Games EA/DICE wants to combat DLC induced community fragmentation for SW-BF2

[TdC]

as title. source: It looks like 'Star Wars: Battlefront II' will ditch the Season Pass

me, I'd be happy to pay for a DLC season pass, and have done (Alien: Isolation and Witcher 3 for example). that said, I would only ever do it for single player games. I mean, more cool story is deff not a bad thing, no?

on the other hand, game experience breaking / pay-to-win / whatever DLC for multi-player, be it FPS, MMORPG, or any other thing that isn't simple cosmetics is imo a terrifically bad idea to begin with. game expansion that doesn't ruin someone else's day, well, that's fine because it can potentially enhance someone else's game without taking away from it (example: other people can see your cool hat *blinks* but they don't have to own said hat). that said, cosmetics is basically masturbation. a game client can be programmed to show you yours without showing ME yours, if you follow. I mean, you bought a cool....hat....and thus you evidently care about such things. You want your avatar to wear said hat, and one could argue that basically zero fucks are given about how I happen to view the game. (ofc there are lots of games where the model is that ALL the fucks are given with regard to player induced avatar customization. The Division, to name a game, holds that idea high).

Another example I can give is premium tanks in WOT: I pay for such a tank and people get to see me rocking my Jagd Tiger 88, I get the credit and XP boost that comes with it, the tanks are generally just as good (or bad, in my case!) as any other tank and can be beat by any other tank. I can play the tank and other people have to deal with what it can or can not do.
The model Wargaming use has the fact that I have bought something directly affecting the gaming experience of myself and others. I'd say it's not breaking the game because as I mentioned above, a premium tank is as good or bad as a player is. In fact, I generally do terribly in the tanks I bought vs the ones I had to grind for.

What I happened to notice yesterday, which is why I've actually been thinking about this by the way, is this: I met @Urgat online in Elite Dangerous last night and we got to chatting about certain aspects of the game. Specifically game enhancements that came with the previous expansion, if I remember correctly. Now I happen to own the "vanilla" ED, and evidently Urgat owns the Horizons expansion. I don't have access to the new meta and he does. For example, my ships have the planetary approach feature, but to my knowledge actually trying to land on a planet would be rather bad for said ship. The game will tell you that for this-or-that feature you will need the expansion. E.g Urgat has a rather fetching avatar and I have the generic one that looks a bit like a Mass Effect Quarian to the extent that it's simply an opaque space helmet, albeit a very futuristic one. I don't particularly mind that part. What I do mind is this: in a game like ED, Urgat and I would be able to play together and fly all around the galaxy if we wished as long as we didn't do something that would stray into a game mechanic that was exclusive to Horizons, like landing on a planet. If we attempted that, he'd land whereas I would....I think explode? I don't know. We can also choose to *not* play together, or not enable the MP component available in ED which makes the entire game PVE. What confuses me is that I can do *some* of the landing, but not all of it. Iow my ship will switch to planet mode I guess. The HUD will change, I will get different readouts...and then I die (haven't actually tried this btw).

Tbh what is what I construe to be game breaking. Don't give me some of the things, give me nothing: I don't own the expansion so I don't want to see any of it. Anyway, I'm odd like that. Anyone got any thoughts on DLC, how it affects games, SP, MP?

 

[Gwadien]

EA release half a game and then stick the rest of DLC and release it periodically.

Would be better if they just sold the game for £60 and all dlc is free.

 

[Ormorof]

Why would they do that when they can sell the game for 80£ and charge £15 per dlc for 2 years?

I used to be quite anti dlc but have softened a bit, if it actually adds value then sure i dont mind paying for it

But in a case like battlefront or the battlefield games more fragmentation = less satisfied players = less money coming in so it may not make sense

 

[Job]

It killed DAOC did it not.

By the way added content really doesnt need a three letter..acr...code.

 

[Raven]

Expansions are fine but when they create a game and then decide to trim parts out and then sell them as DLC it is not fine, day one DLC can foad and so can games companies peddling them.

Bethesda do them right, drip fed over months and generally (FA4 being a bit of an exception) add to the original game.

 

[DaGaffer]

EA release half a game and then stick the rest of DLC and release it periodically.

Would be better if they just sold the game for £60 and all dlc is free.

What's the lifecycle of a BF or Battlefield game, including DLC? A year, two years? Why not offer a sub to everything, including DLC? You could still buy the game or packs if you want, or offer the sub as an alternative. Of course you're then getting into churn issues and you have to be confident in your game, but you'll definitely get more players across all the maps.

 

[Gwadien]

What's the lifecycle of a BF or Battlefield game, including DLC? A year, two years? Why not offer a sub to everything, including DLC? You could still buy the game or packs if you want, or offer the sub as an alternative. Of course you're then getting into churn issues and you have to be confident in your game, but you'll definitely get more players across all the maps.

So what?

People play your game for a monthly fee instead of paying for the actual game?

Because after the first month the vast majority of people will realise it's another EA cash cow.

 

[Raven]

They may well do a sub system in future but you will still need to buy the base game, I would imagine.

I have no particular problem with that, I have paid subs for MMOs for years and peasants are used to it now due to PS+ and whatever Xbox call theirs, just for the privilege of playing online...

So long as the content is decent, a handful of weapons is not but a nice set of unique maps, perhaps the odd new scenario.

 

[DaGaffer]

So what?

People play your game for a monthly fee instead of paying for the actual game?

Because after the first month the vast majority of people will realise it's another EA cash cow.

Hence my question about longevity. I played the earlier BF games for years at a time but the DLC caused fragmentation, subs level the map playing field.

 

[Gwadien]

I haven't played Battlefield since Battlefield 3, purely out of principles.

I knew a bloke who worked for EA, then moved to Sweden and worked for DICE, when they release a Battlefield title, the DLC has already been finished and they're already starting to work on the next Battlefield title, and you're looking at around £80 for the 'full game'

Whereas Arma, buy that for £30 and they release DLC periodically, which isn't even that vital since the modding community is the thing that keeps Arma going.

Arma also gives back to the community, they ran a competition which had $500,000 up for grabs in total over a number of categories; Winners | Make Arma Not War

Note that Playerunknown started his Battle Royale mod on Arma 3, who recently created his own stand alone game which has sold over a million copies. PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

I just find the sandboxness of Arma so much more appealing than the narrow minded approach which Battlefield has, many mods have brought ridiculous amounts of players to Arma - Battle Royale, DayZ and others, EA could adopt this approach for their future Battlefield titles and reward the modders on a much larger scale, and it would mean that the amount of work that they have to do would decline significantly and they would get a more rounded interesting game which doesn't just attract the 'cod kids' and 'casual' gamers who don't want to venture far into the internet for better games.

Also, Bohemia Interactive (the dudes who make Arma) create advanced versions of Arma which they sell to the military (The US Army uses it IIRC) and they make a killing out of that.

Cool right?

 

[Ormorof]

Thise cod kids and casuals are earning them millions why would they change that model?

Not really surprised that they are already done with first dlc at launch day as the QA on those AAA games must be ludicrously long (think of how mjch ridicule ME:Andromeda got for simply not testing things properly)

Development time is not free, why would you expect the dlc to be if it adds new mechanics or art?

 

[DaGaffer]

I haven't played Battlefield since Battlefield 3, purely out of principles.

I knew a bloke who worked for EA, then moved to Sweden and worked for DICE, when they release a Battlefield title, the DLC has already been finished and they're already starting to work on the next Battlefield title, and you're looking at around £80 for the 'full game'

Whereas Arma, buy that for £30 and they release DLC periodically, which isn't even that vital since the modding community is the thing that keeps Arma going.

Arma also gives back to the community, they ran a competition which had $500,000 up for grabs in total over a number of categories; Winners | Make Arma Not War

Note that Playerunknown started his Battle Royale mod on Arma 3, who recently created his own stand alone game which has sold over a million copies. PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

I just find the sandboxness of Arma so much more appealing than the narrow minded approach which Battlefield has, many mods have brought ridiculous amounts of players to Arma - Battle Royale, DayZ and others, EA could adopt this approach for their future Battlefield titles and reward the modders on a much larger scale, and it would mean that the amount of work that they have to do would decline significantly and they would get a more rounded interesting game which doesn't just attract the 'cod kids' and 'casual' gamers who don't want to venture far into the internet for better games.

Also, Bohemia Interactive (the dudes who make Arma) create advanced versions of Arma which they sell to the military (The US Army uses it IIRC) and they make a killing out of that.

Cool right?

Oh I so don't care. "Community" can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned, and I certainly wouldn't not buy a game because a publisher is trying to make money. It's either worth it to me or it's not, no "principles" involved.

 

[Gwadien]

Thise cod kids and casuals are earning them millions why would they change that model?

Not really surprised that they are already done with first dlc at launch day as the QA on those AAA games must be ludicrously long (think of how mjch ridicule ME:Andromeda got for simply not testing things properly)

Development time is not free, why would you expect the dlc to be if it adds new mechanics or art?

It's because they release half-finished games, and then release the rest with DLCs, I wouldn't mind if the game was £20 and then £20 for DLC, but the point is that you're paying £80 for a finished game, for which all the DLC has already has been completed. There's no longevity with the Battlefield series anymore; it's play it for a year, then buy the next one. (CoD much?)

Arma has proven that you can release a game and keep it up to date, which isn't really an issue for Battlefield since there hasn't been any major game play updates since Battlefield 3, yet they've released 4-5 new games since then.

The modding community is also fantastic, they do a great deal of things without asking for a penny, it would be a poor business decision not to openly take advantage of this.

I mean, the mod that I play now is the successor to another Arma 3 mod which was originally based upon a Battlefield 2 mod that not many people have even heard of due to EA reluctance to embrace modders.

 

[Gwadien]

Oh I so don't care. "Community" can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned, and I certainly wouldn't not buy a game because a publisher is trying to make money. It's either worth it to me or it's not, no "principles" involved.

This is why shit is thrown at the wall and some of sticks, and that's what is accepted

 

[DaGaffer]

This is why shit is thrown at the wall and some of sticks, and that's what is accepted

Most people playing BF1 think its a rather good game as I understand it.

 

[Gwadien]

Most people playing BF1 think its a rather good game as I understand it.

It's still a rehashed BF3/4 + hardline though.

This is what WW1 games should look like;


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFs9xvMUi-8

 

[Raven]

It is easily accessible though, pick it up and play. There is no reason why different iterations of the same theme cannot survive together. Some people like apples, some people like oranges, some people like both.

Personally I think battlefield is too simplistic and ARMA too complicated and don't really play either.

 

[DaGaffer]

It's still a rehashed BF3/4 + hardline though.

This is what WW1 games should look like;


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFs9xvMUi-8

If a combat game was actually remotely like actual WW1 I wouldn't want to play it. And to be honest that video looked gash. Why has it got British and French troops fighting on the same map?

 

[old.user4556]

Most people playing BF1 think its a rather good game as I understand it.

Hackers aside, it's fucking superb. Hours upon hours of great gameplay.

My missus went on a girl's night out a couple of weekends ago and I got lost in it for several hours.

 

[Tom]

Yeah but can you wear a bird head, a unicorn wig and a Hawaiian shirt and bash people over the head with a crit-charged frying pan? Because that's how I roll in TF2.