It’s stupid, just like you as a boy are crying about mom doesn’t buy you some dress. Stalingrad is not designed for F2P at all in the first place, just like you cannot cry about elden ring not being F2P because it’s not. If your F2P crybabies logic works everything on the world should be free.
If u still cannot understand what Im saying:
I always knew Stalingrad is designed for Coop play!
this time you said well, stalingrad is a paid test campaign, in the future it could become completely f2p but only time knows, for the moment I personally not being interested in buying what is proposed I play the f2p part and then decide
›Sell a campaign
›Can also play it for free with some limitations
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NOOOO GIVE IT ALL FOR FREE NOOOO
I’m genuinely more irate about the $60 CBT buy ins
This is a pittance and you get a shitload out of it
Also paywalling the rat shit like mortars is infinitely based and I look forward to seeing the seething from people who don’t read patchnotes and find out when they finish researching that level lmao
Im with you there. I’m not a fan of the German/Russia grinds again so I’m F2P until I decide if I like it. I do like the model though so I hope it works out
Your words are right, but the problem is the campaign is very f2p unfriendly and it will be lack of player. And those bought the access pack will become a clown because they use $30 to played with bots.
Agreed, but the main issue with it being paid is that most of the enlisted playerbase are children with no income source or poorfags (that can’t even buy an infinite 10$ battlepass so how tf you expect them to pay 30$) so I’m somewhat afraid I bought into a DOA campaign.
That’s the issue with enlisted being ftp. We’re reliant on free players.
I appreciate having them in the game, as I personally don’t have to play bots often, but I just don’t like FTP titles for the grind involved in them.
At the same time, if they’d made enlisted a one time purchase, the player base would likely be a pittance of what it is due to the games unfinished state.
Switching all of a sudden to a paid model is going to piss off a majority of free players, as they weren’t expecting it and are used to free content.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them honestly, since darkflow has outright said they were making Stalingrad a paid expansion, but I can somewhat understand why they’re angry, simply because they can’t seem to understand the monetization change.
That’s what I’m seeing anyway.
Simply put, they need to stop screeching for 10 minutes and take in what darkflow has said.
To be frank, I don’t quite understand all that hysteria. Humans are primitive beings, see the inscription somewhere “you have to buy” and start to panic.
From the stylistic perspective of the Stalingrad weapon and overall leveling presented, I see absolutely no problem with f2p - in the sense of being fully competitive vs. payed players.
No toys bought will change a person’s skill. I’ve repeatedly mentioned how funny it is to watch people in Normandy with full MP-43/1 squads, die from the first air strike attack on the open, or just camping somewhere behind the enemy line before being cut to the back.
So I think a few premium weapons won’t really change the situation fundamentally.
No ,it will. How are you gonna face 9 men mkb42 squad with semi auto rifle? Paid player will spam full auto in their squad while f2p will be massively inferior to them.
i find this games playerbase spoiled as fuck to be honest
->Sell a campaign and state that you have “killed microtransactions” outside of one single purchase
->Add premium squads to it despite and against your own statements.
->Have those premium squads be priced ~40$ and have as many as the other campaigns.
->Profit from making the community pay 30$ for access pack while having the same practices for premium squads.
Use alt+0155 on the numpad for the arrows, brother
Sorry, I don’t want to grow a neckbeard. Just quick edited.
I think it’s kinda unfair to bash F2P players for having assumptions. The base 4 campaigns are F2P, it’s not exactly unreasonable to assume the new one would be F2P as well.
i would say it is pretty unreasonable to get really mad when you can only play 80% of the game without spending a penny
a free to play player can play most game for free tho. still on the current 4 campaigns they can own everything besides the premium squads… the stalingrad wasnt anounced as f2p one, yet they can play all maps with some gear and prety much enjoy it at a limited pace. like an old ps2 demo.
donno how one values own time, but still, free to play with lots, lots of content on current campaigns . and i m still to find a game that let the user play so long for so much (even on stalingrad) for free and then decide if they want to buy in or not.
Eh that’s not exactly fair. This is new content being added to the game like anything else and it should be exciting. F2P now just get a shitty campaign thats literally worse in every way imaginable. Sure they can play the other base 4 campaigns but an entire campaign that’s effectively locked out? That sucks no matter which way you cut it.
and for the record, I think this system is better than the old. Just cut out the locked levels and its fine
no it’s not wrong and i say it from f2p the campaign was announced from the beginning as a paid test campaign for the future of the game, in the future maybe it will become free to play ok it can be, but for now the story is different
i disagree with this framing. this is what i meant by the playerbase is spoiled. shit costs money. you want to play elden ring? that will be 60 dollars. you want to play 4 different campaigns with hundreds of hours of gameplay? that shit is completely free. the amount of free content in this game is mindblowing compared to other f2p games.
but when they add a new campaign with a pricetag of 30 dollars (which i think is more than fair). people are outraged because they feel entiteled to everything this big and expensive dev team has to offer for free
