I tend to always find some game with some people in it, but really thought it would be a lot more people since it was at the top of the eshop charts.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Star Wars: Battlefront Classic Collection coming March 14th, 2024 (Online, 64 Players, & More) [Switch, Xbox, PS, & PC]
- Thread starter Bishop89
- Start date
I tend to always find some game with some people in it, but really thought it would be a lot more people since it was at the top of the eshop charts.
Is there anything shows how many are playing at any one time? Or are there at least several rooms with max or high player volume counts? I expect the online population may not be super high, but I can manage if there is at least some activity that seems consistent. I plan on playing the games for single player as well as multiplayer but hope to get the most for my buck in doing so. Otherwise I might just reach back a bit and pick up Force Unleashed and play through that again.
I haven't seen a full server yet.
You see a list of servers, usually only one or two are populated, but never full.
Depends how much you care about thirty bucks and mind some bots mixed in. As mentioned it's definitely not wildly active but I've always found some game to join, never completely full but usually can find one with half the bots fill in the rest. Definitely not ideal, but I still have fun. If money is a factor I couldn't recommend it, but if thirty bucks doesn't really bother you and you just want to play the campaign and can deal with only having a few populated servers with some bot fill, you can enjoy it.
It's really one of those experiences that on paper is not good: high price, some bugs, not a massive player base. But in practice i still have had a fun week with it so far and probably have put in like twenty hours. Also that's oddly with basically no nostalgia for these games, played a bit at friends houses back in the day but only had cube that gen and never owned them.
Patch is out on Steam and in cert for consoles. The fixes are numerous, including most (all? Idk) of the major ones, like BF1 loading sound, texture issues, y-axis inversion, crashing, and server browser stuff. BF2 cutscenes are fixed too but not listed weirdly.
Says they're continuing to make MP backend fixes and working on a second patch.
Glad it came quickly, personally I'm not bothered, but damn it sucks that some part of the dent in playerbase will be permanent because they screwed up the launch. I really would've liked to know how full this thing could've gotten had it launched well with great word of mouth heading into the weekend and beyond.
Instead this game may be permanently marred by anemic servers for its lifetime now that the damage is done from the WOM
Right? It's easy to say online games can turn around, but less so when it's a remaster that will not be getting any new major/meaningful content. With so many people getting a spit first taste, many will never come back.
The crazy part is they fixed all this in…a week? Why not delay it a week or hell a month. Unless of course they knew they were being forced to launch this broken and had this cooking for longer.
Yeah because it looks like all the major issues were addressed with this patch and it took them 5 days to issue a fix. A simple week's delay would have avoided this whole shitstorm (mod stealing not withstanding).
Still no news on the Y axis issue? Bummer.
I know it has only been a few days, but got the feeling this is something they'll just completely ignore until a patch is ready like a month after release and it'll quietly take care of it.
I know it has only been a few days, but got the feeling this is something they'll just completely ignore until a patch is ready like a month after release and it'll quietly take care of it.
Whoops, completely missed the post. Thank god it's getting fixed.
How is the split screen coop? Want to play with the kiddo but am curious as to what it actually is.
Is it just multiplayer vs bots or actual campaign coop?
Is it just multiplayer vs bots or actual campaign coop?
Well, less so in the days of patches but first impressions still absolutely matter because those review scores from gaming journalists won't get updated.
I guess there's always the chance that even with a good launch the game wouldn't have caught on like crazy, but they were pretty high on the eShop/PSN rankings so...
Seriously, wait one week, guys. What an unforced error. This was our one shot at these games on modern platforms (minus PC) with functioning online and who knows what kind of bummer long term population we're looking at now.
Seriously, wait one week, guys. What an unforced error. This was our one shot at these games on modern platforms (minus PC) with functioning online and who knows what kind of bummer long term population we're looking at now.
I am also very interested in the long-term population of this. On one hand, they definitely missed out on capturing big momentum from all the hype around the release and initial positive impressions from press. However, it is also a Star Wars game, so I feel people who play games but don't hang out on forums will keep finding it on the storefronts and picking it up, unless the fact it is so multiplayer-centric turns them off. Just generally a bummer if it dies so quickly, considering even in its failed launch state i was pretty hooked to the gameplay loop.
Fair point, the brand and general nostalgia over these games may carry it to a healthy state long term. I really hope the fixes get some press/attention so people come back, but it's the internet so who knows
Star Wars is also a high profile game so the botched launch went viral. People looking for information about the Classic Collection are going to find a lot of discussions and youtube videos about the game being shit, I doubt there is going to be a lot content creators and forum posters who would give it a second chance later.
In regards to the games getting a second chance from a wider audience, I'll just quote the famous sage, Kelly Clarkson:
You had your chance, you blew it
Out of sight, out of mind
Seriously, would it have killed Aspyr to wait even one week so that all those bugs would be fixed before people got their hands on the game? That week is all it took for the collection's reputation to plummet, and it's never going to get the attention it could have gotten from the general audience if it had just been delayed a little bit.
I'll eventually pick it up if it still has players once it's cheap, but... Jesus, guys. Unforced error indeed.
You had your chance, you blew it
Out of sight, out of mind
Seriously, would it have killed Aspyr to wait even one week so that all those bugs would be fixed before people got their hands on the game? That week is all it took for the collection's reputation to plummet, and it's never going to get the attention it could have gotten from the general audience if it had just been delayed a little bit.
I'll eventually pick it up if it still has players once it's cheap, but... Jesus, guys. Unforced error indeed.
Can anyone say if this is fixed now? The game controlled HORRENDOUS on controller on PS5 in comparison to how the original plays. I was shocked.
Cause if this is not fixed then the whole collection on consoles is still complete trash, cause it is SUCH a difference.
Cause if this is not fixed then the whole collection on consoles is still complete trash, cause it is SUCH a difference.
Wait until it's fully fixed.
We need to see if aiming gets fixed in the patch, and if the online works at all.
They hired them for the Tomb Raider remasters. The comparison makes it even more glaring how much the Battlefront Classic Collection feels like a cash grab.
This is what needs to be fixed for me, too. It's insane to have two games so inherently similar with such different feeling controls.
Not always a guaranteed success, modders can potentially bring in incompatible workflows for the schedule that commercial development needs, or potentially even a bias to a fragmented community. Valve even has a troubled history of having modders deliberately leak internal resources simply for clout, which other studios do take notice of so yes that really does ruin it for everyone.
Basically it's a double edged sword. Trust needs to be well and truly established for some studios to consider trying it.
VERY LIKELY. Most of the time it's not the devs decision to put shit out before it's done.
It felt extremely off to me with super high sensitivity even on 1 or 2 setting and it's just incredibly difficult to aim at anyone and to get a good feeling here.
When I switched to the original PC version with controller or Steam Deck it was crazy what a f'n difference it was, it immediately felt perfect and super awesome to aim and that was even set to sensitivity 5.
Even if you think right now that it's "fine", and you make it work, it's completely broken to how the original played on a controller it's such a massive difference of feeling, you have to see the difference for yourself to believe.
I hope they fix that.
Last edited:
Im telling you don't do it. It's not good, at least at this time
Consoles didn't even get the most recent patch yet. Once that drops it SHOULD be fine provided nothing else breaks because of that lol
Kinda sucks someone at Aspyre decided to fucking kill the game instead of just release it a few weeks later. Its not recovering on Steam that's for sure.
Issues aside, there was always a very high chance that the multiplayer population died off very quickly.
Games from this era thrived on community hosted dedicated servers, and they haven't even released proper dedicated server software for this (the PC version can technically be made to run as a "headless" server, but it requires you to own a copy of the game just for the server to run under).
Games from this era thrived on community hosted dedicated servers, and they haven't even released proper dedicated server software for this (the PC version can technically be made to run as a "headless" server, but it requires you to own a copy of the game just for the server to run under).
That era is foreign to me, can you explain community hosted dedicated servers? In this game users can create their own servers, how does that not fulfill the same purpose? My understanding is obviously lacking here
The main problem with the in-game servers created by users is that the game lives and dies with that user, and their system is not just having to process their gameplay but handle all the activities that come from being the "server". If their game crashes, everyone on the server is now kicked out. I don't know if it applies in this game but, but typically in these scenarios you also get so called "host advantage", where the person who is running the server has their inputs registered on the server immediately (where as other players have the latency of their connection to the server to contend with), so it can end up with their shots registering hits ahead of other players.
With a dedicated server, you would configure it how you want and it would run 24/7 with it only having to worry about being a server. Hosting 64 players was and is demanding, back then most home Internet connections would not have anywhere near enough bandwidth to accommodate such numbers - it's debatable if many connections today even do - so clans or communities of players would lease or host their own servers in proper datacenters with Internet connectivity up to the task. No one has any advantage, because everyone is connecting to this dedicated server.
Fascinating, never would have guessed all that. But dedicated server software is only for the PC crowd, there's never been anything in a game like this on consoles for console players to use dedicated and avoid the downsides of player-hosted, is that right?
Yes, it's really just a PC thing. Dedicated servers on consoles do of course exist, but they generally have to be provided and run by the developers of the game. Some console games do allow you turn your system into the equivalent of dedicated server, but it's not really an ideal way of doing things.
Although Battlefront 2 on the PS2 did actually release dedicated server software which you could run on a PC and allow PS2 players to connect to.
So is this thread considered to be the main OT? Couldn't find one.
Anyway! Picked up the game os PS5 rather than PC so I can play with my kiddos.
Hoping the console release is decent! Hopping in tonight for some coop!
Anyway! Picked up the game os PS5 rather than PC so I can play with my kiddos.
Hoping the console release is decent! Hopping in tonight for some coop!
OP
OP
is there any way around not deleting your "profiles"?
Do i really need to create a new one?
I haven't played it since that last patch that broke it
Do i really need to create a new one?
I haven't played it since that last patch that broke it
Warhawk for PS3 allowed you to run a headless server, there was even a trophy for running one for four hours. There was a classic server browser for that game so it made sense. Other than that I can't think of another game on console that allowed such a thing.
Is the online working properly yet? What a bummer of a launch. Was quite excited for this but netcode issues out the gate is just gonna kill the community fast.
I've seen some positive posts on reddit but haven't tried myself since last week. Apparently ticket counts are much higher on some (all?) of the dedicated servers too now