6 more years of BFV?
This is probably total bollocks but I've had a thought.
I watched a video by Mr Frags after he got back from a jaunt to Stockholm in which he posed the question of what if instead of releasing a new game in two years, Dice instead continually worked on added content to and improved BFV over the next 6 years, following the wars progression in content year by year.
When I watched it I thought no chance, but a couple of things are making me wonder if Dice asked Jack to test the water on this idea by floating it in one of his vids.
1) People are saying that after the road maps release that we'll only be in 1941 by the years end. Dice aren't thinking of flying through 4 years of history and battles in the space of 1 are they?
2) The introduction of BR. I'm not the most knowledgable on this subject but I don't think traditional BR games change their entire format every 2 years. They add things to it and change parts of the map to keep it interesting but I imagine that part of the reason why BR games are so financially successful is that the main work goes into maintaining and adding improvements to an existing model, rather than building a new BR mode from the ground up every two years.
3) They're really taking their time with Boins. I figured EA would want to be hoovering up that dress up cash off the more fashion forward members right off the mark, instead they're really taking their time about it. Is it because their viewing BFV in terms of greater longevity?
I'm not sure how I'd feel about 6 more years, I like BFV but until the NetCode is sorted it's difficult to tell if it's a great game yet. But part of me loves the idea of following the course of the war over the years, it would be like an odyssey.
As well as having a game that is made great then perfected for years of true enjoyment. Following with a release of Battlefield 6 that launches in great shape as it's had the time to be fully developed, instead of going through this all over again in 2020.
Just wondering how the community would feel about a longer life cycle between games.
I watched a video by Mr Frags after he got back from a jaunt to Stockholm in which he posed the question of what if instead of releasing a new game in two years, Dice instead continually worked on added content to and improved BFV over the next 6 years, following the wars progression in content year by year.
When I watched it I thought no chance, but a couple of things are making me wonder if Dice asked Jack to test the water on this idea by floating it in one of his vids.
1) People are saying that after the road maps release that we'll only be in 1941 by the years end. Dice aren't thinking of flying through 4 years of history and battles in the space of 1 are they?
2) The introduction of BR. I'm not the most knowledgable on this subject but I don't think traditional BR games change their entire format every 2 years. They add things to it and change parts of the map to keep it interesting but I imagine that part of the reason why BR games are so financially successful is that the main work goes into maintaining and adding improvements to an existing model, rather than building a new BR mode from the ground up every two years.
3) They're really taking their time with Boins. I figured EA would want to be hoovering up that dress up cash off the more fashion forward members right off the mark, instead they're really taking their time about it. Is it because their viewing BFV in terms of greater longevity?
I'm not sure how I'd feel about 6 more years, I like BFV but until the NetCode is sorted it's difficult to tell if it's a great game yet. But part of me loves the idea of following the course of the war over the years, it would be like an odyssey.
As well as having a game that is made great then perfected for years of true enjoyment. Following with a release of Battlefield 6 that launches in great shape as it's had the time to be fully developed, instead of going through this all over again in 2020.
Just wondering how the community would feel about a longer life cycle between games.
6
Comments
BF1 I could've played 4 years given it was a pure Stockholm release, while LA was working on the next title.
Agree about the gameplay and the class balance, but if a games cycle was more than two years these things could be corrected by a fully staffed Dev team, which would also mean more content.
I'm by no means a huge fan of BFV, but I do think there's potential here that isn't going to have time to be developed on before they start work on the next one and this whole thing starts all over again.
6 years is too long, but I think 3 or maybe even 4 years would benefit this title and the next.
It's just not EAs MO, crank out a new title as often as possible is how they built their empire, why deviate from that because a game could be made better?
Their release cycle is most certainly tied to overall/majority demand.
In short, they release games this often because people buy them.
Agree and again this is just an idea.
Take the amount of revenue games like Fortnite bring in based purely on things like micro transactions and weigh it against the cost of developing a new game 2 yearly. I believe Apex has made 10 million on its first few weeks alone.
EA made a mistake not making FireStorm free to play on release when the hype was at its strongest. This is purely subjective but I think FireStorm is a great mode as it stands, with a few tweaks to gameplay to reduce camping and Dice finally getting a grip on the TTD and you have a BR that can stand up against any of the others on the market that are making an absolute fortune.
The profits from this in turn goes into expanding and improving the main game and continues to be a source of revenue for EA.
The next game which releases at least a year later isn't almost completely broken at launch, has a better beta, stronger reviews and in turn makes EA a lot more money.
EA wants Money and BFV will Not give it to them with Players already leaving.
This. I'm sure as heck not going to play this game for 6 years. Heck I don't see myself playing it for another 6 weeks. Last night I had a couple of hours to myself so I played and finished Deadpool then played Jagged Alliance. I never put down BF2 until the servers closed, I even got the Russian server version of BFBC2 when I couldn't find any ranked local servers. I still have BF4. I only uninstalled BF1 to make space on my SSD for BFV. I bought a new SSD the other day, guess what's going on it.
The only other BF game I played this short was Bad Company 1, due to lack of servers.
Besides that what do we have to look forwards to in 6 years? It isn't like they can do the chronological thing with anything besides maps, and they've already botched that.
If they magic stable 126 or 256 versions of their maps I may try it again but till then........ Meh. Bring on Borderlands 3.
No one is gonna be playing this for 6 years.
Mr Frags is derp
So yeah, a six year development cycle for the game seems like a long time, but it's the same as the gap between 1942 and BF2. I can't say that I see myself playing for a full six years, but if DICE keep working on the game, addressing issues and adding maps and the like, I don't see any reason apart from fatigue that I won't either - when the game works, it's amazing. An RSP would definitely help to keep me playing (provided, of course, I found community servers that I liked). I do buy cosmetics for the other games I play, so I'd probably end up buying some for this game at some point.
It seems 2 years are to short for making a BF game, but I dont think they will wait 6 years unless they find a way to get the same sale.
More content, maps, weapons, fractions could keep the game a live but imo it will not bring more people in to the game, but only maintain the current playerbase.
Microtransactions, maybe but the have not yet shown that the know how to do this, So I doubt this.
Imo they should wait 3-4 years with the next BF and get it right.
Alot of new People are coming to the gane just for Firestorm
Yea and hopefully they will be leaving again as soon as the next hyped BR game appears out of nowhere.
What really bothers me is the seemingly lackluster development of BFV... They cutdown on the very core game to shoehorn a BR-gamemode into the game...
I would REALLY like to see a poll of players that played at least since BF4 if they prefer a well-developed BFV with Premium (and a guarantee 16 map DLC drop within 2 years) or if Dice should continue the path of Firestorm...
HELL... I´m actually getting mad just thinking about it... A well-developed WW2 game would have gained a larger fanbase.
... Firestorm should have been released as a free stand-alone gamemode. They could have made a more whackier approach in regards to customisation, and earn tons of cheddar from all the special snowflakes that want a prosthetic german soldier called Helga og asian descent...