BF1 Servers DEAD, revive game by making it FREE!!

1235»

Comments

  • Carbonic
    1948 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    This conversation is getting weird.

    SpoolaZ said:
    RRedux said:
    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    If the servers are dead, it must be because people do not like playing BF1. What does it help to release it for free then? The only ones who will benefit from it are those who get their accounts banned, and want to start a new account .If someone even gets banned of course. And that does not solve the problem anyway, because this game series has not got its reputation of being the most cheat-friendly game of all for nothing.
    So it is better that they charge for the game than to release it for free.So what sensible person wants to come back to play with artificial aimers.

    Strange argument. If the servers are empty then better to have some BF1 by making it deee than no BF1 at all.

    Sounds like you would rather have no game and a game where you sometimes encounter cheaters.

    No cheaters on console (who make up the mast majority) so anything that brings new players is welcome.

    All academic. Won’t happen.
    The future of BF is probably on console with m+k, only way to avoid the majority of cheaters
    Could not agree more....
    For consoles, everything can be free if the publishers want it that way. But for PCs, they can easily charge for everything and a little more.
    This makes no sense. The opposite sentence would be equally true (and horribly confusing).
    "On PC, everything can be free if the publishers want it that way. But on Consoles they can easily charge for everything and a little more".


    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    (Quote)


    For consoles, everything can be free if the publishers want it that way. But for PCs, they can easily charge for everything and a little more.

    Is that why there’s a push from AAA publishers to raise the base price of video games across ALL PLATFORMS from $60 to $70 USD despite being ridden with microtransactions, season passes, battle passes and virtual gambling?

    Damn PC players ruining everything for everyone! /s
    I have no idea how you think the above make any sense and come to the conclusion this is why games are getting more expensive.
    Games are getting more expensive because publishers have seen their "initial sales" profit margins go down due to the game pricing not following inflation. And yes this should be fine due to the market only getting bigger but it's also a risk because the investments required for AAA games are also only getting bigger - a risk you can offset somewhat, on all platforms, by introducing microtransactions.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4416 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    "I have no idea how you think the above make any sense and come to the conclusion this is why games are getting more expensive.
    Games are getting more expensive because publishers have seen their "initial sales" profit margins go down due to the game pricing not following inflation. And yes this should be fine due to the market only getting bigger but it's also a risk because the investments required for AAA games are also only getting bigger - a risk you can offset somewhat, on all platforms, by introducing microtransactions.

    I’m not buying this. It’s an EA shill argument.
    Let’s discuss this in the context of Battlefield, as a AAA title.
    The publishers are simply getting greedy and wanting to take LESS risk or push the risk to the consumer: It used to be that we had a model where battlefield games were released complete and finished.
    More recently we have had premium model, where EA were contractually obliged to made the content in DLC packs that they had been paid for and promised.
    Now EA have an as a service model, where they charge the same initial cost for the game, but now if it fails they have “no obligation to produce the content that was promised. So EA got the cash up front and for BFV for example, didn’t have to burn the cost to making all the content. (as happened in BFV).
    This risk mitigation for he developer is further assisted by the fact that EA now enjoy the revenue benefits of a myriad of microtransactions.
    Risk? You want sympathy? No. I have a better idea. As all other industries do, make a good product, market it well and it will sell. All businesses are in the game of taking risk. In this case EA want to push the risk to the consumer.
    I think EA might be better focusing on making decent games. EA have a AAA title in BF with a loyal and sizeable fan base. Make a decent game , don’t offend your customers and it will sell. End of.
    You are already getting more revenue (more that offsetting inflationary effects, which has been at historically low rates) from micro transactions and are already taking less risk. Your argument reeks of something bad.
  • Carbonic
    1948 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    Carbonic said:
    "I have no idea how you think the above make any sense and come to the conclusion this is why games are getting more expensive.
    Games are getting more expensive because publishers have seen their "initial sales" profit margins go down due to the game pricing not following inflation. And yes this should be fine due to the market only getting bigger but it's also a risk because the investments required for AAA games are also only getting bigger - a risk you can offset somewhat, on all platforms, by introducing microtransactions.

    I’m not buying this. It’s an EA shill argument.
    Let’s discuss this in the context of Battlefield, as a AAA title.
    The publishers are simply getting greedy and wanting to take LESS risk or push the risk to the consumer: It used to be that we had a model where battlefield games were released complete and finished.
    More recently we have had premium model, where EA were contractually obliged to made the content in DLC packs that they had been paid for and promised.
    Now EA have an as a service model, where they charge the same initial cost for the game, but now if it fails they have “no obligation to produce the content that was promised. So EA got the cash up front and for BFV for example, didn’t have to burn the cost to making all the content. (as happened in BFV).
    This risk mitigation for he developer is further assisted by the fact that EA now enjoy the revenue benefits of a myriad of microtransactions.
    Risk? You want sympathy? No. I have a better idea. As all other industries do, make a good product, market it well and it will sell. All businesses are in the game of taking risk. In this case EA want to push the risk to the consumer.
    I think EA might be better focusing on making decent games. EA have a AAA title in BF with a loyal and sizeable fan base. Make a decent game , don’t offend your customers and it will sell. End of.
    You are already getting more revenue (more that offsetting inflationary effects, which has been at historically low rates) from micro transactions and are already taking less risk. Your argument reeks of something bad.
    There's no EA shill in my response. My response was a neutral and simple statement about the gaming industry in general. I didn't comment on if anything is morally/ethically right or wrong. Your attempt to bait me into your discussion about what you think I think about it affects on Battlefield versus your views will not work, that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. You trying to goat me by suggesting I asked for sympathy is just a sad conversational tactic.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4416 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    Carbonic said:
    "I have no idea how you think the above make any sense and come to the conclusion this is why games are getting more expensive.
    Games are getting more expensive because publishers have seen their "initial sales" profit margins go down due to the game pricing not following inflation. And yes this should be fine due to the market only getting bigger but it's also a risk because the investments required for AAA games are also only getting bigger - a risk you can offset somewhat, on all platforms, by introducing microtransactions.

    I’m not buying this. It’s an EA shill argument.
    Let’s discuss this in the context of Battlefield, as a AAA title.
    The publishers are simply getting greedy and wanting to take LESS risk or push the risk to the consumer: It used to be that we had a model where battlefield games were released complete and finished.
    More recently we have had premium model, where EA were contractually obliged to made the content in DLC packs that they had been paid for and promised.
    Now EA have an as a service model, where they charge the same initial cost for the game, but now if it fails they have “no obligation to produce the content that was promised. So EA got the cash up front and for BFV for example, didn’t have to burn the cost to making all the content. (as happened in BFV).
    This risk mitigation for he developer is further assisted by the fact that EA now enjoy the revenue benefits of a myriad of microtransactions.
    Risk? You want sympathy? No. I have a better idea. As all other industries do, make a good product, market it well and it will sell. All businesses are in the game of taking risk. In this case EA want to push the risk to the consumer.
    I think EA might be better focusing on making decent games. EA have a AAA title in BF with a loyal and sizeable fan base. Make a decent game , don’t offend your customers and it will sell. End of.
    You are already getting more revenue (more that offsetting inflationary effects, which has been at historically low rates) from micro transactions and are already taking less risk. Your argument reeks of something bad.
    There's no EA shill in my response. My response was a neutral and simple statement about the gaming industry in general. I didn't comment on if anything is morally/ethically right or wrong. Your attempt to bait me into your discussion about what you think I think about it affects on Battlefield versus your views will not work, that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. You trying to goat me by suggesting I asked for sympathy is just a sad conversational tactic.
    It’s doesn’t alter the facts though does it? Let’s discuss in. Ore general terms then as you suggest.  The increased revenue streams from microtransactions has increased massively in the newer generation of games (GTA, Fortnite etc etc) and these additional revenue streams massively out weigh any downside of inflation discounting (Inflation in western Europe for example has been typically very low single figures for years) AND developers now make less content than ever before at launch ....

    who is getting the bad deal here?  It’s the consumer. 

    Like I said, EA should make decent games if they want to stop profit erosion.......it’s worked for Rockstar, Activision Etc.  
  • Ronin9572
    1318 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Live service is a joke, and most companies take full advantage of this for maximum profit. I'd much rather pay extra for dlc's, even if I had to wait a little while to save up or wait for it to go on sale. I have no issues with MTX's if ppl want to buy special gear as long as it doesn't boost stats.
  • Titan_Awaken
    1309 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic said:
    SpoolaZ wrote: »
    (Quote)


    For consoles, everything can be free if the publishers want it that way. But for PCs, they can easily charge for everything and a little more.

    Is that why there’s a push from AAA publishers to raise the base price of video games across ALL PLATFORMS from $60 to $70 USD despite being ridden with microtransactions, season passes, battle passes and virtual gambling?

    Damn PC players ruining everything for everyone! /s
    I have no idea how you think the above make any sense and come to the conclusion this is why games are getting more expensive.
    Games are getting more expensive because publishers have seen their "initial sales" profit margins go down due to the game pricing not following inflation. And yes this should be fine due to the market only getting bigger but it's also a risk because the investments required for AAA games are also only getting bigger - a risk you can offset somewhat, on all platforms, by introducing microtransactions.

    The "inflation" excuse is what AAA publishers want you to believe but the it could not be further from the truth. In terms of net revenue, the video games industry outearns the film industry and the music industry... combined.

    So why the massive disparity in revenue if the price of a typical AAA title never rose above $60 USD? How on Earth is the games industry raking in so much money when game prices haven't changed since the 90s? 

    Because of microtransactions.
    Because of virtual gambling boxes.
    Because of season passes.
    Because of battle passes.
    Because multiple editions (Deluxe, Super Deluxe, Collectors, blah blah blah).
    Because of subscription services.
    Because of sponsorships and ad placements. 

    The so called "60 Dollar Myth" has been thoroughly documented and debunked numerous times. $60 USD is a shell price more often than not (Yes, I'm sure you can find exceptions to this but that's exactly what they are; they're exceptions, not the norm). If you want to experience absolutely everything a game has to offer, you're going to have to pay a premium... on top of the premium you just paid.

    All the major publishers are raking in unprecedented profit margins. They already have their microtransactions, gambling boxes, season passes, battle passes, multiple editions, subscription services, sponsorships and ad placements and all of this is somehow not enough to sustain them? The sheer audacity of these "AAA" publishers to ask for more $$$ on top of the fact that they already have over 10+ forms of monetisation in their games. 
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4416 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    (Quote)
    The "inflation" excuse is what AAA publishers want you to believe but the it could not be further from the truth. In terms of net revenue, the video games industry outearns the film industry and the music industry... combined.

    So why the massive disparity in revenue if the price of a typical AAA title never rose above $60 USD? How on Earth is the games industry raking in so much money when game prices haven't changed since the 90s? 

    Because of microtransactions.
    Because of virtual gambling boxes.
    Because of season passes.
    Because of battle passes.
    Because multiple editions (Deluxe, Super Deluxe, Collectors, blah blah blah).
    Because of subscription services.
    Because of sponsorships and ad placements. 

    The so called "60 Dollar Myth" has been thoroughly documented and debunked numerous times. $60 USD is a shell price more often than not (Yes, I'm sure you can find exceptions to this but that's exactly what they are; they're exceptions, not the norm). If you want to experience absolutely everything a game has to offer, you're going to have to pay a premium... on top of the premium you just paid.

    All the major publishers are raking in unprecedented profit margins. They already have their microtransactions, gambling boxes, season passes, battle passes, multiple editions, subscription services, sponsorships and ad placements and all of this is somehow not enough to sustain them? The sheer audacity of these "AAA" publishers to ask for more $$$ on top of the fact that they already have over 10+ forms of monetisation in their games. 

    Very well said. Anyone that thinks that game developers are taking increased risks are not looking at this impartially.

    Of course there is risk in making a game. There are many that fail to make money. But being in business is about risk taking and if you own a AAA franchise like Battlefield, with a proven sales history, all you need to to is keep the quality high.

    That means:

    Resourcing projects correctly
    Not rushing out product that is not ready
    Not telling your customers not to buy the product
    Not insulting your customers in PowerPoint decks at internal events.
    Making a game that is popular, not a game that works only for the 1% of competitive wannabes.
    Not marketing the product in a woke way, rewriting history
    Givinh customers the functionality that they have consistently told you they want; anti cheat, decent RSP from launch.
    I could go on......
    H
    I’m actually quite triggered by @carbonic ‘s post. Sorry about that. It’s not personal. It’s just common sense.
  • Trokey66
    9143 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 19
    (Quote)
    The "inflation" excuse is what AAA publishers want you to believe but the it could not be further from the truth. In terms of net revenue, the video games industry outearns the film industry and the music industry... combined.

    So why the massive disparity in revenue if the price of a typical AAA title never rose above $60 USD? How on Earth is the games industry raking in so much money when game prices haven't changed since the 90s? 

    Because of microtransactions.
    Because of virtual gambling boxes.
    Because of season passes.
    Because of battle passes.
    Because multiple editions (Deluxe, Super Deluxe, Collectors, blah blah blah).
    Because of subscription services.
    Because of sponsorships and ad placements. 

    The so called "60 Dollar Myth" has been thoroughly documented and debunked numerous times. $60 USD is a shell price more often than not (Yes, I'm sure you can find exceptions to this but that's exactly what they are; they're exceptions, not the norm). If you want to experience absolutely everything a game has to offer, you're going to have to pay a premium... on top of the premium you just paid.

    All the major publishers are raking in unprecedented profit margins. They already have their microtransactions, gambling boxes, season passes, battle passes, multiple editions, subscription services, sponsorships and ad placements and all of this is somehow not enough to sustain them? The sheer audacity of these "AAA" publishers to ask for more $$$ on top of the fact that they already have over 10+ forms of monetisation in their games. 

    Patly true......

    https://www.businessinsider.com/why-video-games-always-cost-60-dollars-2018-10

    The price of the base game does not cover development costs so of course, 'profit' is persued via the other means you mentioned.

    Development costs will only ever increase and 'additional revenue' through 'extras' could be considered at risk if gamers become increasingly 'cynical or savvy' depending on your point of view.

    An increase in game price for next gen games is inevitable.
    Post edited by Trokey66 on
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4416 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    (Quote)
    The "inflation" excuse is what AAA publishers want you to believe but the it could not be further from the truth. In terms of net revenue, the video games industry outearns the film industry and the music industry... combined.

    So why the massive disparity in revenue if the price of a typical AAA title never rose above $60 USD? How on Earth is the games industry raking in so much money when game prices haven't changed since the 90s? 

    Because of microtransactions.
    Because of virtual gambling boxes.
    Because of season passes.
    Because of battle passes.
    Because multiple editions (Deluxe, Super Deluxe, Collectors, blah blah blah).
    Because of subscription services.
    Because of sponsorships and ad placements. 

    The so called "60 Dollar Myth" has been thoroughly documented and debunked numerous times. $60 USD is a shell price more often than not (Yes, I'm sure you can find exceptions to this but that's exactly what they are; they're exceptions, not the norm). If you want to experience absolutely everything a game has to offer, you're going to have to pay a premium... on top of the premium you just paid.

    All the major publishers are raking in unprecedented profit margins. They already have their microtransactions, gambling boxes, season passes, battle passes, multiple editions, subscription services, sponsorships and ad placements and all of this is somehow not enough to sustain them? The sheer audacity of these "AAA" publishers to ask for more $$$ on top of the fact that they already have over 10+ forms of monetisation in their games. 

    Patly true......

    https://www.businessinsider.com/why-video-games-always-cost-60-dollars-2018-10

    The price of the base game does not cover development costs so of course, 'profit' is persued via the other means you mentioned.

    Development costs will only ever increase and 'additional revenue' through 'extras' could be considered at risk if gamers become increasingly 'synical or savvy' depending on your point of view.

    An increase in game price for next gen games is inevitable.

    That’s a pretty lazy article.

    The author provides no evidence of increasing development costs, but even if that is true, he cites consumer expectation as the reason for pricing remaining at $60.

    That too simplistic. I never saw a business that didn’t try to maximise the price for its product in the market, or develop the product as cheaply as possible in its niche.

    The reason for the price point remaining is simply that it is a very competitive market, and the market values AAA games at that level.

    Of course developers are trying to squeeze even more out. That’s what they do.

    But Carbonic’s point was that they are taking more risk. They are not. They are producing less content that ever at launch. So even if dev costs are rising, there is less and less game being produced at launch.
  • Trokey66
    9143 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    No evidence of development costs increasing?

    Oh dear.

    And with that, it's best to leave it there.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4416 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    No evidence of development costs increasing?

    Oh dear.

    And with that, it's best to leave it there.

    Ok. I didn’t say they hadn’t increased. I’m just saying the author makes claims without citing any evidence. And nor have you.

    The reality is that the free to play model (e.g. fortnite) has categorically proven that top notch content does not need to sit behind a $60 paywall.

    That is why prices are not increasing.

    Consumers demand drives pricing. Supply and demand. It’s basic economics.

    You want to go and charge $100 for your latest game coz of your rising budgets? Good luck with that. It won’t work. Developers know it.

    But to my point, irrespective of your development costs, tbe biggest factor in making money is if consumers actually like the product.

    My original point stands. EA’s main way of mitigating risk should not be cost cutting and reducing content and quality. It should be making sure it is putting out a quality product that people want to play.
  • Carbonic
    1948 postsMember, Moderator, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Moderator
    edited September 19
    But Carbonic’s point was that they are taking more risk. They are not. They are producing less content that ever at launch. So even if dev costs are rising, there is less and less game being produced at launch.
    *Sigh*. No that was not my point. It was a part of the point.
    In any case - any good business will always try and limit the risk of a business investment. To do that companies look at what metrics have been underperforming (even if others are trending upwards or it's understandable that it's trending down) and in this case I pointed out "initial sales" profit margins as one such metric. What I did not do was add any morality to the discussions. I did not say it was bad, I did not say it was good, I did not say that how the publishers handle this was good or bad - which is why I think it's especially silly to get triggered by what I said.
  • Greeny_Huwjarz
    4416 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Carbonic wrote: »
    (Quote)
    *Sigh*. No that was not my point. It was a part of the point.
    In any case - any good business will always try and limit the risk of a business investment. To do that companies look at what metrics have been underperforming (even if others are trending upwards or it's understandable that it's trending down) and in this case I pointed out "initial sales" profit margins as one such metric. What I did not do was add any morality to the discussions. I did not say it was bad, I did not say it was good, I did not say that how the publishers handle this was good or bad - which is why I think it's especially silly to get triggered by what I said.

    Lol. Sure. I wasn’t really triggered, And to be fair, you make a good point about initial sales as a metric. But I’m still right ;-). EA need to get this next one right. For all of us.
  • OskooI_007
    1320 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 19
    High game prices just means people buy less games. People buying less games means more studios closing and a smaller selection of games to choose from.

    Hopefully subscription services with a catalog featuring hundreds of games is where the industry is heading. There's a bunch of games I would like to try out, but I don't want to spend $70 to play it for a few minutes and decide I don't like it. Subscription services would solve this roadblock.

    Of course newely released AAA games would need to be part of the subscription too. Xbox is kind of doing this with Game Pass, but it's game catalog is still mostly older games. Though I did see Wasteland 3 on there which is a newly released AAA title.
    Post edited by OskooI_007 on
Sign In or Register to comment.