Why is Firestorm not Free2Play?

Conker
23 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member

Well we have fancy overpriced not historical skins now ingame.
It would make more sense if the Firestorm Part is Free2Play. Apex and the newly CoD (Battle Royale may come later but F2P) shows hot it can grow a playerbase.

It also incrase the chance that BF get more players overall, and I feel like BF V lost many of our veterans.

Comments

  • ChickenTheTank
    185 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Yea, it's the best move right now for sure. The worry of backlash from players who paid for the game is going to kill firestorm, even though it's got the best BR mechanics on the market.
  • VVaxDaddy
    129 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    It looks bad to shareholders to advertise this big new feature that help sell the game and then later turnaround and make it free to play.

    Even if it would make more money that way it would be admitting some failures and companies won't do that and hurt their stock price.
  • jroggs
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Making Firestorm free to play would be good for the mode, but it would be bad for the main game due to diverted resources and I don't know how much financial sense it would make. Battlefield V, especially Firestorm, is extremely badly built for the cosmetic monetization that generally drives other FTP BRs, and in terms of players' time and wallets, that's a very competitive genre right now.
  • ChickenTheTank
    185 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited August 14
    jroggs wrote: »
    Making Firestorm free to play would be good for the mode, but it would be bad for the main game due to diverted resources and I don't know how much financial sense it would make. Battlefield V, especially Firestorm, is extremely badly built for the cosmetic monetization that generally drives other FTP BRs, and in terms of players' time and wallets, that's a very competitive genre right now.

    I think they should open the check book back up, and have Criterion continue to give a lot of support to firestorm primarily. Move DICE LA to developing the future content of the base game of BF5, and then give DICE Stockholm more than 1.5 years to do the next battlefield.
  • jroggs
    164 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    jroggs wrote: »
    Making Firestorm free to play would be good for the mode, but it would be bad for the main game due to diverted resources and I don't know how much financial sense it would make. Battlefield V, especially Firestorm, is extremely badly built for the cosmetic monetization that generally drives other FTP BRs, and in terms of players' time and wallets, that's a very competitive genre right now.

    I think they should open the check book back up, and have Criterion continue to give a lot of support to firestorm primarily. Move DICE LA to developing the future content of the base game of BF5, and then give DICE Stockholm more than 1.5 years to do the next battlefield.
    BFV's biggest downfall is that they opened their checkbook too many times for too many different things. Standard multiplayer, Grand Ops, campaign, Combined Arms co-op, Firestorm BR, Practice Range, 5v5 competitive, new MP mode experimentation, Tides of War, cosmetics and customization, live service support and patching... maybe more? All this stuff pulled in just enough money and resources each to add a bullet point to the game's marketing, but never enough money anywhere to make any of them truly great.

    Time and money is definitely important for the next Battlefield, but above all they just need to narrow their focus. Core multiplayer is a must, of course, and if the next one is BC3 then a campaign is inevitable, but otherwise they need to cull a lot of these additional features, because even a surplus of funds, time, and resources means little if it's all spread too thin.
  • CrocHunter27
    12 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    i think it makes sense to make it free to play.. they will make money of skins and some people who dont usually play battlefield might suddenly enjoy it and buy the full game... win win.. and it would help the regions that struggle to get games like oceania... where on a good night we will get 30 odd players.. but usuaully anywhere from 8 -18 in a game on average and its always the same players.. make it free so we can get games just as quick as Apex and even COD BR gets games pretty quickly..
  • TheRealFoe
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The cheaters would have a free pass
  • ThaFr1dge
    2 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    i wouldt mind, i paid the full price for deluxe edition, look what we got... however making firestorm a stand-alone game free-2-play with all the cosmetics (paid) they are adding to the game. would be good for firestorm. i god damn love this game mod but never play it.. duo the bad server lags i have and to long waiting times and always getting match to same players
  • Jezzzeh
    753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Not making this f2p from the start was a weird thing. I've played a few dozen rounds in it since release and I was never that impressed. Several other companies do Battle Royale variants and they do them better than BFV Firestorm and to boot are free!

    Props for trying guys really, you got the idea but not the execution or the timing right.
Sign In or Register to comment.