It's not like I'm saying it should be the norm, I'm just offering potential explanations as to why it's not a terrible idea. People are only pissed because they don't want to have to spend more money on it, and are the kind of people who generally dislike the idea of DLC in general.binvjoh said:No, Battlefield is not, nor has it ever been, a war-sim. Even if it was, saying that paying more money should grant you higher success rate in-game because that's realistic is one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time.RYjet911 said:But the game is a simulation of war...binvjoh said:Yes, because this is real war and not a game.RYjet911 said:I don't get why balance is an issue... The army who spends more money on better weapons has an advantage, simple as.
I think most of the arguements here are based less around the guns/tools themselves rather than the principle that rewarding people who purchase a game at a specific time from a specific distributor in a multiplayer environment generally sounds like a bad idea.fundayz said:I have a feeling those guns are going to be pretty bad, at least if they don't want huge backlash at release.
And the argument "But a new player can pay for an advantage!" is pointless considering that you are also pit against people who have unlocked better weapons/tools already.
Internet.Kleatus said:Gamers hate pre-orders because it requires them to leave their house and pre-order the game. Discuss.
Yes. [http://t.co/aJTRgtr]Vykrel said:Is the limited edition the same price as the standard edition, like ive come to expect?
As I pointed out in my previous post, I find said explanation to be terrible as well.RYjet911 said:It's not like I'm saying it should be the norm, I'm just offering potential explanations as to why it's not a terrible idea. People are only pissed because they don't want to have to spend more money on it, and are the kind of people who generally dislike the idea of DLC in general.
Arbitrary outrage is arbitrary.binvjoh said:I think most of the arguements here are based less around the guns/tools themselves rather than the principle that rewarding people who purchase a game at a specific time from a specific distributor in a multiplayer environment generally sounds like a bad idea.
I'm just surprised a developer with Dice's experience even did this to begin with. They should have known that this would at least to some degree upset people, regardless of whether or not their reasons are valid. And if these guns are such a harmless addition to a players arsenal as everyone says they will be, then why not just put them in for everyone and avoid this entire discussion/outrage.fundayz said:Arbitrary outrage is arbitrary.binvjoh said:I think most of the arguements here are based less around the guns/tools themselves rather than the principle that rewarding people who purchase a game at a specific time from a specific distributor in a multiplayer environment generally sounds like a bad idea.
I understand why people are against this, but I doubt that a developer with DICE's experience would give such blatant rewards if they significantly affected balance.
I have a feeling that the pre-order guns are going to be roughly equivalent to the starting weapons, which would make them more of a vanity item rather than a gameplay advantage.
Oh don't get me wrong, I'm surprised that they would do this as well even if there are no balance issues.binvjoh said:I'm just surprised a developer with Dice's experience even did this to begin with. They should have known that this would at least to some degree upset people, regardless of whether or not their reasons are valid. And if these guns are such a harmless addition to a players arsenal as everyone says they will be, then why not just put them in for everyone and avoid this entire discussion/outrage.