Homefront - Catch all

The game seems to have a friend system except I found no way to add friends.

lostlobster wrote:

I don't really want a change from BC2, but at this point it's filled pretty exclusively with the hardcore and second-hand-store noobs. And it's not as fun without friends.

So there's a good chance I'll be going to GameStop during lunch.

$41 at Walmart for the console versions.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The game seems to have a friend system except I found no way to add friends.

Who would you add.... really...?

MannishBoy wrote:
ranalin wrote:

Ya if this had destructible environment... i'd probably wet myself.

There's an exlusive map? We have a suburb map on the PC too.

Maybe "exclusive" means "no PS3".

I looked, it is Suburb that's supposed to be exclusive.

Oh we dont have that one... we have a similar one though. Wonder when the pc gets it?

MannishBoy wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

I came in here to whinge about the fact that all my BC2 buddies were playing Homefront last night and that I was thinking I was definitely going to have to buy it now — but perhaps I'll wait a bit and see how it shakes out.

It's not a bad game. Pretty fun once we got on a good server. Doesn't seem initially to have the depth of BFBC2. Or the crazy "battlefield moments" that happen in BFBC2.

I expect it to be in my MP mix for a couple of months or so, but I don't see myself playing this a year from now. I think the reviews are about right on the MP. My first impression is that it's a pretty good MP game. Not a great game.

So if you're wanting a change up from BFBC2, come join us and shoot the evil Korean overlords. Just don't expect the life of a BFBC2 game if your tastes run like mine.

bunch of us that play BC2 have hours logged in the 200-400 hr range. This is a very nice break to tide things over till BF3.

Nyxs Optare wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The game seems to have a friend system except I found no way to add friends.

Who would you add.... really...?

>_<

Quintin_Stone wrote:

The game seems to have a friend system except I found no way to add friends.

It should add your steam friends automagically.

ranalin wrote:

bunch of us that play BC2 have hours logged in the 200-400 hr range. This is a very nice break to tide things over till BF3.

Between two platforms, I'm right above 200 hours if I had to guess. Rank 22 on PC, rank 35 or so on console. So probably 40+ on PC, 160+ on console.

So I'm there with you, but I still have much more Battlefield in me. And maybe some Brink.

I'm not in love with this. I like it, and maybe I'll like it more once I get into it a bit more. But to me, it doesn't seem like it will surpass Battlefield in my long term gaming time.

It's kind of like BO's diverted me for a month or so, but I came back home to BFBC2.

TrashiDawa wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The game seems to have a friend system except I found no way to add friends.

It should add your steam friends automagically.

Odd, it didn't. I had to ask on Vent which server the guys were playing on.

MannishBoy wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

I don't really want a change from BC2, but at this point it's filled pretty exclusively with the hardcore and second-hand-store noobs. And it's not as fun without friends.

So there's a good chance I'll be going to GameStop during lunch.

$41 at Walmart for the console versions.

Amazon has it for $42 and still has the $15 game credit. Now THAT is a great deal.

Makes me wonder about sales after the reviews.

MannishBoy wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:
lostlobster wrote:

I don't really want a change from BC2, but at this point it's filled pretty exclusively with the hardcore and second-hand-store noobs. And it's not as fun without friends.

So there's a good chance I'll be going to GameStop during lunch.

$41 at Walmart for the console versions.

Amazon has it for $42 and still has the $15 game credit. Now THAT is a great deal.

Makes me wonder about sales after the reviews.

I think I'm going to wait, although that Amazon deal is very tempting. I've got Mass Effect 2 to finish, and I just bought Torchlight and Metro 2033. I'm not one to make a pile, so I'm going to see if it's still popular in a couple of weeks. And, around that time, Mrs. Lobster will be just about to give birth so I'll most likely not buy it then, either. This is my complicated way of talking myself out of spending money.

I get the feeling the price droppage might be THQ's doing. They are an up and coming publisher with aspirations of sitting right next to EA and Activision. What's a major third party publisher without a solid FPS series? They need a lot of sales here more for mindshare than profit. That's what the marketing says to me, anyway.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I get the feeling the price droppage might be THQ's doing. They are an up and coming publisher with aspirations of sitting right next to EA and Activision. What's a major third party publisher without a solid FPS series? They need a lot of sales here more for mindshare than profit. That's what the marketing says to me, anyway.

Might be a function of metacritic scores. Think I saw where THQ's stock dropped 25% yesterday due to the mid 70s metacritic score being lower than expected.

And THAT might have scared off some buyers, causing lower demand than expected and therefore excess inventory.

Maybe I should call my broker <,<

On the plus side, I'm betting we'll see this for <$30 soon. I'm waiting for a steam sale that now appears sooner rather than later.

oilypenguin wrote:

On the plus side, I'm betting we'll see this for <$30 soon. I'm waiting for a steam sale that now appears sooner rather than later.

hehe BF3 beta will probably be here by then.

ranalin wrote:
oilypenguin wrote:

On the plus side, I'm betting we'll see this for <$30 soon. I'm waiting for a steam sale that now appears sooner rather than later.

hehe BF3 beta will probably be here by then.

That makes me continuing to check this thread irrelevant =)

MannishBoy wrote:

Might be a function of metacritic scores. Think I saw where THQ's stock dropped 25% yesterday due to the mid 70s metacritic score being lower than expected.

And THAT might have scared off some buyers, causing lower demand than expected and therefore excess inventory.

For me the majority of game reviews are BS written by non-gamers and are entirely based on first impressions of the single player mode

Why address the complex balance and gameplay questions that the mulitplayer mode presents when single player campaign comes in bite sized reviewable nuggets? I'm pretty sure Shadowrun got bad reviews in part for not having a single player and that game had the distinction of both bad sales and being briefly featured in the MLG circuit - a rare distinction for a console shooter (CoD4 never made it)

I've nothing at all against people who enjoy the single player exclusively or don't like to play multiplayer but I'm sick of game reviewers critising the games for their single player campaign when the number of hours sunk into the single player will inevitably be a tiny fraction of the overall hours logged into the game thanks to the multiplayer mode

In any case I'm on the fence about this one but I'll keep an eye on this thread - I was the same way about medal of honour and getting a loan of my cousin's copy a few weeks post release confirmed that I dodged a bullet on that occasion

I know nothing about the internal workings of PC gamer, but I find it interesting that the positive review of DA2 comes out weeks before release, and the ho-hum review of Homefront on the release day.

PlainGreyT wrote:
MannishBoy wrote:

Might be a function of metacritic scores. Think I saw where THQ's stock dropped 25% yesterday due to the mid 70s metacritic score being lower than expected.

And THAT might have scared off some buyers, causing lower demand than expected and therefore excess inventory.

For me the majority of game reviews are BS written by non-gamers and are entirely based on first impressions of the single player mode

Agree. However, a lot of people that don't follow this stuff closely do look at those scores when making buying decisions. Hence the stocks moving based on missing expectations.

On the other hand, they seem to have advertised the crap out of this game, so it might off set some of the review talk.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Nyxs Optare wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

The game seems to have a friend system except I found no way to add friends.

Who would you add.... really...?

>_<

hahhah you have no friends! =P

Yeah, that's pretty spot on. Single player is kind of a scripted pile of poo and MP (so far) is fun and pretty balanced. Whoever was responsible for the "stealth" mission in the SP should be fired, though. That one was just horrible.

oilypenguin wrote:

On the plus side, I'm betting we'll see this for <$30 soon. I'm waiting for a steam sale that now appears sooner rather than later.

To me this is the big problem with games like this and the $60 price point. You have a new IP that closely resembles two other IPs that are very successful and have huge followings. You pull a bait and switch with the SP and how strong it is and then you expect me to buy your game at $60? I might get curious at $30. The Amazon deal is tempting. But otherwise THQ has kind of stepped in it, IMO. They probably should have just done MP only at $30. Or the full package at $40. Or lots of incentives and sales at launch. As it is we all know the pattern. If you don't like a game like Brutal Legend or Singularity at $60 you'll be able to get it at $20 by the end of the year. So you have no incentive to buy in and increase the MP userbase.

I think games like this could kill the $60 price point as a standard.

DSGamer wrote:

I think games like this could kill the $60 price point as a standard.

Or MW3 could go to $70.

Seriously, who doesn't think Activision hasn't had at least a conference call on that yet? After all, you can get $15 out of millions of people for a few maps, included slightly updated maps from previous games.

The thing is from the perspective of someone who would be mostly interested in singleplayer, by the time it's cheap enough to justify a short SP campaign, and have nice multiplayer as a bonus (from the perspective of the SP gamer), the multiplayer will be unwelcoming to newbies.

Scratched wrote:

The thing is from the perspective of someone who would be mostly interested in singleplayer, by the time it's cheap enough to justify a short SP campaign, and have nice multiplayer as a bonus (from the perspective of the SP gamer), the multiplayer will be unwelcoming to newbies.

The MP is the only reason I bought this at launch, even though from what I'd seen the SP looked interesting. I didn't want to be learning it late when every body else had all the unlocks.

I had a rough few initial games (partially due to bad connections), but ended the night last night with a nearly even K/D overall and a having a good time. Not sure that would happen a month from now.

MannishBoy wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

I think games like this could kill the $60 price point as a standard.

Or MW3 could go to $70.

Seriously, who doesn't think Activision hasn't had at least a conference call on that yet? After all, you can get $15 out of millions of people for a few maps, included slightly updated maps from previous games.

I remember some news story a few weeks back, probably some analyst or speculation rather than from Activision saying they wanted to get around $200 per gamer per game in the future, taking into account DLC and so on. Now, if the game wasn't an annual franchise I'd look at that a little better, but most big publishers are still in the 'product' mindset, and you have to keep making new products.

I wonder how well that would work in an alternate universe, say there was just a base Modern Warfare game, and loads of DLC, major and minor that kept expanding it.

I remember hearing reports that some had been pushing for Rockstar to charge 60 for GTA San Andreas. I'm sure all of the leading franchises get pushed to raise the price barrier.

It's an ongoing argument. For a game as big and expensive to develop ($100m+) as GTA4 I can see where they're coming from, but I think it goes both ways. Not every game is GTA, not every game should try to be GTA in scale or budget, and not every game should be that price. On the other hand, you have people saying anything below AAA and not a budget/mobile/facebook title is dying out.

Honestly I'm fine with that. Market forces and all that. Activision can try and sell COD for $70. I personally didn't play much of the MW2 campaign. I though it was ridiculous even thought I loved COD 4. And I didn't even bother with BLOPS SP. So I guess I'm paying $60 to try out COD MP, but after this last time I'm done. This was my first post-BFBC2 COD and I wasn't impressed. Not only did I realize the things I hated about the cramped, grief-y, spawn-campy MP, but I couldn't care less for the shooting gallery SP.

So I'm over COD, I think. I was hoping Homefront would fill that void. That's partly why I'm bummed to read people's reactions to it. But it wouldn't shock me at all if we saw a $70 COD. In the end that's what this is all about. Market prices. If people are willing to buy COD at $70, then sell it for that. If your unit sales go down enough that you make less money, then you probably adjust the price quickly or don't sell it at that price again.

I think we're seeing an era where game prices actually make a lot of sense. Games come out at $60. The market either says "yes" and the games can hang at $60 for a while or the market says "no" and the prices drop quickly and eventually the game becomes a bargain. A lot of these non-AAA games (my favorite example being "50 Cent: Blood on the Sand") are actually quite fun. They're just more fun at $30 or $20. So some people will wait and the game will have a mini-following at the lower price point.

The only thing I'd like to see are more companies realizing that just like Activision can probably get away with selling COD for $70, they probably *can't* get away with selling their new IP at $60. So it would be nice if companies with a product like "50 Cent" or "Homefront" would just come out of the gate at a price that would get more people to take a chance. "Homefront" kind of reminds me of "Transformers: War for Cybertron". That game was really fun, had a built in cult following and a fairly entertaining MP and SP. Yet, you could just kind of tell that that game was never going to have legs in a world filled with Halo, COD, Battlefield and Gears. So it was good that it quickly dropped in price and people got to enjoy it for what it was.