BF2S Forums [Battlefield 1943] Official Website with Trailer

mm, Farthead your post makes me want a glass of fine ice wine.

FatherTed wrote:

Miggle wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

I'm sorry i'm not such an elitist.

We could all sit around and go 'oh no, gaming is going downhill wah wah wah' but what does that achieve? Personally i, and THE MAJORITY of the gaming (check casual not obsessed tools) crowd appears to be pretty happy with games out today.

Sales figures for Halo?
Sales figures for CoD?
Sales figures for GTA?
Sales figures for PeS?

Seems to me quite a lot of people are happy with gaming today.

People like you, and well you are idiots for caring too much.

I'm sorry I'm not retarded.

We could all sit around buying every shit game that comes out and go "HOLY SHIT THIS SHIT IS SO GOOD OH MY GOD" But what does that achieve? Personally I, and the MAJORITY of the smart (check educated and not drunk) crowd appears to want to do something about it.

Quality for Halo?
Quality for CoD?
Quality for GTA?

Actually those three are pretty good examples of serieses that have gotten consistently worse (and more expensive) from day one.

People like you are idiots.

lol don't spew out comments about education and alcohol, it doesn't suit you.

So Halo 2 wasn't better than Halo 1?
And CoD2 wasn't better than CoD1?
And GTA VC/SA/4 wasn't better than GTA1 & 2?

And more expensive? Get a bit of fucking perspective, everything has got more expensive, not just your precious little games.

End of the day, that's what they are; GAMES. Not a Picasso, not a fine Wine, not piece of Architecture, they. are. just. fucking. games.

And your majority? Yeah, you're just a pathetic whining minority.

CoD2 was most certainly not better than  CoD1. They removed selective fire, changed the health to a regain over time system, rather than medkits, added a breath holding function for sniping. CoD2 was still a hell of a lot better than CoD4 though.

Halo 2, maybe, I guess adding the multiplayer aspect was a good idea, but they hardly added much from 2 to 3.

And sure, the GTAs Moving from top down to 3D may have been a good move, but since then the games have been getting thinner. Compare GTA4 to SA and SA is better on pretty much everything but graphics.

And sure, maybe it would be fine if they increased the prices, if the games were improving enough for them to be worth it. And there's a huge community of people who will tell you games are art, a quick google search gets me this site. I wouldn't go that far, but they shouldn't be getting worse, technology is improving, yet games are only getting better graphics.

Maybe my type does whine, and this system definitely isn't changing any time soon, but going along with it is only hurting gaming.

HellHead wrote:

"24 player onine"

What ? That makes 12 per team, minus 2 in the planes makes 10 for ground battle ?
Wake island will be awesome... not ! 

Bullcrap !

Its for the playstation and xbox too, hence the 24 player. PC will most likely have 64 player or maybe even more.

Stingray24 wrote:

Apparently some people have a reflex reaction to new games by EA and they mumble incessantly "EA sux, i want moar modern stuff, ww2 overdone" blah blah blah

Bring on WW2 ...

WW2 is overdone. It is boring besides modern weapon > shitty WW2 weapons.


Not that it matters, since its only for download and I want a hard copy of my games if I buy them, not some BS download. If I want to download I'll go to piratebay.

Last edited by RDMC (2009-02-06 13:47:14)

I'm not going to get involved, I'm just going to say this - games becoming more expensive doesn't have to do with the games. It has to do with a capitalist (and somewhat socialist) economy rolls forward. Just like Pizza isn't 5c a slice like it was in the 70's and Milk is now $3.50 a gallon.

Poseidon wrote:

I'm not going to get involved, I'm just going to say this - games becoming more expensive doesn't have to do with the games. It has to do with a capitalist (and somewhat socialist) economy rolls forward. Just like Pizza isn't 5c a slice like it was in the 70's and Milk is now $3.50 a gallon.

they sell games for $60 because they can. People are willing to pay that much for shit.

I was never saying anything other than that, I was just saying that as the quality has decreased the price has increased, especially on consoles.

The best games tend to be $20 or less.

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

I'm not going to get involved, I'm just going to say this - games becoming more expensive doesn't have to do with the games. It has to do with a capitalist (and somewhat socialist) economy rolls forward. Just like Pizza isn't 5c a slice like it was in the 70's and Milk is now $3.50 a gallon.

they sell games for $60 because they can. People are willing to pay that much for shit.

I was never saying anything other than that, I was just saying that as the quality has decreased the price has increased, especially on consoles.

The best games tend to be $20 or less.

No, they sell games for $60 because they are a business in a certain type of economy that's moving forward. They are here for one reason only: To make money. I agree with you both on different things, but I'm just saying, them selling them at $60 is not really their choice...they do it so they can make money. They wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Well, they're all taking losses right now, but I mean as a whole and in general.

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

they sell games for $60 because they can. People are willing to pay that much for shit.

I was never saying anything other than that, I was just saying that as the quality has decreased the price has increased, especially on consoles.

The best games tend to be $20 or less.

No, they sell games for $60 because they are a business in a certain type of economy that's moving forward. They are here for one reason only: To make money. I agree with you both on different things, but I'm just saying, them selling them at $60 is not really their choice...they do it so they can make money. They wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Well, they're all taking losses right now, but I mean as a whole and in general.

Come on, they would sell sell games for $3,000 is people would buy them. They don't sell them for $60 because they have to, they do it because it makes them more money.

Again...why wouldn't they? They're in business to make money first and foremost. Everything else always comes second. But $60 is not even that much now. You see hundreds of thousands of people shelling out to get $190 GHWT.

If they were really interested in ripping the consumer off, it WOULD be over $60...but it's not. And with the economy in the slump it is, I wouldn't be surprised if games began to go back to $60 like in the PS2 era, as has been rumored for a while.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

No, they sell games for $60 because they are a business in a certain type of economy that's moving forward. They are here for one reason only: To make money. I agree with you both on different things, but I'm just saying, them selling them at $60 is not really their choice...they do it so they can make money. They wouldn't exist if they didn't make money. Well, they're all taking losses right now, but I mean as a whole and in general.

Come on, they would sell sell games for $3,000 is people would buy them. They don't sell them for $60 because they have to, they do it because it makes them more money.

Again...why wouldn't they? They're in business to make money first and foremost. Everything else always comes second. But $60 is not even that much now. You see hundreds of thousands of people shelling out to get $190 GHWT.

If they were really interested in ripping the consumer off, it WOULD be over $60...but it's not. And with the economy in the slump it is, I wouldn't be surprised if games began to go back to $60 like in the PS2 era, as has been rumored for a while.

I just got back from gamestop, they had about 30 GHWT boxes sitting there, apparently they haven't been selling very well. But people wouldn't pay much more than $60, if the price was over $60 they would end up making less money because people would stop buying.

This is just basic economics, I don't even understand what you're trying to argue about.

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Come on, they would sell sell games for $3,000 is people would buy them. They don't sell them for $60 because they have to, they do it because it makes them more money.

Again...why wouldn't they? They're in business to make money first and foremost. Everything else always comes second. But $60 is not even that much now. You see hundreds of thousands of people shelling out to get $190 GHWT.

If they were really interested in ripping the consumer off, it WOULD be over $60...but it's not. And with the economy in the slump it is, I wouldn't be surprised if games began to go back to $60 like in the PS2 era, as has been rumored for a while.

I just got back from gamestop, they had about 30 GHWT boxes sitting there, apparently they haven't been selling very well. But people wouldn't pay much more than $60, if the price was over $60 they would end up making less money because people would stop buying.

This is just basic economics, I don't even understand what you're trying to argue about.

One gamestop = the entire world? lol.

They've sold over five and a half million copies of GHWT. And not only GHWT, what about GHII, GHIII, Rock Band, Rock Band 2...all these +$60 people pay a whole shitload of money for. $60 is not that much for a game.

If you understood basic economics you'd know that for all the effort that goes into making a game (insult them as you wish, but they still take time and effort), $60 is nothing as to what they SHOULD be selling them for in order to make a real profit.

3 maps... Unfortunate.

Poseidon wrote:

Miggle wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

One gamestop = the entire world? lol.

They've sold over five and a half million copies of GHWT. And not only GHWT, what about GHII, GHIII, Rock Band, Rock Band 2...all these +$60 people pay a whole shitload of money for. $60 is not that much for a game.

If you understood basic economics you'd know that for all the effort that goes into making a game (insult them as you wish, but they still take time and effort), $60 is nothing as to what they SHOULD be selling them for in order to make a real profit.

I spent $60 on my rock band...

But you're paying for the peripherals with Music Games, same thing with wii fit and shit.

And the basic economics part is that companies sell their product for what people will pay for the product. I don't care how much they "should" be paid for their work, they get as much as they can.

Movies take a lot of time and effort as well, yet DVDs are only $20 or so, they couldn't sell them for $60, nobody would pay.

So you think people would just stop buying games if they were $80? Lol. Not at all.

Movies also get revenue from...y'know, people going to see them in theatres. Games just get profit from people buying the disc, not to mention they have way more longevity than a movie.

You spend $40 on a Blu-Ray which lasts you about 2 hours typically, yet you spend $60 on a game which can last you anywhere from 5 to 50 hours, if not more.

So yes, again...$60 is cheap.

I never said everyone would stop buying if they increased to $80, I just said they would make more money if they charged $60.

And no, I don't spend $40 on blu rays, I think that's a really expensive for a movie, I tend to only buy movies if they're under $10. And if most games weren't complete wastes of money, maybe $60 would be more acceptable to me.

OmniDeath wrote:

War Man wrote:

OmniDeath wrote:

Why are they pushing this when they still haven't even released Heroes? And if this isn't "BF3" why do they keep putting time into random "half" games instead of a full one?

Don't get me wrong, it looks sweet, but if they're going to remake/update an older game I'd rather it be BF2.

BF:BC 2 is the bf3 we've been waiting for.

Is it for the PC? If not then I'd have to disagree.

Of course it is for pc as well as the consoles, it says so on the site.

Poseidon wrote:

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/45234.html

Some gameplay.

For $15-20, it actually looks pretty damn fun.

It's not really a true Battlefield game, but it's not supposed to be.

Looks decent but I wish they would increase the multiplayer from 24 to 64.