220°

Electronic Arts confirms single-player campaign for Star Wars Battlefront 2

Great news for fans of Star Wars demanding an experience of single player for the series of Battlefront, returning last year focused on multiplayer. And now Electronic Arts have confirmed the presence of a campaign for a single player in the upcoming Star Wars Battlefront 2.

Read Full Story >>
gametransfers.com
IndominusRex2722d ago

Hopefully it isnt short like bf1

andrewsquall2722d ago

Its DICE, why WOULDN'T it be?

_-EDMIX-_2721d ago

? Lol I'm not entirely sure how long you think it's going to be or should be, I'm not worried about lengh, I'm simply worried about it being good at all.

morganfell2722d ago (Edited 2722d ago )

Finally? Finally would apply if they had provided it to BF1.

Sciurus_vulgaris2721d ago (Edited 2721d ago )

I can't even get myself play past the tank level of BF1 ( I know you don't have to play the scenarios in order). The ai is terrible, and levels often look like Conquest maps,with enemies and objects placed in them. I don't see how BF1 got praised for it's campaign, feels like a big tutorial with stories attached.

morganfell2721d ago

A few of us tried to warn people about Battlefront and we were shouted down. When it was first announced we said there would be no campaign. We were shouted down and told we were wrong. We said they would cut everything they could to make the release of Star Wars Ep VII. We were told we were wrong. When Dice said there would be no Space Battles we raised our voices and most said shut up that Battlefront wasn't about Space Battles - these youngsters had obviously not played the previous games. I then said watch them make Space Battles as an add on and sell it back to us and I was laughed at. Instead of providing a campaign to Battlefront which they could easily do, they are going to force you to buy another game to get what should have been in the first game and people will do it. They are their own worst enemy. By bending over for EA they insure that is what they will always have to do for EA. They must like it.

Sciurus_vulgaris2721d ago

Battlefront gave me numerous red flags since it was announced, no campaign, no space battles, no droids and clones, obviously short dev cycle. Then you have EA, and DICE admitting there was no campaign so it could launch near the The Force Awakens, and sell of the success of the film. The shallow, boring, imbalanced kiddie shooter combat I experienced during the beta was the final red flag for me.

I also had friends trying to convince me to buy it, and I kept saying no. I and was right not, most people who I knew bought the game played for less than week and walked away. Never have played a shooter so dumb down. All guns, had the same range metrics, hard aiming, full auto fire, burst firing and hip firing don't matter since bullet spread is random. Grenades regenerated, abilities recharged in seconds and you don't even have to manage ammo. Also, the vehicles and heroes spawned as random tokens, so any idiot can pick them up by chance. If EA wanted to make such a half-ass shooter, they could of just took BF4, modded it and had the heroes as battle picks ups. The combat would of better, had the game used battlefields classes, gun mechanics and keeping an emphasis on team-play like Battlefied and the Pandemic Battlefront games. Even if the game had a slapped on campaign like BF4, the multiplayer gameplay would of kept players more interested.

nX2721d ago

^The way DICE designed Battlefront is a red flag to me, they abandoned everything people loved about BF2 and none of these changes improved the game in any way. I will not buy another Battlefront as long as they continue with this dumbed down abomination.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2721d ago
daBUSHwhaka2722d ago

Great news EA.If you can get it as good as BF1 story then were onto a winner..

_-EDMIX-_2721d ago

I personally just want them having several smaller stories like they did with Battlefield 1.

slavish02722d ago

I hope its coop and they add bots to multiplayer

Show all comments (33)
150°

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie

Former Activision studio Toys for Bob partners with Xbox to publish its first game as an indie. This is something of a homecoming, as Microsoft owns Activision.

Read Full Story >>
engadget.com
Obscure_Observer6h ago

Very very early in development. Still, fantastic news!

Let´s GO!!!

Lightning774h ago

I guess.

How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )

At least it wouldn't be MS of all ppl destroying them.

MS really should let go Tango go like they did TFB here.

darthv723h ago(Edited 3h ago)

one was under Bethesda (Tango) the other under Activision (TFB). Clearly each one handled the separations of their subordinates differently.

Obscure_Observer3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

"How come they didnt either let them go or sell Tango and others to another publisher? Not saying Ubisoft, EA would be any better. (Capcome would of treated them right )"

Perhaps because Zenimax and ABK handles such matters differently based on their own internal policies as "independent" publishers.

Whoever, chances are it´s simply because MS didn´t wanted Tango or Austin to be acquired by competitors and develop new bangers for them, giving MS a bad rep in a possible future. Which could also be the reason why they ensured an exclusive partnership with TFB and its new game, before anyone else.

Sad and disgusting. But it is what it is.

-Foxtrot5h ago

Manages to buy their freedom especially after all the shit Microsoft has been doing with its studios lately

...

Goes right back to them as partners.

Okaaaaaay...

darthv723h ago

Id venture a guess that TFB working directly with MS was a better outcome than working through Activision to get to MS.

VersusDMC1h ago

From the article...

"Toys for Bob spun out as an indie back in February after Microsoft instituted sweeping layoffs that impacted 86 employees, which was more than half of the staff"

I doubt those 86 employees enjoyed the Microsoft experience over Activisions.

Inverno1h ago

MS shuts down studios because of lack of resources and then helps these guys by giving em resources. Also MS is what forced them to buy their freedom in the first place? What kind of logic 😂

Sciurus_vulgaris3h ago(Edited 3h ago)

Xbox’s gaming division seems to still function as 3 semi-autonomous sub-divisions, Xbox Studios, Bethesda and ABK. The three main sub-divisions can seemingly shut down or build studios and set up partnerships independently. This would explain why Bethesda can recently shutdown studios, while ABK spins off one studio, while building a new one. Plus, Toys for Bob could be spun off by ABK, only to immediately re-partner with Microsoft.

170°

Sony shares big new PS Plus stat, but not the one we want to see

PlayStation Plus has improved the split of PS4 and PS5 players on its priciest tiers, but Sony continues to hide total subscriber numbers.

Read Full Story >>
theloadout.com
mandf9h ago

lol acting like it’s equivalent to ms numbers

Mr Logic9h ago

Uh...They're definitely not equivalent.

"Microsoft’s Xbox Game Pass service now has 34 million subscribers."

"the total number of PS Plus subscribers across all tiers was 47.4 million"

darthv728h ago(Edited 8h ago)

That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN.

bloop5h ago

That's not the "gotcha" you think it is Darth.

darthv724h ago

^^it's not supposed to be bloop.... it's just an interesting observation.

Einhander19722h ago

darthv72

"That PSN number seems like it should be much higher... especially when you consider that PS4 alone has a sell through of over 117m. To not even be at least half that is rather interesting.

To the XB side, having 34m to an install base of roughly 50m (XBO sell through) or even 85m (360 sell through) is a greater percentage of unit to member ratio than PSN."

Have you ever heard of a PC before? I hear they are pretty popular.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2h ago
shinoff21837h ago(Edited 7h ago)

What. Definitely more os plus subscribers but that makes sense due to actual console sales

Darth the difference between the bases are huge your right but you gotta think. Ps players buy more games, where as the Xbox base relies on gamepass for their gaming. So it makes perfect sense

darthv727h ago(Edited 7h ago)

What makes perfect sense though? You say PS players buy more games... so then logically there should be more PS+ subscribers given the increased number of online multiplayer games in the PS4 generation alone. The PS4 was the first time that + was required for online play much like Gold was for 360 users.

Keep in mind we are talking subscribers, not simply XB/PS users. I assume you meant to say offline single player games, which is most likely true as well. That gen also saw a significant increase in games with an online component comparted to the previous gen.

victorMaje7h ago

I for one will be going back to essential at the next renewal. When I feel a game is good & right up my alley, I’ll check trusted reviews & just buy it.

jznrpg5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

I have the top tier until 2028 as they gave me a massive discount for all the years I had left but I’ll most likely go to essential as well. I buy my games but my kids do use the service occasionally. They do prefer to own their games as well since any game can leave the rental service at some point and they don’t like that idea. They mostly use it to demo games then ask me to buy games if they really like it.

RedDevils1h ago

For me, I will cancel it all together but unfortunately I still have it till 2030 lol

meganick5h ago

I would like to see Sony add a fourth tier of PS Plus for people who just want to be able to play games online without any of the perks like monthly games, store discounts, or anything like that, and it should cost $20 annually, $30 maximum. There’s no way I’m paying $80 just to play games online. Even the original $60 fee was too much, and I would often wait for sales to re-up my subscription.

P_Bomb1h ago(Edited 1h ago)

Essential is too expensive, I agree. We’ve got one Essential and one Premium sub. Dropping the Premium when it expires.

130°

What Happens to Your Steam Account When You Die?

The Outerhaven writes: While Steam has come out recently, stating that Steam accounts can't be transferred, we need to think about it since we all will eventually kick the bucket. But if Valve is denying transferring accounts, what can be done? Plenty, actually.

Read Full Story >>
theouterhaven.net
thorstein1d 7h ago

It goes to my kids because I gave them the passwords.

To Steam: Missio has a song that conveys my feelings about you stealing my purchase after I die. It's called "Middle Fingers"

shinoff218312h ago

Pretty much. My son knows my info.

Abear2112h ago

Yeah worrying about digital ownership when you’re on the other side of the grass seems a little strange, but also on brand for these millennial journalists to worry about.

Goodguy0115h ago

I suppose if I have kids, I'd just give em my account details by retirement age. If I die young then...idk lol.

CrimsonWing6913h ago

Yea, I mean just give someone the password to your account. Is that difficult to do or something? Like, I’m legit asking because I don’t know.

anast11h ago(Edited 11h ago)

It's not difficult but It's against the policy. If they find out, they will lock the account permanently.

CrimsonWing6910h ago

Ah ok, I had a feeling there was something like that. It seems kind of weird that you can’t just hand your account over to a family member or friend and let them take over the account.

Show all comments (13)