Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

JEMC said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Well it's the principle for me. Not even Activision went multiplayer only for Call of Duty Modern Warfare/Cold War. It's not that the next BF is multiplayer only that bothers me though, it's the fact that it's full priced and even more expensive on current gen. And on top, they have paid seasons similar to Call of Duty's battlepass. It feels like they are nickeling and diming like no tomorrow. Sure Battlefield's single player wasn't all that popular but they weren't bad campaigns either.

We will see if they even increased the map count and etc as a result but I don't have much confidence in EA.

Activision tried to kill the single-player part of CoD, hinting that they weren't going to include it in I don't remember which game, and the fan response was so negative that they had to backtrack and do one.

The pricing sucks, I've already said that, but many publishers already said, before the consoles launched, that they would increase the price of their games, with  Sony being one of the first ones to say so. That EA jumps on board with it is a no brainer. What actually surprises me is that they aren't doing the same with the PC version... but that could mean that it has more in common with the PS4/X1 versions (except for the player count) than with the new gen ones.

We will see but I think this is more similar to Overwatch situation where consoles had to pay full price while PC had the option of paying the $40 version for effectively the same game. I highly doubt the PC version won't be the same as the PS5/XSX with more graphical upgrades though as it wouldn't make much sense. PC version could be $10 less because on Origin, EA doesn't have to pay additional %. On Epic Games, EA has to pay 12% and on Steam, as it sells more, EA gets to pay less of a % vs afaik, consoles are 30% no matter what.