Subscribe
’)According to Gordon Van Dyke of DICE, there will be no more maps or DLC for Battlefield 1943. This was intended as a one-time deal and DICE is wrapped up in so many other things that they simply don’t have the time or plan to do anything further with BF1943.
Personally, this does not surprise me. I think EA/DICE just wanted to milk the community one last time before we move on to Bad Company 2 and BF 3. But it does bring forth an interesting question.
Do we now expect DLC for every shooter game we buy? Has DLC become so common place that the absence of it makes us feel like we are getting cheated? Then what about the fact that others will scream that DLC itself is cheating us out of the “full content” of our $60 purchase.
What do you all think? Do you care that there is no future plans for this game which was on the more expensive side of Xbox Live Arcade titles? And what of DLC? Do we now expect it for every title? Sound off and we will discuss this in Episode 72.
-Wingman709
at this point i kind of expect it and usually purchase all content released for all my games. i was kind of hoping for more mapes for this game so now i feel cheated.
i think the game was worth the 1200MS points, dlc would have been nice but as i’ve heard they focused on making BFBC2 which i rather have.
I loved 1943 and i am really dissapointed that there is no more DLC.
Perhaps Dice should have made a mod kit, so we could design and share our own maps, a bit like farcry 2 map editor
Generally, I don’t expect DLC from developers, as long as the game is a good stand-alone product. Don’t get me wrong, 1943 was an awesome game, but am I the only one who thinks 4 maps (only three that I cared for) is too little, even for an arcade game? I would’ve gladly bought the DLC had they offered it.
I never did end up purchasing BF:1943. No one on my friends list did, so to me it wasn’t worth it. I am happy to hear that they are concentrating on Bad Company 2. The first one was a good game, for awhile, but there is a lot of room for improvement, and I really think they are going to come through with the second one.
As far as DLC is concerned, I usually don’t have a problem with DLC coming out after a game, as long as I feel that I got my $60 worth out of what was on the game disk. If I have to buy DLC to extend a game just to get more enjoyment out of , then it becomes a problem. But, if that is the case, then I’m probably not very likely to buy the DLC anyway. I always get excited when DLC is coming out for a game I really like. It’s usually a good sign that it is a good game and that we may see a sequel if it is popular enough to get attention from developers after it is released. But if a game I really like is neglected, I do get a little dissapointed. For example, Batman was a great game. I definately got my $60 out of it. (Forget the free challenge rooms) They aren’t going to offer any DLC missions to the game, which is dissapointing that the experience will not be extended with new content, but i don’t feel cheated.
I am just worried that DLC is going to become the “norm”, if it hasn’t already, and that we will begin seeing games released with only a handful of multiplyer maps or single player missions with the intention to sell us more later. As long I am getting what I feel is my moneys worth out of the orginal game before DLC, then I won’t have a problem buying DLC for my games. but when developers begin to look at DLC as a way to really start charging $70 or $80 for what should have really all been on the orignal game disk, it will be a problem. i suppose this will probably vary by game and or developer, but I imagine we will be seeing a lot more toying around with what people are willing to pay for after a game is released.
FYI, BF1943 will be 600 MS points on Dec31st, grab it if you can