Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
except maybe the "custom company"? not sure what I make from this.

Yeah, that's a bit vague. I'm guessing that it's the term for how they handle the customization templates that you use when you play. But I'm not sure.

Eumerin wrote:

 PsychoticStorm wrote:
except maybe the "custom company"? not sure what I make from this.

Yeah, that's a bit vague. I'm guessing that it's the term for how they handle the customization templates that you use when you play. But I'm not sure.

From the way it sounds:

Each faction will let you build a company for it It will number however many customized versions of a kit/vehicle/whatever you have.
So you can have a British Company with all of your various customized Scouts, Assaults, Medics, and Supports all gaining XP at the same time while you're using a kit that you're not actively playing as the British.
You can do the same for the Germans and other future factions(which we know are going to be added via Tides of War).

This is just my idle speculation at the moment.

Well it sounds good as a concept, hopefully the execution will be too.

DICE have confirmed that the first two factions for the game will be the British and Germans, and that more will be added as Tides of War progresses. While it is more realistic ( a term DICE have admittedly not used) to limit the forces it seems like a lazy way to limit content, and released an unfinished game to market with the vague promise that more content will be added later.

I can't say that I'm excited to hear that, but I'm still going to be cautiously optimistic until I see gameplay footage and get a better sense for the game.

So I guess those crashlandings we saw in the trailer might actually be possible

Really looking forward to this, and really not understanding the controversy around this game either. It's 2018, OF COURSE a big budget shooter like this is going to have millions of shiny buttons and needless bells and whistles to make your avatar as customisable as possible. Anyone who expected otherwise was pretty heavily deluding themselves.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
DICE have confirmed that the first two factions for the game will be the British and Germans, and that more will be added as Tides of War progresses. While it is more realistic ( a term DICE have admittedly not used) to limit the forces it seems like a lazy way to limit content, and released an unfinished game to market with the vague promise that more content will be added later.

I can't say that I'm excited to hear that, but I'm still going to be cautiously optimistic until I see gameplay footage and get a better sense for the game.

I think it's important to remember that the reason they're announced this stuff now is because it's to make damn sure people comprehend the idea isn't to hold stuff back for money, but rather to ensure that the game stays alive.

EA and DICE/BioWare found that when paid DLCs dropped, player usage spiked. After a few weeks, it dropped rapidly. Enter BioWare and Mass Effect 3/Andromeda MP, where they did free small content drops every few months rather than paid DLCs. They found that the MP activity stayed relatively static and at a healthy pace.

I'd, personally, rather they do these things this way and keep the game alive than have a booming game every few months because people wanted their achievements/perks and then shelved the game again.

Like I said, I'm going to be cautiously optimistic until I see some gameplay footage. I played a lot of BF4 but skipped BF1 so I am on the fence about this game.

DICE may not be holding content back for the sake of money (I'm sure that's what the options for customization are for now that micro transactions got so much negative publicity), but it makes me wonder why I would pay for a game at launch when I could wait a few months and have a more content rich experience.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Like I said, I'm going to be cautiously optimistic until I see some gameplay footage. I played a lot of BF4 but skipped BF1 so I am on the fence about this game..

Yeah, same. In my cause I played the BF1 beta and it just felt a lot like BF4 gameplay to me, and I was still playing that. It's been a while though so I think I am ready for whatever this is, pending initial reviews after release.

That's also something I learned from BF4. I'd like to skip that 2 months of the game where it's broken, ideally

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, same. In my cause I played the BF1 beta and it just felt a lot like BF4 gameplay to me, and I was still playing that. It's been a while though so I think I am ready for whatever this is, pending initial reviews after release.

That's also something I learned from BF4. I'd like to skip that 2 months of the game where it's broken, ideally

But it was a totally different game because there was no 3D spotting

Good point too, DICE never has properly working servers on launch. So between that and buying a content limited game at launch this is looking less and less like a day 1 purchase for me unless the gameplay footage is actually outstanding.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
DICE may not be holding content back for the sake of money (I'm sure that's what the options for customization are for now that micro transactions got so much negative publicity), but it makes me wonder why I would pay for a game at launch when I could wait a few months and have a more content rich experience.

Don't be mistaken. They *are* holding back for money. But it's in a more indirect fashion. In this case they're not making money through charging for DLC. Instead, they're using the stream of DLC to ensure that people keep logging in to play the game. And enough of those people will pay for microtransactions to justify the expense of assembling the DLC content and releasing it for free.

Actually, "holding back" probably isn't the right phrase, since I also suspect that at most one bit of follow-on content might actually be in a state where release could be theoretically possible.

As to why you might want to play at launch (or when servers are stable)? The basic gameplay elements are going to be the same regardless of whether or not the Soviets are available. It's highly unlikely that any of the Tides of War releases will add a radically different playstyle change to the game.

Eumerin wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
DICE may not be holding content back for the sake of money (I'm sure that's what the options for customization are for now that micro transactions got so much negative publicity), but it makes me wonder why I would pay for a game at launch when I could wait a few months and have a more content rich experience.

Don't be mistaken. They *are* holding back for money. But it's in a more indirect fashion. In this case they're not making money through charging for DLC. Instead, they're using the stream of DLC to ensure that people keep logging in to play the game. And enough of those people will pay for microtransactions to justify the expense of assembling the DLC content and releasing it for free.

Actually, "holding back" probably isn't the right phrase, since I also suspect that at most one bit of follow-on content might actually be in a state where release could be theoretically possible.

As to why you might want to play at launch (or when servers are stable)? The basic gameplay elements are going to be the same regardless of whether or not the Soviets are available. It's highly unlikely that any of the Tides of War releases will add a radically different playstyle change to the game.

So how will this work in terms of content delivery schedule and quality? There is no premium, so for each game that would otherwise have been bought as a premium edition DICE are losing $40. For each DLC pack DICE are losing $15 (so $60 for each player that would purchase them separately). Are DICE counting on recouping up to $60 per player from cosmetic items? If so that seems pretty high, and makes me wonder about how they will prioritize paid content (chargeable cosmetic items) against the expansion updates.

Your point about the basic gameplay elements remaining the same does not really help sell this as a day one purchase. If the core gameplay is not going to change between launch and the peak of the expansions why would I pay $60 at launch for two factions and their weapons when I could pay $60 (but likely less given that game value depreciates after launch) and get more factions and weapons, as well as more maps?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So how will this work in terms of content delivery schedule and quality? There is no premium, so for each game that would otherwise have been bought as a premium edition DICE are losing $40. For each DLC pack DICE are losing $15 (so $60 for each player that would purchase them separately). Are DICE counting on recouping up to $60 per player from cosmetic items? If so that seems pretty high, and makes me wonder about how they will prioritize paid content (chargeable cosmetic items) against the expansion updates.

Don't look at the way DICE does things, rather look at the way EA partners do things. Titanfall 2's DLCs, for example, were all free--but only provided a small number of maps, a new gametype, few new weapons, and a few $3-$4 packs of customization stuff(icons, banners, and weapon/pilot/titan camos). After awhile they added premium customizations for the Titans and a special execution for them to perform, basically letting you do the "prototype" versions of them that had been in the art book(this was done from fan demand, by the by) for $8-$10 per. I don't remember the exact numbers.

That stuff added up quickly, especially as Respawn was keeping people in the loop as to how they were doing their stuff and what was on the way. Doing things people want and keeping the game alive goes a long way for fans and their wallets, especially when they also would go out of their way to put out discounted bundles for the Titans and various skins.

Your point about the basic gameplay elements remaining the same does not really help sell this as a day one purchase. If the core gameplay is not going to change between launch and the peak of the expansions why would I pay $60 at launch for two factions and their weapons when I could pay $60 (but likely less given that game value depreciates after launch) and get more factions and weapons, as well as more maps?

If you don't want to play at day one, then don't.

We don't know exactly what to expect from the Tides of War stuff beyond them saying we'll get a few new Exotic Archetypes for each kit(specializations that are unlocked from playing and potentially completing challenges), new weapons, and new vehicles added in permanently. We do know that there's limited run stuff tied to the events as that's their goal to get people motivated to play in them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
That stuff added up quickly, especially as Respawn was keeping people in the loop as to how they were doing their stuff and what was on the way. Doing things people want and keeping the game alive goes a long way for fans and their wallets, especially when they also would go out of their way to put out discounted bundles for the Titans and various skins.

That makes sense for the small community that was involved in Titanfall, but does that translate well for BFV?

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you don't want to play at day one, then don't.

I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am asking what the incentives are for buying on day one if we are getting a very limited game. Right now from the slow drip of information coming from DICE it sounds like holding off until the game has been around for a while, and cheaper, is best for the player. If I bought BF4 on day one then I had all the core content and was just waiting for the DLC. If I buy BFV on day one I get two factions with the rest coming later.

 Kanluwen wrote:
We don't know exactly what to expect from the Tides of War stuff beyond them saying we'll get a few new Exotic Archetypes for each kit(specializations that are unlocked from playing and potentially completing challenges), new weapons, and new vehicles added in permanently. We do know that there's limited run stuff tied to the events as that's their goal to get people motivated to play in them.

The communication from DICE on this game has not provided a lot of details, but has instead given the community a lot of chance to speculate (and argue over realism vs. authenticity vs. immersion). After the confusing trailer I was hoping that DICE would have followed up with more concrete information to share with the community about the game.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
That stuff added up quickly, especially as Respawn was keeping people in the loop as to how they were doing their stuff and what was on the way. Doing things people want and keeping the game alive goes a long way for fans and their wallets, especially when they also would go out of their way to put out discounted bundles for the Titans and various skins.

That makes sense for the small community that was involved in Titanfall, but does that translate well for BFV?

Titanfall's community has been anything but small--at least as time wore on. It's important to recognize that at launch TF2 was going against established shooters. Since then, it's maintained a persistent online presence.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you don't want to play at day one, then don't.

I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am asking what the incentives are for buying on day one if we are getting a very limited game. Right now from the slow drip of information coming from DICE it sounds like holding off until the game has been around for a while, and cheaper, is best for the player. If I bought BF4 on day one then I had all the core content and was just waiting for the DLC. If I buy BFV on day one I get two factions with the rest coming later.

Which is no different than the paid method, aside from your wallet not getting hit as hard.

From the way you're discussing things, it seems like you're expecting the game to be smaller since it's just two factions. There's a lot they can do with "just" the British and Germans. It's important to note that the terms used with regards to the Tides of War is "to think of it as the way the war was fought".

The first Tides of War is supposed to be the Germans and their takeover of Europe and the conflicts they had with the British during the ramp up to WWII proper.

 Kanluwen wrote:
We don't know exactly what to expect from the Tides of War stuff beyond them saying we'll get a few new Exotic Archetypes for each kit(specializations that are unlocked from playing and potentially completing challenges), new weapons, and new vehicles added in permanently. We do know that there's limited run stuff tied to the events as that's their goal to get people motivated to play in them.

The communication from DICE on this game has not provided a lot of details, but has instead given the community a lot of chance to speculate (and argue over realism vs. authenticity vs. immersion). After the confusing trailer I was hoping that DICE would have followed up with more concrete information to share with the community about the game.

To be fair, there's a reason for this. The announcement was done in advance of E3. They made it clear that E3 is going to reveal a hell of a lot more.

I guess the main reason to get the game at launch is that you get to play and thus enjoy it earlier than if you wait...

I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just strikes me that given how the enjoyment of a game like this comes from the core gameplay, rather than the customisation or variety or what have you, you'll get to enjoy that earlier/longer than if you wait. This obviously has other benefits, like getting ahead on progression/learning the early maps ect so that you're in a position to take enjoy the expansions when they come as well. If you like the gunplay and the game structure and the driving and piloting ect, you'll enjoy that on the starting maps as much as the later ones.

I also don't think the game is going to be 'small' at launch. BF1 launched with 9 big maps (I think) and there was plenty of variety there between those, the various game modes and 10 ranks' worth of weapons/equipment for each class. I didn't pick up any of the DLC until a couple of packs were free recently and still got easily a year's worth out of just the core game. More content coming after launch doesn't necessarily mean significantly less is being shipped than previously.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Titanfall's community has been anything but small--at least as time wore on. It's important to recognize that at launch TF2 was going against established shooters. Since then, it's maintained a persistent online presence.

So how big was the community?

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which is no different than the paid method, aside from your wallet not getting hit as hard.

From the way you're discussing things, it seems like you're expecting the game to be smaller since it's just two factions. There's a lot they can do with "just" the British and Germans. It's important to note that the terms used with regards to the Tides of War is "to think of it as the way the war was fought".

The first Tides of War is supposed to be the Germans and their takeover of Europe and the conflicts they had with the British during the ramp up to WWII proper.

It is very different from the paid method. Paid DLC from DICE for BF4 and BF1 did not expire after a certain amount of time, and did not have microtransactions built in for cosmetic items. If I want to play the Last Stand DLC for BF4 I can do that right now years after launch, and use all the items I have unlocked from that and I can work on unlocking any remaining ones. I cannot do that with BFV.

The game is going to be smaller at launch because there is just two factions. They are adding factions later, so the number of factions will be larger after release.

 Kanluwen wrote:
To be fair, there's a reason for this. The announcement was done in advance of E3. They made it clear that E3 is going to reveal a hell of a lot more.

The reason for the confused trailer is because E3 is coming? Based on previous releases from DICE and those release trailers I find that a strange departure from their prior marketing strategy.

 Paradigm wrote:
I guess the main reason to get the game at launch is that you get to play and thus enjoy it earlier than if you wait...

I'm not trying to be facetious here, it just strikes me that given how the enjoyment of a game like this comes from the core gameplay, rather than the customisation or variety or what have you, you'll get to enjoy that earlier/longer than if you wait. This obviously has other benefits, like getting ahead on progression/learning the early maps ect so that you're in a position to take enjoy the expansions when they come as well. If you like the gunplay and the game structure and the driving and piloting ect, you'll enjoy that on the starting maps as much as the later ones.

I also don't think the game is going to be 'small' at launch. BF1 launched with 9 big maps (I think) and there was plenty of variety there between those, the various game modes and 10 ranks' worth of weapons/equipment for each class. I didn't pick up any of the DLC until a couple of packs were free recently and still got easily a year's worth out of just the core game. More content coming after launch doesn't necessarily mean significantly less is being shipped than previously.

I get to enjoy a small part of it that then gets expanded with episodic releases. I do not get a full game. I get the prospect of a full game, with timed content that will expire. For BF4 I got a full game, plus released DLC with no time limit before DICE took it away.

True I will be able to get some progression started, but like most BF games that does not make or break the experience and the weapon attachments lock with casual play.

Again, I am not saying that the game will be small at release. What I am saying is that compared to the later planned content it will be smaller.

I do not get a full game.

And I would argue that you *do* get a full game. Quite literally the only reason that anyone is calling it anything other than a full game is because DICE has revealed that stuff will be added to the game later on - FLC, in the Warhammer: Total War terminology.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Titanfall's community has been anything but small--at least as time wore on. It's important to recognize that at launch TF2 was going against established shooters. Since then, it's maintained a persistent online presence.

So how big was the community?

Don't know numbers offhand, but you can find games within 5-10 seconds on the Xbox right now. A bit longer if you get picky with filter details.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Which is no different than the paid method, aside from your wallet not getting hit as hard.

From the way you're discussing things, it seems like you're expecting the game to be smaller since it's just two factions. There's a lot they can do with "just" the British and Germans. It's important to note that the terms used with regards to the Tides of War is "to think of it as the way the war was fought".

The first Tides of War is supposed to be the Germans and their takeover of Europe and the conflicts they had with the British during the ramp up to WWII proper.

It is very different from the paid method. Paid DLC from DICE for BF4 and BF1 did not expire after a certain amount of time, and did not have microtransactions built in for cosmetic items. If I want to play the Last Stand DLC for BF4 I can do that right now years after launch, and use all the items I have unlocked from that and I can work on unlocking any remaining ones. I cannot do that with BFV.

Why do you think content is going to 'expire'? Because the events have a set timeframe? They've said that once they basically 'run through' WWII, they'll restart the Tides of War stuff again. And we're not talking little week long events--we're talking about them lasting months. The only stuff that they've said will be tied only to the Tides of War events as they go are customization. Once weapons, vehicles and kits get introduced--they're in the game.

The game is going to be smaller at launch because there is just two factions. They are adding factions later, so the number of factions will be larger after release.

Right, they're adding factions later. And those factions are actually slated to be fleshed out--with faction specific uniforms, vehicles(and their accompanying camos) and equipment. They're also going to be doing playlists where factions actually matter with weapons being locked to specific time periods and factions--just as a part of the whole 'historical accuracy' aspect.

Would you rather just have everyone getting the same guns and faction not meaning a damn thing?

 Kanluwen wrote:
To be fair, there's a reason for this. The announcement was done in advance of E3. They made it clear that E3 is going to reveal a hell of a lot more.

The reason for the confused trailer is because E3 is coming? Based on previous releases from DICE and those release trailers I find that a strange departure from their prior marketing strategy.

The reason for the announcement trailer(which is what the whole event that this trailer was for--remember it was a 30 minute panel hosted by Trevor Noah, showcasing tidbits of the game, where this trailer aired 21 minutes into it) was to let people know that "This is what we're doing, here's a snapshot of some of the features in action in the game engine! More details at E3!". They even ended the event with "We'll be showing this off at E3 and our EAPlay booth will let you guys go hands on!".

I get to enjoy a small part of it that then gets expanded with episodic releases. I do not get a full game. I get the prospect of a full game, with timed content that will expire. For BF4 I got a full game, plus released DLC with no time limit before DICE took it away.

You get the prospect of a full game, same as anyone who buys a game with DLC announced beforehand. The difference is that part of this game is that there will be in-game events, which will have limited time cosmetic rewards, that are tied to the release of permanent content as well.

True I will be able to get some progression started, but like most BF games that does not make or break the experience and the weapon attachments lock with casual play.

Again, I am not saying that the game will be small at release. What I am saying is that compared to the later planned content it will be smaller.

You can say this about virtually any game that announces their DLC in advance.

New teaser trailer for one of their new game modes called Airborne

 Paradigm wrote:
If you enjoyment relies on historical accuracy of any sort, Battlefield is not the game for you!

See, this is a thing that's only really true since Battlefield 1.

Nobody's claiming the prior games were full-on rivet-counting "milsim" affairs, they were never "accurate" per se because some concessions had to be made for the sake of gameplay and the limitations of the technology of the day, but they very much were intended to be authentic. They were intended to evoke a sense of immersion in the setting, whether that was WW2, or Vietnam, or vague near-future Red Scare paranoia stuff. People bring up the Secret Weapons expansion, but the key point there is expansion - it was an addition, at the end of the natural lifecycle of the game, to be a bit of fun for those that wanted it, and if you didn't want it you didn't have to buy it and so it was never imposed on you. Riding across the dunes in a tank, or coming in low on a cap point in a Huey blasting out CCR, or acting out your wee "special forces" fantasy in one of the "modern" settings all felt like the real thing even though when you sit down and think about it carefully they obviously weren't.

But that's the key difference, like the difference between a film that you have a great time watching which carries you along with it for the runtime but falls apart a little later under the weight of its own fridge-logic, and a film that has you sitting there in the theatre actively thinking how dumb it is, completely taken out of the experience.

It's also a thing that's a little bit sad IMO, because it's very much a case of both "right-on" politics and the more general "hey's it's just, like, a game brah" sentiment that a lot of people have being weaponised by EA to defend their monetisation strategy. Because make no mistake, that's why this is happening. It's not about "player choice", or "representation", it's about EA knowing they will make more money selling cosmetics if dudebros and hyperactive kids can run around wearing an eyepatch and a metal claw arm and their "favourite" uniform on every map.

Hey, in the end, if you like it, have at it. I just don't see the point in pretending it's a game in a historical setting if you're not even going to try and evoke that setting in anything but the most superficial ways, and if you're going to go for the gonzo "feth history, it's about fun" angle why not do it properly and do Weird War 2 or some other alt-history setup?

New videos!








Also during the conference at E3 they annouched BF:V will have a Battle Royale mode

Grand operations sounds both intriguing and extremely impractical, time will tell.

Not really. Operations are a returning game mode; BF1 has them right now.

I was glad to see some of the gameplay footage from E3. The animations to pick up items are not as intrusive as I thought they might be.

Like BF1 though I am not a fan of the optical sights on the firearms, or the V1 rockets as in game support. **edit** for balance I would like to see the flakk guns have a greater upwards firing arc at the expense of targeting infantry.

Do operations spawn over several days in BF1?

Or I overthink the sentence several days?

I thought that they meant in-game days rather than IRL days. Otherwise that is a pretty significant commitment from the community.

I would word it as multi stage battle not multi day battle, but I think you are right.

As they said it I though ok its a worldwide campaign, games of day one feed to day 2 and so on, but a multi stage map is more logical, has its own flaws if it does not reset, but oh well.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I thought that they meant in-game days rather than IRL days. Otherwise that is a pretty significant commitment from the community.

This is correct. Each Operation is, in their words, multi-stage but the stages effectively take place over 'in-game days'.

Also the Xbox briefing in at 1pm Pacific time will have our first look at War Stories, focusing on the Norwegian resistance fighter's story.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

I've seen a lot of defences of this and they basically fall into two camps:

1) There were women in WW2

...(snip)

With point number 1, they'll usually cite the women who fought in the Soviet Red Army or French Resistance. Which is irrelevant because we aren't shown Russian soldiers fighting in Stalingrad. Nobody would have batted an eyelid if that had been the case, literally if they had given the woman a French accent that would be enough. We were shown a British woman fighting alongside the paratroopers at the Rhine... Or, they cite that "but my grandmother manned an AA gun during a blitz" or "she was a spy" etc etc. That is not the same as being a front line combatant. I don't know, maybe there were entire regiments of women paratroopers at Arnhem? I will concede the point if that can be proven.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and you're assuming that video was Market Garden. (the bridge is wrong to be Arnhem, it's too long and passes over a swampy area)

I can point to a WW2 scenario where British women would have been fighting on the front lines. Operation Seelow. The British government not only drew up plans for women on the front, but also plans for suicide bombers to attack the German beachheads. Not planes, men in explosive vests, Arab style.

The crashed 109 and the tanks also make this 41-43 as well. The MKIII and Gun carrier that crash through the house are late 42 and the Matilda II is pulling an early Oerlikon 40mm towable mount, The 109 is actually a bit older, it's markings date to examples from 41 and 42. The only real fly in the ointment is that doodlebug, since that's a late war thing, but it makes sense if we're covering a German push into England.

That and the para officer with the Japanese Guntō slung over his back. History, wot wot?