensive in depth game for adults?why are they all $99why dont we see games for $150aud?

I am not saying i want to pay more but if the game is bigger its a fair deal no?

[sithdemon]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

It makes no sense to make a game cost $150, what your actually suggesting is would you pay for a monthly subscription, for bigger servers and what not.

For me and most likely anyone that played planet side when it was in it's prime that answer is yes. Some people don't like the smaller maps and 32 players of BC2, and 40-64 for a normal non subscription game would be fine. But short of MAG, and I think some of the delta force games, 100+ player servers are easier to do on more serious servers that would cost a monthly fee for the player. And while usually that would be something like $15US a month, I can't see why for BF3 it can't be just $5-10. If it means I get destruction, 200-2000 players in a server, with maps that let jets the space they realistically need, and the dense forests infantry need to hide from them, I'll pay in a second.

[Vreki]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

I agree. Higher price no, PlanetSide-like subscription yes.
But I would also expect a PlanetSide-like experience if I had to pay a subscription, not just at standard BF game.

[*FMJ*Power]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

I can't see why for BF3 it can't be just $5-10. If it means I get destruction, 200-2000 players in a server, with maps that let jets the space they realistically need, and the dense forests infantry need to hide from them, I'll pay in a second.

It's all about bandwidth and server processing power and then of-course user hardware.....games like joint ops utilized some tricks to do what they did for such large player counts and it never really worked well and would not work with today's engines. I can see a majority of servers for BFBC2 that struggle with just 32 players with heavy metal displaying harsh rubber banding at times, relate-able i suppose to the titan issues of 2142.

I sure hope they do but with destruction and I just don't know if they will beable to deliver a 64 player count, 48 seems more doable but I also feel larger map sizes would put a pretty good strain on this engine where servers are considered, server providers aren't like enthusiast users, they don't upgrade their equipment in that fashion. I just think there are some pretty hard-line limitations of the technology for them to deliver what we all really want regardless of what subscription price we would pay.

All that is being said without taking into account it's multiplatform, I know DICE said the PC edition was getting special attention, they said that same thing about BFBC2 was as well.......... I just don't think we are going to see any ground breaking game-play features on the PC that can not be reproduced on the consoles so that 6 year old hardware in the consoles becomes a major hardware handicap for development. I mean we didn't get larger maps for BFBC2, we have 24 player maps with 32 people crammed onto them, just imagine a 24 player map with 48 people crammed on it, then imagine it with 64 :shock:

[CptainCrunch]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

No. Other fish in the sea.

Crunch

[Spik3d]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

Yes, but I won't get the BF that I want.

[stilla-killa]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

Yea if the collectors edition came with an air soft rifle.

[VACkillers]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

Yes, simple as that

[jake_]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

DICE and EA couldn't make money off a game tailored for your interests, if they wanted to do so; you're such a small majority, you're almost irrelevant.

[Rambo]

Re: Would you pay extra for the battlefield you want?

Yeah i know and i dont really care what the dice noobs think , I was just curious to what us fans think:)( was kinda hoping another dev would look at this and think hmm lol)