DLC coming July 3rd

[Hyperactive66]

Title says it all and it will be out a month and a half after launch for 800 MS points
http://www.neoseeker.com/news/19118-ghost-recon-future-soldier-multiplayer-dlc-arctic-strike-announced/

[Hyperactive66]

Whats everybody's thoughts on this...Personally i cant wait for some snowy multiplayer maps like the one shown in campaign

[njomach3]

Well that pretty much proves they are in it for the money. Now were going to have the playerbase cut down the middle right after the game comes out. I wonder if this will die as fast as gow3.

[OneEvilPikachu]

If it's not on the disc already,then i dont see the problem with the DLC. It's a nice package, new game mode,maps and 6 more weapons. Battlefield is doing the same thing and it works out fine. And you get it cheaper than the usual 15 bucks. I think it's a really nice package of content.

[The Coveted]

6 additional weapons
Ubisoft insists these weapons will give you the "supreme edge" over your enemies

....I mean really? I hope they didn't actually say this.
It's one thing if a free to play game becomes pay to win through overpowered purchased items... But uh.. am I really going to have to keep buying expansion packs to be able to keep up with a "supreme edge"?

[UK ICEMAN UK]

Given the fact that we have been patient and the BETA was delayed 2 years, Ubisoft should provide the 1st lot of DLC free

[sk1nd0gg]

like a child on duty cash in

[zoompooky]

My random thought train:

- Total Cash In.

- Obviously cut content.

- So you can build $10 DLC but you can't include controller options?

- Playerbase split down the middle = quick death for multiplayer

- Ghost Town Future Solitude.

[Prof.Ebral]

I'll buy it. I don't buy many games. I do not have plans to buy many games. In fact, the next game I am planning on buying is Homefront 2 which isn't scheduled until 2014.

[zoompooky]

I'll buy it. I don't buy many games. I do not have plans to buy many games. In fact, the next game I am planning on buying is Homefront 2 which isn't scheduled until 2014.

I will probably not buy it (assuming I buy the game at all at this point) so you can enjoy having the "supreme edge" over me with your fancy DLC weapons. :)

[odi0n2009]

Well that pretty much proves they are in it for the money. Now were going to have the playerbase cut down the middle right after the game comes out. I wonder if this will die as fast as gow3.

You don't say?
A corporation that's not in it for profit and to pay all it's employees salaries. Hmm..

800 points is not breaking banks. If it is for you, you may want to prioritize certain things in your life cycle.


OP,
Good post was looking forward to DLC info. I guess it might be all the exclusives that we're given to different preorder retail outlets packaged in.
Instant buy for me.

[B3ANTOWN B3A5T]

Snow maps are always my favorites. It does feel like a cash in situation but who am I kidding, ill buy it.

[SpeedyD1999]

It better be for PS3 too.

[P4NCH0theD0G]

First off, it's actually over one MONTH after release. Unless you go by the dictionary, where July actually does come before June. So it's 39-42 days after release, depending on your location. Assuming the date in the title and on the Ghost Recon page is true. Granted, after further research, the whole Internet has differing dates, from June 2nd, over June 12th (together with the PC release of the main game) to July 3rd. Ubisoft's Ghost Recon Page says July 3rd, so I'll go by that: http://ghost-recon.ubi.com/gr-portal/en-GB/news/news_detail.aspx?c=tcm:21-48593&ct=tcm:6-231-32 (http://ghost-recon.ubi.com/gr-portal/en-GB/news/news_detail.aspx?c=tcm:21-48593&ct=tcm:6-231-32)

Second, I admit to being a bit disappointed. Apart from the number of maps, the DLC content reminds me very much of the FREE / UPLAY content for Splinter Cell Conviction. Granted, smaller game and no team vs. team MP, but still, the amount was pretty much the same. For free.

Third, I hope this won't degenerate into one of those "How can they release DLC when they haven't fixed..." threads, since, as we all know, Not-On-Disc-DLC


is in production long before the actual release date of the main game,
is in the majority of cases done by a separate team within the developer,
and the people that (will) work on patches and fixes for the main game have absolutely nothing to do with the people working on DLC


Fourth, someone should spell check and proof read at neoseeker. That's pretty embarrassing stuff. First paragraph: "July 3rd"; last Paragraph: "June 2nd". And the beloved "Muliplayer".

And fifth, should this actually be On-Disc-DLC, where the download is something like 180 KB, I will personally fly to Ubisoft headquarters and poop on their front step. And I encourage everyone here to do the same.

[Dikard_von_Doom]

You don't say?
A corporation that's not in it for profit and to pay all it's employees salaries. Hmm..

800 points is not breaking banks. If it is for you, you may want to prioritize certain things in your life cycle.


OP,
Good post was looking forward to DLC info. I guess it might be all the exclusives that we're given to different preorder retail outlets packaged in.
Instant buy for me.


I agree. It's only $10 and it seems like a good amount of content for the price. I also agree that if you can't afford the $10 then there might be other things in your life you should be putting first before buying games. I don't think it'll be preorder exclusives so soon though. Those are usually one of the last things to be released as DLC. OP thanks for the heads-up on the DLC. I've been wondering when/if there will be DLC.

[C0LDS0LDIER]

I agree. It's only $10 and it seems like a good amount of content for the price. I also agree that if you can't afford the $10 then there might be other things in your life you should be putting first before buying games. I don't think it'll be preorder exclusives so soon though. Those are usually one of the last things to be released as DLC. OP thanks for the heads-up on the DLC. I've been wondering when/if there will be DLC.

New maps - It doesn't say how many maps. Judging by COD/Halo standards it will be 3-4 maps.
New game mode - A single game mode, which can simply be patched into the game with very little effort.
New Guerilla Mode co-op map - This should/would be included in the "new maps" content that is being sold, so I feel like it's unnecessary to note this as something other than a "new map".
6 additional weapons - And finally the kicker - 6 new weapons. This is either A.) 3 weapons for Bodark, and 3 weapons for Ghost. (one per class) or B.) 6 weapons for ghost, and 6 weapons for Bodark, but referring to a very noticeable feature of the Beta - they will undoubtedly be decision points, and therefore will revert back to point A.), anyway.

So, for $10.00, we will be receiving 3-4 maps, 1 new gun per character, and a "game mode" which requires a 5 minute patch to implement, (all of which could have been either free, or on-disc), and people are really trying to argue the fact that it is a good value? I'll be buying it because I am being forced to buy it in order to get the most of the game that I just spent $65.00 on a month earlier, but by no means - whatsoever - is this anything more than a quick money grab, and anything but a good value.

I really hope this game turns out to be good at launch, and i'm sure that the relatively minor issues in the Beta will have been fixed, but please don't try and coax people into believing they aren't getting shafted. I'm actually still wondering how I am suppose to get the M40A5 for my Ghost Scout, since it was only announced for the Aussie/NZ Collector's Edition.

[Prof.Ebral]

So, for $10.00, we will be receiving 3-4 maps, 1 new gun per character, and a "game mode" which requires a 5 minute patch to implement,

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/00000/2000/000/102053/102053.strip.sunday.gif

[C0LDS0LDIER]

Way to quote my post out of context. *golfclap*

[Taffy_17]

kinda wondering how hard it would be to include that content into the game instead of releasing it 2 weeks after launch... seems like money grabbing to me... sadly despite this i'll probably still buy it

Edit: take that back... miss read it, thought it said june... hate how june and july are spelled so alike

[odi0n2009]

And fifth, should this actually be On-Disc-DLC, where the download is something like 180 KB, I will personally fly to Ubisoft headquarters and poop on their front step. And I encourage everyone here to do the same.

Some people say the most off beat things.

My man. It's not that serious. All this over $10? You serious duke? Lol. smh.

[C0LDS0LDIER]

Some people say the most off beat things.

My man. It's not that serious. All this over $10? You serious duke? Lol. smh.

It's really not so much about the money. I'll go out on a limb and say that the majority of the people who buy this game can, and will easily shell out the $10.00 for the DLC. The fact that Ubisoft is being so disrespectful, and utterly shameless about it (announcing it before the game even comes out) is what people have the biggest issue with. The game hasn't even gone Gold yet, which is made obvious by the fact that the Beta was still ongoing during their DLC announcements, so they couldn't just throw the players a bone?

They have been so insistent that they are listening to the fans, and have them in mind when making their games, yet they are going to announce DLC before the game comes out, slated for a month after it's release? It's so very obvious this is about money, and people feel cheated, and disrespected that Ubisoft would pull a stunt like this just because they can.

[B3ANTOWN B3A5T]

I agree the problem for me is the timing, not the content.

New MP maps, guerilla maps, weapons, and a gamemode is a pretty good batch of DLC for 10 bucks IMO.

The issue, one again, is the timing of its release. Dropping DLC a little over a month after the game is out just makes it seem like content that was held back to make that extra dough. That pisses people off. If this DLC came say September 2, I don't think anyone would really be agitated.

With all that said I never miss DLC of a game I actually care about. I'm skipping BF3s next pack because its all CQC and haven't bought one fighter pack on UFC3. I pretty sure ill like this game more than those, so ill probably end up buying the pack(plus I'm a sucker for snow maps).

[P4NCH0theD0G]

Actually, I don't mind the DLC. Neither do I mind the timing or it being so "close" to release of the main game. Well, as long as it's not On-Disc-DLC.
On-Disc-DLC is an insult, because it obviously is content that was integrated from the beginning into the main game, but simply held back for monetary gain. BioWare and EA are pretty big on that.
How do you know? Because it's on the disc. Disc space is calculated almost from the beginning of the development process, so if something is on the disc, it was supposed to be there. If it is locked content, it was deemed "valuable" enough to make people pay more for it.

Actual DLC that you actually have to download is a different matter, since, as I stated before, it is done outside of the purview of the main game development.
With EA, for example, most deals with their developers include the obligation for the developer to make DLC(s). Since those DLCs are often not part of the main game, they are developed separately, by a separate team within the developer. Examples of this are BF3 Back to Karkand or the Kingdoms of Amalur DLCs.
Why are they developed separately? Because the developer has to make sure that people that do not buy the DLC still get their money's worth with the main game.
It's probably a bit different for Ubisoft, since they own the subsidiaries that developed the game, but the process is the same.

Releasing the info about DLC that comes out OVER ONE MONTH after the initial release is actually pretty smart, especially doing it at the end of the Beta-Period.

What it says is:

A) there will be more content for the MP to come;
B) we will not force you to buy it before you had enough time to test the full game (over one month);

As to the content, I already stated I'm a bit disappointed by it not being free like they did it with comparable content in Splinter Cell Conviction.

That said, taking the words from the offical Ghost Recon page:

Available on July 3rd, the Arctic Strike downloadable content pack will extend your Ghost Recon Future Soldier Experience, bringing you from the streets of Moscow to the far reaches of the Arctic. This first DLC package will include additional multiplayer maps, a new multiplayer mode, a new Guerrilla Mode co-op map and six additional weapons to provide for even more diversity in your arsenal. More information about this DLC will be available soon.

I expect at least 3-4 Multiplayer Maps, NOT INCLUDING THE GUERRILLA MODE CO-OP MAP. As they have made a clear distinction between "Multiplayer maps" and the one "Co-Op Map" you cannot expect anything else.
I also expect that the six weapons are spread out over the six classes, one new weapon for each class on each side. Due to the classes system, offering any one weapon for all classes would make no sense at all. It would be nice to have the classes on both sides have access to both DLC weapons for their class, but from the Beta it seems they are enforcing a real separation between the two sides.
Additionally, according to the Ghost Recon Network "Unlocks" Page (which you cannot access anymore until the game is out), there are several UPLAY and Promotional Unlocks that give you new weapons, new handguns for all classes, unlock tokens and some 2-for-1 decision points.

I fully endorse the DLC as long as it's not On-Disc DLC. The timing is smart, sadly most people misinterpret the intention - as well as the actual DLC release date. People still think it's 10 days after release, which it is not. Not-On-Disc-DLC is developed separate from the main game. It has no influence on patches or fixes of the main game. DLC one month after release gives people enough time to try out the game before deciding to buy the DLC or not, without having to fear "falling behind" and lose their competitive edge as it is often with Launch Day DLC.

[B3ANTOWN B3A5T]

To me a month isn't enough play time on an all new game with many different gamemodes to even think about buying more stuff(its not spending the money, its still being busy with all the original content). You're telling me you will chew through campaign, guerilla mode and be well versed in all the maps and modes of MP in one month.

[M12.2U]

If it's not on the disc already,then i dont see the problem with the DLC. It's a nice package, new game mode,maps and 6 more weapons. Battlefield is doing the same thing and it works out fine. And you get it cheaper than the usual 15 bucks. I think it's a really nice package of content.

1) This game ships with less than the last GR, "Way less".
There's only like 1-13 guns per class but TC's GRAW2 shipped with about 60.
And there was a free gun pack but the idiots at Ubisoft made the weapon pack DLC for offline only even though TC's GRAW had the M468 available for MP in a DLC pack.
So actually there's about 70 guns on TC's GRAW2.

2) This game ships with only 10 maps but TC's GRAW2 shipped with 18.
People will see that the amount of MP maps you get in their DLC is way shorter than that of TC's GRAW2 from 5yrs. ago.
Also, TC's GRAW2 back then had 7 free maps in each of the 2 free DLC map packs.
Then there was 2 other DLC MP map packs you had to pay for that have 9 MP maps in each of them.
Also, there was an exclusive map to download straight from the TC's GRAW2 CD, "Nowhere".
That's 51 MP maps.
People will see if Ubisoft can match or exceed what was on the last Ghost Recon game from 5 yrs. ago.

[P4NCH0theD0G]

Uhm, no. I'm saying I will know after one month if I would want:

- More MP maps or if the ones I have are enough or if I just don't like the MP
- More Weapons
- A new Guerilla Map
- A new Game Mode.

I'm not saying that I will know all there is to know after that time. But I will know enough to know if I want more of it or not.

[B3ANTOWN B3A5T]

Well yes but why buy the content right then, when you're still busy with the main game?

DLC in September would have been perfect because everyone would've played the hell out of the retail version by then and just when we are starting to itch for more they smack us with SNOW MAPS BABY!!!

[Tyrone1985]

If it's not on the disc already,then i dont see the problem with the DLC. It's a nice package, new game mode,maps and 6 more weapons. Battlefield is doing the same thing and it works out fine. And you get it cheaper than the usual 15 bucks. I think it's a really nice package of content.Lol. You're not too bright. BF3 is releasing DLC 8 months after release. GRFS DLC is coming out 1.5 months after release. I'll get the game but I'm not going to basically pay $70 for it. This ish should have been free to anybody who pre ordered

[MeanMF]

Lol. You're not too bright. BF3 is releasing DLC 8 months after release. GRFS DLC is coming out 1.5 months after release. I'll get the game but I'm not going to basically pay $70 for it. This ish should have been free to anybody who pre ordered

Yeah but BF3 also had some DLC that came out right after the game was released. And did you see them making it free for people who preordered?

Oh wait yeah they did. Never mind.

[Hortey]

I wonder if the weapons and guerrilla map are the Preorder content?

[djack10]

So many companies do this now that it shouldn't be a surprise to any of you.

[odi0n2009]

Mass Effect 3 did the same thing. (But on the "Actual" release date)
Everyone complained. There were others as well, I don't recall off the head.

Bioware trying to inform the general public why this was done released a detailed statement about how after the game was already made, set and mastered into the discs they went on to creating additional dlc content which eventually got created sooner than they anticipated and so decided to make it available as dlc on release date of the game. It was only free for those who preordered. Still here came the complaints.

This is now becoming general practice with sooner than expected dlc. As time goes on, studios will get bigger to push out more content sooner or game creation technology will simplify making it easier for developers to end up dropping 5 dlc packs probably a day after the game releases.

I don't see what's the big deal. To each his own I guess. I am just glad I don't let trivial things like this weigh my mind.
All I care is that I am helping to support a game that I like and will be investing my time in and helping those creating these great games earn they're check.

Anyways this is my opinion. I am done with this topic.

[TacticalGRFS]

Well that pretty much proves they are in it for the money.With all the latency, poor lag compensation, bugs, and glitches that will also be more then likely present in the full game; it definitely adds to the evidence that all they care about is profits.

As for the new weapons you receive [for buying this] that will give you the "supreme edge" over your enemies; this will ruin game balance. Who decided to let this happen? You should be fired.

With all the conflicting dates for the downloadable content's release; it's likely because the content has been pushed back with every delay of the game. Also leading me to believe this is another case where game content was cut to sell to everyone at a later date and that it's probably already on the disk.

[digital_wiz]

I'm not going to trip about the DLC as long as the DLC packages drop often. The launch is on a May 22 and the DLC releases on July 3. That's in only 6 weeks. I would definitely enjoy a new DLC every 6 weeks. It would bring more replay value to the game. I hope all the DLC maps will be the same size as the map 'Mill". Pipeline as an appetizer compared to a 3 course meal, like Mill. As far as the BF3 DLC, it was already free if you pre-ordered and if you paid attention, it told you in advance . If you didn't, then you just missed it, plain and simple. Besides, the free maps where old maps from Battlefield 2, not new maps like Grfs, and not to mention the BF3 DLC maps were terrible anyway. Also, the BF3 launch had only 9 maps. The Grfs maps come with 10 maps and if you pre-order it from Gamestop, it includes 1 more map, which make 11 maps, 2 more weapons and some more skins. I do believe there should be more guns from day one though.

[aaron020]

These DLC's are not new to me at least. Get use to it people. S: Sadly, or not sadly, everyone will be publishing DLC's now after a game release, to earn more money. It's all about the money nowadays... Well let's hope it won't make Multiplayer empty. For Need For Speed The Run they made quite a lot DLC with new Multiplayer as well, and it wasn't empty at all, and most of the community voted that game down (could have been a lot better yea, but still it was a great game to me, now it's Ghost time (: )

And it's June 2, not July 3. Just a week after the release of the game.

[BubonicBeast]

DLC this close to release is fine if the game shipped with an adequate amount of content. 10 small maps seems barely adequate.

Every publisher takes the p*iss with DLC. We all endorse it by buying it.

Don't like the inference that buying the DLC will give you superior weapons, not at all.

[B3ANTOWN B3A5T]

If its June 2 that's just ridiculous. You're pretty much forced to buy the pack or suffer the consequences of not having the "supreme edge" in weaponry (something that BF3 had enough sense to avoid). I think DLC should be a way to breathe new life into a game. I'll be so wrapped up in the stock game, how am I going to even think about DLC.

[Bassie52]

Crap!!...not going to pay for MP and guerrilla (horde)mode..they should make story like co-op DLC's...6 player co-op terrorist hunt or more campaign..

[xf-SonicDark]

Lol a DLC release date before the game launches... I have zero faith in GR:FS! I know other games do it but if the content is on the disc then it should be free for limited edition people at least.

I hope rainbow six is better than this title, as it stand right now, even gunsmith isn't enough originality to keep the multiplayer going.


Ps: the developers Should hang their heads in shame for creating this game, the overall design is very poor.

[RonaiSanzer]

Well that pretty much proves they are in it for the money. Now were going to have the playerbase cut down the middle right after the game comes out. I wonder if this will die as fast as gow3.

you mean geOw3?

[bakesalee]

Lol a DLC release date before the game launches... I have zero faith in GR:FS! I know other games do it but if the content is on the disc then it should be free for limited edition people at least.

I hope rainbow six is better than this title, as it stand right now, even gunsmith isn't enough originality to keep the multiplayer going.


Ps: the developers Should hang their heads in shame for creating this game, the overall design is very poor.

I don't mean to bring you down, but after ruining Splinter Cell, and now Ghost Recon, how could you think Rainbow Six won't suffer? For your sake, I hope it doesn't, but it's time to start doing the math on Ubisoft.

[P4NCH0theD0G]

I can't believe people still insist on the whole "How can they release DLC, when they haven't fixed, patched..." idiocy. Those things are not connected.


Also, something that might interest people, the pre-order bonus maps "Drilling Ship" and "Moscow Suburbs" are Guerilla Mode Maps. NOT Multiplayer Maps.

And since at least WalMart has no pre-order incentive at all (no bonus map), the Guerilla Map in the DLC will be a completely new one (otherwise it would be TWO Guerilla Maps and then they'd have to lower the price for people that had one or two pre-order maps already).


Finally, someone mentioned Mass Effect 3 Launch Day DLC as being free for pre-orders. Not true, the "From Ashes" DLC was only included in the ridiculously overpriced Collector's Edition.

[Jordio99]

I'll buy it. It seems pretty good, I don't see what's up with all you haters.

[UK ICEMAN UK]

I'll buy it. It seems pretty good, I don't see what's up with all you haters.

First of all due to the 5.5 yr gap between titles and the Beta was delayed 2 yrs I personally feel that Ubi has some goodwill it needs to win back and providing the 1st DLC free would have gone someway.
Secondly, will you be happy if this DLC is part of the "pre order" bonus that you get with the signature editions?
Last of all not everyone buys DLC and certainly not straight away so splitting your customer base in two is not also a fundamental great business plan either, as it shrinks the number of player matches which could then mean being partied up with lobbies out of your region thus providing lag and a less enjoyable experience.

[Ubi-Mush]

I can't believe people still insist on the whole "How can they release DLC, when they haven't fixed, patched..." idiocy. Those things are not connected.


Totally agree, the beta was run to find these problems and was an older version. As you can see the developers have tweaked during the beta.

[ecma4]

Great news, people just like complaining. More content is great, hopefully this is the first of many. Perhaps future releases will include larger maps.

[zoompooky]

Totally agree, the beta was run to find these problems and was an older version. As you can see the developers have tweaked during the beta.

With respect - the tweaks they made toward the end of the beta made things WORSE, not better. Objectives being captured by remote control anyone?

There are still lots of issues (random bullet deviation a big one, especially on the MSR) and I'm waiting to hear that they've been fixed before I buy - and they really need to include some controller options. Not everyone wants to click the right stick to ADS... it's clunky at best.

[emlmm8]

And in the end it is not only the community who looses but, ubisoft as well because I can assure you that the excitement level for the next ghost recon will be lower than it would be because of those problems caused which will probably generate less revenue in the long run for EA. So even in a business context, this decision just doesn't make much sense.

[Daztroyer]

Fix the game before you peddle more content, please! Pfft...

[Hortey]

Fix the game before you peddle more content, please! Pfft...

Should the map designers, weapon modelers, and creative developers just sit on their thumbs for a month while the programmers and play testers work to fix the game? No, there is a reason there is a team making this game. I love the game and trust they will work to make it good, I also hope they work after the bugs have been fixed to add features into the game they were unable to have at launch like southpaw (even though I don't use it, I would hate to have to play uninverted so I feel lefty's pain), and more options in the game... heck even a mode like R6v2's high stakes in the future because that mode breathed a lot of life into the game post launch. The only way they will be working post launch is if they are still getting paid to do so... and they get paid via income of post launch DLC.

If the content is good, and they keep the creativity coming I will shell out money for every DLC they make, as will a lot of people who understand why DLC nowadays needs to be the way it is. I still hate on disc dlc, and multiple preorder dlc that we can't get all of, so I hope they make the m14 and m40 and everything available FOR FREE after a certain amount of time because I'd hate to pay for a pack that includes something I got for preordering just to get the rest of the preorder stuff as much as I'd hate to never fire the mosin nagant!

This game has something special, and while I wasn't liking the direction of the game at the start, it has grown on me and I do appreciate the work that went into it as it truly does prioritize teamwork, cooperation, induvidual skill, and tactical thought over all else... even if it does it differently than the old ghost recons. I appreciate how the game feels more like the old ghost recons in terms of gameplay than the GRAW series as I felt the graw series was really pushing more of a battle commander feel than a stealthy and brutal tier 1 army special operations team. Ghost recon has always been set in the future, for ghost recon to go back to only guns and no tech, they would have to break away from what they have always done, which was to set the game with prototype technology in near future conflicts. Maybe someday we'll get a throwback ghost recon game, but for the time being I love ghost recon for being pretty much the only game that actually stuck to it's roots because that's how they wanted the game to be.

[Kamakaze Taco]

Let's see how the community does before worrying too much about buying DLC. Unless a game is one of the big 5 (COD, sports, Halo, Battlefield and Gears) people don't play it more than a week. All this is going to do is split an already small community. Either they're going to have DLC playlists which will be fairly small, or they'll roll the DLC maps into normal rotation and kick out people that don't have them, making those people just quit and shrinking the community further.

[BubonicBeast]

Let's see how the community does before worrying too much about buying DLC. Unless a game is one of the big 5 (COD, sports, Halo, Battlefield and Gears) people don't play it more than a week. All this is going to do is split an already small community. Either they're going to have DLC playlists which will be fairly small, or they'll roll the DLC maps into normal rotation and kick out people that don't have them, making those people just quit and shrinking the community further.

That is pretty much exactly what happened to Homefront.

[Kamakaze Taco]

Heh, Homefront didn't even need DLC to kick people out of playing. That game was such a mess.

[BubonicBeast]

Heh, Homefront didn't even need DLC to kick people out of playing. That game was such a mess.

It was a hell of a buggy game, I was one of the lucky people who never had any of the profile or lobby issues.

What I was referring to was the divisive impact of poorly handled DLC. Those that had DLC ended up in half (or worse) empty games when a DLC map rotated in, those without DLC simply dropped out and had to search all over again. It was an endless cycle which got worse when the 2nd DLC pack was released because disgruntled players like me refused to buy it until the matchmaking was fixed, which it never was. It became farcical, I haven't play HF since.

[Kamakaze Taco]

I honestly didn't even know HF had DLC. I tried SO hard to like that game, but after about 3 weeks with it being near impossible to team up with friends and constantly having people drop out of rooms, people just lost interest. I can only imagine DLC made that worse. This is a really good lesson Ubi should pay attention to. We've seen the crap that happened in the beta, and you sorta managed to fix some of it. Now there's no excuse for it to happen in retail.

[BubonicBeast]

I honestly didn't even know HF had DLC. I tried SO hard to like that game, but after about 3 weeks with it being near impossible to team up with friends and constantly having people drop out of rooms, people just lost interest. I can only imagine DLC made that worse. This is a really good lesson Ubi should pay attention to. We've seen the crap that happened in the beta, and you sorta managed to fix some of it. Now there's no excuse for it to happen in retail.

That was the funny thing about it, I regularly had a pre-lobby team of 10-14 with very few drop-outs/disconnection, others, like your self had a very frustrating time.