Was live service doomed from the start?



  • DJTN1
    306 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I don't think most people understand what a live service is and/or why the publishers want them so badly. They want to monetize games for longer. They noticed a lot of players continue to play the older versions of games instead of buying the new ones. That's their logic anyway...

    To me its stupid for a couple of reasons. One, the skins and other cosmetic items have to be loaded into the computer's memory for everyone in the match. So you could potentially have 64 different textures, sounds and art to load. That eats up resources so you have to make cuts to other things like map size, destruction, environment sounds, etc... Taking away from the experience so little Jimmy can have his pink fur and long haired woman character in a military shooter.
    Not judging, just saying...

    Secondly, new consoles are coming out, along with new versions of games soon. Most players will move on to the next generation. Why waste all the time, money and resources into something that won't have a long lifespan? Live services only payoff in the long run. There is no short term ROI.

    And for goodness sake, release a "finished" product for once.

    Anyway, maybe they'll learn something and figure it out eventually.
  • von_Campenstein
    6618 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Or did it die due to poor execution in EA/DICE's hands? Probably the latter given their track record.
    It's a failure due to imcompetence, I can think of a number of things to monetize off the top of my head, nothing major and for a small sum too so people would think nothing of it, not like battlepacks in BF1 which were silly expensive for what they offered. HUD customizations, killsounds, scope reticules are the ones coming to mind without dwelling on the subject any.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    TFBisquit said:
    Dear people, there was insufficient capacity for a premium service. They simply could not deliver the maps and items associated with that.
    That's why they opted for a live service, to relieve some of the strain involved when working on those dlc maps.
    Premium service or a certain amount of map packs was never an option. Never.
    Because if they could, they would go that route asap, simply because of a bigger revenue.
    I call BS on that. BF4 was also developed in about 2 years, same as BF5. Yet for some reason BF4 had a ton of content at launch, along with Premium content being announced even before the game was released.  BF4 was a full game with nothing cut out of it. Yes it was extremely unpolished because of rushed development. But BF5 is unpolished, its STILL missing core features. And to put a cherry on top, we're over 7 months into BF5s release, and it still has less content than BF4 AT LAUNCH 

      The only reason why EA_Dice decided to go with Live Service model is because it requires little to no effort to develop. Few recycled guns and skin each month with occasional map here and there is nothing special to develop.

    Also they've made a huge mistake by trying to get a piece of that sweet BR pie with Firestorm.
    I agree that there was no reason BFV couldn't have been planned as a paid DLC game and have a similar level of content to BF4, although once they made the decision to go with a smaller Live Service game they couldn't change their mind now, at least not easily.  But compared with the train wreck/plane crash/hurricane that was BF4 at release, BFV is in pretty good shape.  At least BFV runs, and the audio doesn't disappear on a regular basis, and tanks don't roll around as wire-frame skeletons, and people in buildings which collapse aren't left floating in the air until the round ends.  BFV has bugs, but it's not even close to being as bad as BF4 was at launch.
  • Astr0damus
    2904 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    DJTN1 said:

    And for goodness sake, release a "finished" product for once.

    Anyway, maybe they'll learn something and figure it out eventually.
    The biggest difference between CoD and BF is that Activision has 3 or 4developers to work on different games. So while one is in full release, a completely different company can already be devoting 100% of it's resources into designing the next game, whether it be Black Ops or Ghosts, etc..
    They have Trey-Arch, Raven, Sledgehammer and Infinity Ward. Can you imagine instead of just DICE, there were 3 or 4 companies that could work on the next Battlefield? (or even the iteration that is 4 years away?)

    But if DICE is already working on BF 6 or Bad Company 3 (Please!?) then they have to split their focus--or else have a firm (Uprise) that is not familiar with the history, feel and evolution of the franchise begin work on it, and then DICE has to finish what they started. But I have no idea how the internal process works for working on the current game/future release simultaneously.
    I guess DICE has DICE-LA and DICE-SWE but even then, it's not two entirely separate companies--everything is still approved by DICE-SWE and EA.
    tl;dr: I'm a little envious how Activision has 3 or 4 game designers to use for future titles.
Sign In or Register to comment.