Weekly Debrief

Bring Back The Premium Pass - We need guaranteed maps and content

Comments

  • azelenkin0306
    560 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    I'd honestly be happy if they ditched this game entirely now with a PR announcement that they knew they've F ed up. Then make.bf6 with premium that give us a roadmap and an incentive to make a decent game. The game.prices haven't exactly gone up but development costs have by a long shot. Games from back in the day I know youngsters who could make them now. This game just hasn't and won't work out I reckon.

    With premium people who don't value the game can have their cake and eat it for £60

    Those who want more can pay premium for more.

    It's win win and the past has shown that.

    I am completely fine with paying for the base game and paying for Premium pass. BF1 Premium pass was a good deal: new theatres of war, new interesting weapons, new game modes and etc.

    I don't like this whole Live Service model done in EA/DICE way, when game is released in a half-finished state and then fixed/balanced for the next 5-6 months. This model should be scrapped and thrown in the window. I am not buying this EA/DICE **** about content delivered within the ToW - it's not a new content, it's content they didn't have time to finish by the end of November, 2018. It's amazing to see a lot of people thinking that ToW is bringing a new content :)

    Also I don't like the idea of changes for the sake of changes. BF1 was not a perfect game, but it did a lot of things very good (Weapon balance, Class balance, Operations, overall feeling that you're in the war, various maps and theatres of war). They removed a lot of annoying BF1 stuff, but in the same time managed to screw everything that was good in BF1.

    So, in the end I am all for the Premium. For everyone saying that Premium brings "quantity over quality", Live Service brings neither of them since content quality is purely subjective stuff.
  • wc138
    1109 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    ^Both completely wrong assumptions.

    Both games with premium ended up with loads of content. Games without had less. I personally would like more than less and these are the only two options.

    We can all have less

    Or those of us who value it can have more while those who are haply with less, can have less.

    I paid £80 for deloluxe. I'll happily pay £40 higher price for A LOT more

    You paid for premium in earlier BF's because they laid out exactly what that bought you. It was a lot of added content.

    The assumption isn't wrong at all. The game is a broken mess with zero release schedule to show us what might be coming after Firestorm. So at this point, you'd be handing over cash for premium for nothing.

    They removed premium because people have said for years that EA delivers half a game, and locks the other half behind an equally costly pay wall for DLC/Premium modes. They attempted to stop that this go round, and it was a step in the right direction. If you think the lack of premium mode is the reason for lack of content, you're the one who's made the wrong assumptions here.
  • UnearthedCO
    156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I knew the live service was going to be weak because it is free. Anything free is normally quite bad. I hope this teaches the community not to cry about paying for DLC content. Paid content is much better than a free live service.

    We should have a minimum of 4 new maps by now. Instead we got a BR mode which is okay it's just not my cup of tea. I bought Battlefield to play Operations, Conquest, Frontlines etc. not BR.
  • Gundidrone
    23 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    This is probably the main thing the game is desperately needing to make it as good as past titles.

    I would need at least 1 new map every 6 weeks to keep me interested in this game.

    And we need big famous maps like the D-day landings and Wake Island.
  • echo-smoker93
    81 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited March 26
    Premium brings quality. DICE and EA are very bad at live service. To this day I wait for more maps in Battlefront 2.
    It's a shame... Battlefield V had great potential. I'm totally disappointed how they are dealing with the factions and maps.
    Buying a whole package is better than getting a map only when God knows.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    wc138 wrote: »
    Let's give them another 50 dollars to give us the stuff they should have given us in the first place, only to watch them cut the price down to 20 next week when only 50 people actually fall for that.

    EA has really done a number on your people that'd you'd give them more money on zero promise, when they still can't even get the core game right.

    Bad idea is still bad, even after this, the one millionth thread about it.
    You are completely missing the point. When EA had paid DLC in previous BF games like BF4, they announced expansion packs as much as six months in advance and everything in those expansions was delivered. Nobody is asking you to trust EA, nobody is even asking your buy Premium. But it is an undeniable fact that when there were paid DLC the games got much, much bigger, and repairs were done faster too.

    Of course we wouldn't buy Premium without guaranteed content being announced. But if they did it exactly the way it was done in BF4 we'd end up with three times as many maps as the game launched with as well as more weapons, vehicles, game modes and frequent patches. If they went back to that system you could just wait until each expansion pack was released and buy it for $15.00--no trust needed and no Premium needed either.

    Live service in BF is a disaster, new content arrives in a trickle, repairs take ages, how is this in any way better than the old system in which paid DLC funded a steady flow of new content? BF4 ended up with 33 maps, three of them were free DLC too--is there the tiniest chance BFV will get even half that many? Paid DLC (with or without Premium) worked, Live Service has been a dud, how much easier could this be to understand?
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    The next BF should just charge £90 per game. That's the going rate now for a AAA deluxe edition game. Include everything with a solid roadmap. instead of this half way house not too sure what they're doing cosmetic MTX scheme!

    Game prices have stayed relativity stable whilst development cost have increased. I mean I remember a Super Mario (Gold Cartridge) costing £70 back in the day.

    I'll reiterate gaming has never been a free to play hobby. Even all those free to play games are so heavily incentive's to part you with money it kills all enjoyment. (World of Tanks cough cough)

    I'd be fine with something like that--a hundred bucks or so with a guarantee of twenty new maps over two years plus new vehicles, weapons, game modes etc. In effect that's what they did with previous titles except that cost was split into the base price plus Premium (or individual DLC). So they can merge those two prices into one, guarantee the content, and everybody is happy (the community isn't split). Of course some folks will still screech, a hundred dollars, how will they feed their family (while tearing out hair with tears streaming down face). They'll spend that on a couple of tickets to a game that lasts a couple of hours and not think twice about it, but a game they'll play for hundreds of hours would be overpriced at the same amount.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    ackers75 wrote: »
    Even EA knows 80£ for a game is ridiculous and guess why?

    Because they would already be charging you 80£ for it!
    They know no such thing. Fortnite is free, and last year that game made two billion dollars in profit (not revenue, profit) for Epic. That's the only number EA cares about, the profit. They would happily give away BF6 for free if skin sales to players would bring in money like that. But they messed up, BFV has been out for months and they still don't have skin sales working, so without revenue coming in development and repairs are moving at a glacial pace.

    Paid DLC worked, the proof is in the games that used it, they got a steady flow of new content and even repairs happened faster. Live Service doesn't work, at least for EA, and if BFV keeps limping along at this slow pace then by the time BF6 is ready to launch even the dullards at EA might have figured it out.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    wc138 wrote: »
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    ^Both completely wrong assumptions.

    Both games with premium ended up with loads of content. Games without had less. I personally would like more than less and these are the only two options.

    We can all have less

    Or those of us who value it can have more while those who are haply with less, can have less.

    I paid £80 for deloluxe. I'll happily pay £40 higher price for A LOT more

    You paid for premium in earlier BF's because they laid out exactly what that bought you. It was a lot of added content.

    The assumption isn't wrong at all. The game is a broken mess with zero release schedule to show us what might be coming after Firestorm. So at this point, you'd be handing over cash for premium for nothing.

    They removed premium because people have said for years that EA delivers half a game, and locks the other half behind an equally costly pay wall for DLC/Premium modes. They attempted to stop that this go round, and it was a step in the right direction. If you think the lack of premium mode is the reason for lack of content, you're the one who's made the wrong assumptions here.

    BF games with paid DLC got a steady flow of new content and ended up several times the size they were at release. The first BF game with Live Service not only appears unfinished, it has received a tiny amount of additional content and repairs are not happening quickly. The lack of paid DLC is precisely why this has happened, BFV isn't generating ongoing revenue and so EA has DICE on a short financial leash. BF4 with paid DLC tripled in size; BFV with Live Service has one new map, and the BR mode which in reality is a separate project developed by another studio which has been dropped into BFV in an attempt to revive slow sales.

    Forget Premium, the real issue is paid DLC. If EA announced they were returning to paid DLC for BFV and the first expansion pack would be in June and would have four new maps and two new factions and would cost fifteen dollars, I'd buy it without a second thought.

    Live Service has not been a step in the right direction, it has resulted in a smaller game with an uncertain future. Paid DLC worked, Live Service doesn't, at least when EA is running it. People who cried about paid DLC/Premium no doubt bought tickets to sports events that lasted a couple of hours and cost more than a Battlefield game and Premium combined, a game they played for hundreds of hours. On a cost per hour basis the value of a game that cost $110.00 with Premium beats just about any commercial entertainment activity you can think of.

    If EA sticks with this Live Servive garbage for BF6 I think I'll wait until it's on sale for half price a few days after release--at least that way the lack of new content will seem okay at that price.
  • UnearthedCO
    156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    The problem with this live service is not because it is a live service but because it is a bad live service.

    It's bad because it isn't being funded. Are we forgetting there were low sales and no paid DLC content which equals low revenue. You do realize it cost money to make a game and DLC content right?

    If BFV had a premium DLC service and focused on the more known parts of WW2, the game could have been one of the greatest for the franchise in all time.
  • LinkZeppeloyd
    791 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    wc138 wrote: »
    ENKkii87 wrote: »
    ^Both completely wrong assumptions.

    Both games with premium ended up with loads of content. Games without had less. I personally would like more than less and these are the only two options.

    We can all have less

    Or those of us who value it can have more while those who are haply with less, can have less.

    I paid £80 for deloluxe. I'll happily pay £40 higher price for A LOT more

    You paid for premium in earlier BF's because they laid out exactly what that bought you. It was a lot of added content.

    The assumption isn't wrong at all. The game is a broken mess with zero release schedule to show us what might be coming after Firestorm. So at this point, you'd be handing over cash for premium for nothing.

    They removed premium because people have said for years that EA delivers half a game, and locks the other half behind an equally costly pay wall for DLC/Premium modes. They attempted to stop that this go round, and it was a step in the right direction. If you think the lack of premium mode is the reason for lack of content, you're the one who's made the wrong assumptions here.

    A step in the right direction? Respectfully, are you insane? Battlefield’s brand is on life support, and you think this is a step in the right direction?

    Let me try to differentiate Battlefield from a live service game: it isn’t f2p, and a historical war makes zero sense for micro economy because you have no latitude for creativity. So this model never made any sense, at all, for this game.

    A f2p set in a fictional war? Sure, fine. But BFV is the opposite of that, a full price game in a historical setting. It. Makes. No. Sense.
  • ViolationofDerp
    112 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited March 26
    I know this is dump, because the Deluxe Edition already felt like a complete scam, but I would genuinely pay another 40 Euros for a premium edition, Battlefield is the only game I constantly play and always come back to.
  • von_Campenstein
    6568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I'd actually get the game if they announced they'd provide pingcapped, regionlocked servers for a fee. I'd call that premium.
  • UnearthedCO
    156 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I know this is dump, because the Deluxe Edition already felt like a complete scam, but I would genuinely pay another 40 Euros for a premium edition, Battlefield is the only game I constantly play and always come back to.

    We all are fans of Battlefield, we just hoped it would have been better. What we mean by better is more of what we we liked from previous titles in the series. Premium DLC content with 20 maps or more over the span of a year or so.

    Aside from map content, BFV is a really good game.
  • IDirtY_SeCreT
    530 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    The problem with this live service is not because it is a live service but because it is a bad live service.

    It's bad because it isn't being funded. Are we forgetting there were low sales and no paid DLC content which equals low revenue. You do realize it cost money to make a game and DLC content right?

    If BFV had a premium DLC service and focused on the more known parts of WW2, the game could have been one of the greatest for the franchise in all time.

    I doubt that ;) They still screwed many customers with their agenda and broken game. DLCs wont fix that. What I don't get is, why would people even consider to give EA aeven more money after this disaster of a game? I guess people will never learn their lessen^^
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    The problem with this live service is not because it is a live service but because it is a bad live service.

    That is a distinction without a difference. EA has proven that Live Service and microtransactions are the kiss of death in their games--SWBFII anyone? Now they've brought that same clumsy lack of insight to Battlefield, and look at the results.

    If this game had been run on the same business model as BF4 we'd have four new maps already, not a "roadmap".
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    The problem with this live service is not because it is a live service but because it is a bad live service.

    It's bad because it isn't being funded. Are we forgetting there were low sales and no paid DLC content which equals low revenue. You do realize it cost money to make a game and DLC content right?

    If BFV had a premium DLC service and focused on the more known parts of WW2, the game could have been one of the greatest for the franchise in all time.

    I doubt that ;) They still screwed many customers with their agenda and broken game. DLCs wont fix that. What I don't get is, why would people even consider to give EA aeven more money after this disaster of a game? I guess people will never learn their lessen^^

    BF4--paid DLC and Premium, tripled in size over two years going from ten maps to thirty-three plus new vehicles, weapons, game modes. Also underwent massive repairs at the same time as the game was being greatly expanded, all paid for by those DLCs and Premium. EA delivered everything they were supposed to in that game, everything announced was released, and it was all funded by paid DLC.

    The lesson you can't seem to learn is that paid DLC resulted in much bigger and better games. If BFV had used the same system repairs would be happening faster and we'd already have the first DLC with several more soon to come. Instead we have Firestorm, an attempt to latch onto the current fad in online gaming.

    Obviously if EA went back to that system for BFV at this late date they would have to prove their ability to deliver new content before anyone in their right mind paid for Premium. But if they released a paid DLC with new maps and a new faction all working properly, then I'd happily buy it. Paid DLC worked, Live Service has been a flop--the games themselves are proof.
  • IDirtY_SeCreT
    530 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Cause all the content they brought with the DLCs in BF4 was so great? That's why so many servers ran vanilla rotation after a while I guess. But oh my, we got so many guns and that's what players always asked for since more guns mean better gameplay right? What is the point with more content when it's all about quantity and it lacks quality. Regarding the weapons in BF4 some of them had only minor differences making them feel alike while others were just plain useless. I don't say DLCs are bad or Live-Service is good, both have their downsides but it seems EA can't get anything right at the moment. But feel free to think that DLCs are the holy grail since it's your right. I on the other side think even DLCs wont help this game especially when I look back at all their DLCs since BF4. At this point I'd be happy if they would be able to determine what they want BFV to be, but that seems to be a long shot too^^
  • von_Campenstein
    6568 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Hawxxeye wrote: »
    The problem with this live service is not because it is a live service but because it is a bad live service.

    That is a distinction without a difference. EA has proven that Live Service and microtransactions are the kiss of death in their games--SWBFII anyone? Now they've brought that same clumsy lack of insight to Battlefield, and look at the results.

    If this game had been run on the same business model as BF4 we'd have four new maps already, not a "roadmap".

    They've actually devolved, from my understanding there is nothing much to buy to sustain the model.
This discussion has been closed.