Weekly BF

Lol elite skins are almost as much as entire dlc expansion 4 maps

2

Comments

  • Matty101yttam
    1051 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Multiplayer maps should not be classed as dlc, multiplayer at the very least requires players, so putting a barrier in the way of that is stupid.
    DLC should be singleplayer content, cosmetics and balanced(comparable) weapons, rank upgrades....pretty much everything else.
    People aren't asking for 2 sides of the same coin, they simply want more maps, before live service they started charging for maps(and still under-delivering), and after live service...well there's nothing.

    They really need an overall adjustment to their planning, for one a MINIMUM of 18 maps are needed on release, because most people want a server with at least a 6 map rotation, any less and it becomes repetitive, i mean six does as well but that's where it becomes bearable.
    Then there is the type of people, you have infantry only players, vehicle only players and the guys who like the middle ground. So 3 types of people need 6 map rotations is 18.
    Then comes the 'updates', releasing 1 map at a time is an absolute bad way of doing things, because that map then gets played on repeat until people are back where they started after only a few days, so you need to release map packs based on the minimum number of maps for a server rotation...6.


  • MachoFantast1c0
    2039 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    YourLocalPlumber said:
    Its very funny seeing how people got punched in the balls with reality of having no paid DLCs. Community went from "OMG Stop splitting the community with paid DLCs", to "OMG Please bring back paid DLCs because we want content" in an instant.

    Some lessons have to be learned the hard and painful way.

    I didn't take you for an optimist. Yet here you are, assuming people will learn anything.
  • llPhantom_Limbll
    5647 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 1
    YourLocalPlumber said:
    Its very funny seeing how people got punched in the balls with reality of having no paid DLCs. Community went from "OMG Stop splitting the community with paid DLCs", to "OMG Please bring back paid DLCs because we want content" in an instant.

    Some lessons have to be learned the hard and painful way.

    I didn't take you for an optimist. Yet here you are, assuming people will learn anything.
    People? No.
    I was talking about EA actually. Because  why would they keep Live Service if it doesn't bring them more money compared to Premium?
  • chainloose
    88 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Its very funny seeing how people got punched in the balls with reality of having no paid DLCs. Community went from "OMG Stop splitting the community with paid DLCs", to "OMG Please bring back paid DLCs because we want content" in an instant.
    its because the way the treat this is discusting , imagine if they did it right , we wouldnt ask premium back again , but no , they have to fucc everything they touch out of greed.
  • MidriffUrchin0
    116 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited June 1
    Just because some people have lots of disposable income and want to purchase in game items shouldn't be attacked by others.

    In my experience buying dlc since BF2, the premiuim maps become harder to find games as time goes on, they fizzle out and you find yourself back in base maps before you know it. Premiuim Doesn't work well in the long run.
  • 24OmniTactics24
    147 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Just because some people have lots of disposable income and want to purchase in game items shouldn't be attacked by others.

    In my experience buying dlc since BF2, the premiuim maps become harder to find games as time goes on, they fizzle out and you find yourself back in base maps before you know it. Premiuim Doesn't work well in the long run.

    Dice employee when's the next game coming out
  • 24OmniTactics24
    147 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Multiplayer maps should not be classed as dlc, multiplayer at the very least requires players, so putting a barrier in the way of that is stupid.
    DLC should be singleplayer content, cosmetics and balanced(comparable) weapons, rank upgrades....pretty much everything else.
    People aren't asking for 2 sides of the same coin, they simply want more maps, before live service they started charging for maps(and still under-delivering), and after live service...well there's nothing.

    They really need an overall adjustment to their planning, for one a MINIMUM of 18 maps are needed on release, because most people want a server with at least a 6 map rotation, any less and it becomes repetitive, i mean six does as well but that's where it becomes bearable.
    Then there is the type of people, you have infantry only players, vehicle only players and the guys who like the middle ground. So 3 types of people need 6 map rotations is 18.
    Then comes the 'updates', releasing 1 map at a time is an absolute bad way of doing things, because that map then gets played on repeat until people are back where they started after only a few days, so you need to release map packs based on the minimum number of maps for a server rotation...6.


    I'd be straight with there Ludacris garbage insane elite skins if there was 18 maps upon release but that would never happen EA has always been known for doing as little as possible for as much money as humanly possible
  • Trokey66
    8525 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    At least we can all play the same 10 maps together.

    Tonight I think I'll play 10,000 player TDM with the Xbox boys from my PS4.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ploodovic said:
    Community went from "OMG Stop splitting the community with paid DLCs", to "OMG Please bring back paid DLCs because we want content" in an instant.

    Indeed. And it’s the same community that demands new mode after new mode after new mode, with zero sense of irony about *actually literally* splitting the community.
    Who’s demanding the modes? That’s a complaint I don’t see, that Battlefield games have too few game modes.
    People want Rush, people want Squad CQ. Now Dice removed Frontlines and Domination, so the community is asking to bring those back for whatever reason.

    Even before BF5 was revealed, people were asking for BR mode in the next BF game.
    Some people were asking for that, many others were saying a BR mode had no place in a BF game.  Saying the community is united on any issue is always risky, the only one I can think of is a universal desire for more maps.
  • ElliotLH
    8545 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Trokey66 wrote: »
    At least we can all play the same 10 maps together.

    Tonight I think I'll play 10,000 player TDM with the Xbox boys from my PS4.

    My God man imagine the tea-bagging. I'd be right up for that :D
  • Titan_Awaken
    789 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    It's quite comical since all that time creating bland microtransactions in the form of "eLiTe SkInS" could have been allocated to making new maps.

    Imagine if even half of the effort that went into these skins (such as 3D modelling, texture creation, rendering) was allocated to map creation, we'd have at least one other map right now aside from Mercury/Panzerstorm.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Just because some people have lots of disposable income and want to purchase in game items shouldn't be attacked by others.

    In my experience buying dlc since BF2, the premiuim maps become harder to find games as time goes on, they fizzle out and you find yourself back in base maps before you know it. Premiuim Doesn't work well in the long run.
    I didn't have a problem finding servers running most of the DLC maps long after they were released.  So long as the player population is large enough there are enough players to keep almost any type of server running, e.g. there were still pistol/knife servers in operation when I finally stopped playing BF4, and servers running at least some of the DLC maps.  Maybe if the DLC maps were made available to everyone a year after they were released that would help keep them populated in paid DLC games.  But the point for me is without paid DLC those maps don't exist in the first place.  At this point in BF4 there were 22 maps with another 11 on the way.  Does anyone seriously expect BFV to have more than half that many?
  • YourLocalPlumber
    2977 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Community went from "OMG Stop splitting the community with paid DLCs", to "OMG Please bring back paid DLCs because we want content" in an instant.

    Indeed. And it’s the same community that demands new mode after new mode after new mode, with zero sense of irony about *actually literally* splitting the community.

    I don't think you understand splitting the community. Everyone who bought the game has access to play these modes.
    You can invite everyone with the game to play with you

    Let's say you bought the dlc, but 10% of your friends didn't. Now either you play the base with those friends or screw them and play dlc with those who bought it. THAT is splitting the community

    If a dlc was released and not everyone bought it, then you are having some on play the base and some play the dlc. After 5 dlc you have some that bought say 3 dlc, maybe 1, maybe all 5. This required server's to be set up with several different dlc configurations to please everyone with different games
    Same is happening right now. They're adding a f*ck ton of modes, and everyone wants to play different ones. Some want to play BR, others want to play Conquest, and someone else would want to play 5v5 mode. And there you have it. You CAN play those mode, but I don't want to, because I want to play good old conquest.
  • Ploodovic
    1642 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Multiplayer maps should not be classed as dlc, multiplayer at the very least requires players, so putting a barrier in the way of that is stupid.
    DLC should be singleplayer content, cosmetics and balanced(comparable) weapons, rank upgrades....pretty much everything else.
    People aren't asking for 2 sides of the same coin, they simply want more maps, before live service they started charging for maps(and still under-delivering), and after live service...well there's nothing.

    They really need an overall adjustment to their planning, for one a MINIMUM of 18 maps are needed on release, because most people want a server with at least a 6 map rotation, any less and it becomes repetitive, i mean six does as well but that's where it becomes bearable.
    Then there is the type of people, you have infantry only players, vehicle only players and the guys who like the middle ground. So 3 types of people need 6 map rotations is 18.
    Then comes the 'updates', releasing 1 map at a time is an absolute bad way of doing things, because that map then gets played on repeat until people are back where they started after only a few days, so you need to release map packs based on the minimum number of maps for a server rotation...6.


    I'd be straight with there Ludacris garbage insane elite skins if there was 18 maps upon release but that would never happen EA has always been known for doing as little as possible for as much money as humanly possible
    What Battlefield game had 18 maps on release, paid expansions or not?
  • 24OmniTactics24
    147 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 4
    None I was responding to someone's answer about only releasing 2 maps every 6 months if it realeased with 18 maps then the dreaded minimal viable content drip feed scam that EA has mandated to all game's would be acceptable only then. There literally making three times more money off half the effort man if only EA would go out of business to serve as a warning to other A-moral corporations
  • MOSSAD-RECRUITER
    337 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited June 4
    I paid for deluxe version, and therefor expect access to everything. At least earn it by playing. Introducing in-game purchases only AFTER games are sold as "deluxe" is a scam.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Multiplayer maps should not be classed as dlc, multiplayer at the very least requires players, so putting a barrier in the way of that is stupid.
    DLC should be singleplayer content, cosmetics and balanced(comparable) weapons, rank upgrades....pretty much everything else.
    People aren't asking for 2 sides of the same coin, they simply want more maps, before live service they started charging for maps(and still under-delivering), and after live service...well there's nothing.

    They really need an overall adjustment to their planning, for one a MINIMUM of 18 maps are needed on release, because most people want a server with at least a 6 map rotation, any less and it becomes repetitive, i mean six does as well but that's where it becomes bearable.
    Then there is the type of people, you have infantry only players, vehicle only players and the guys who like the middle ground. So 3 types of people need 6 map rotations is 18.
    Then comes the 'updates', releasing 1 map at a time is an absolute bad way of doing things, because that map then gets played on repeat until people are back where they started after only a few days, so you need to release map packs based on the minimum number of maps for a server rotation...6.


    BF4 launched with ten maps, at the end of its development it had thirty-three.  BF3 and BF1 underwent a similar amount of expansion.  How is that "under delivering"?  Three of those maps in BF4 were even free for anyone who wanted them, nobody had to pay for them, and that's in a paid DLC business model.  Paid DLC resulted in bigger, better games, that's all that matters to me.

    There is an obvious flaw in expecting games to be released with a minimum of eighteen maps, namely the amount of time it would take to get the game to market.  By releasing DLC over the life of a game some development time for new maps, weapons etc. happens after launch, while everyone is playing the base game.  In the case of some games more development time would have been a good idea, e.g. BF4 was badly broken at launch and took a year to fix.  But as they fixed it they kept releasing those DLC and that kept us playing that game--they could probably still be selling BF4 DLC to hundreds of thousands of players if they wanted to.

    Paid DLC worked, Live Service does not work, at least in Battlefield.  Getting three times as many maps plus other content for the price of pizza and beer for four people was cheap, I wish BFV had launched with paid DLC/Premium--for one thing we'd be playing on twenty maps by now, and twenty is more than ten, isn't it.
  • parkingbrake
    3202 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    YourLocalPlumber said:
    Its very funny seeing how people got punched in the balls with reality of having no paid DLCs. Community went from "OMG Stop splitting the community with paid DLCs", to "OMG Please bring back paid DLCs because we want content" in an instant.

    Some lessons have to be learned the hard and painful way.

    I didn't take you for an optimist. Yet here you are, assuming people will learn anything.
    People? No.
    I was talking about EA actually. Because  why would they keep Live Service if it doesn't bring them more money compared to Premium?
    It's what I think of as the Walmart model--if you can cut your costs and keep revenue the same then you end up with more profit.  So instead of paying a big crew of developers umpteen million dollars to come up with four new maps plus weapons etc. every few months which you sell for fifteen dollars, you have them do one new map, and some low-cost skins which you sell for ten bucks each.  Brilliant, your customers pay ten dollars for a skin that took a few devs a short time to design, so the money rolls in with way less development cost to you.

    Except your customers are not happy, because they enjoyed four new maps every few months and they don't think one map cuts it, and most of them are not buying those skins.  On top of that you made some big mistakes in the design and marketing of the game to begin with, so you sold fewer copies than you hoped plus now ongoing revenue is a lot less than it was with paid DLC, you even have lower player retention as people get bored with fewer maps or get tired of problems being fixed so slowly.  So the lower costs have not resulted in more profit because they're matched by lower sales, so your shareholders are unhappy and your stock price does down, and you're laying off staff.

    Good job EA.
  • diagoro
    1548 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    The paid epic skins actually give me a different fear, it's moving cosmetics closer to Fortnight and the extreme fantasy genre. That face plate/Auston Powers is the most extreme thus far, but am guessing Dice are guaging it's acceptance. There are likely a ton more 'extreme' models just waiting in the shadows.
  • MarxistDictator
    4948 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Multiplayer maps should not be classed as dlc, multiplayer at the very least requires players, so putting a barrier in the way of that is stupid.
    DLC should be singleplayer content, cosmetics and balanced(comparable) weapons, rank upgrades....pretty much everything else.
    People aren't asking for 2 sides of the same coin, they simply want more maps, before live service they started charging for maps(and still under-delivering), and after live service...well there's nothing.

    They really need an overall adjustment to their planning, for one a MINIMUM of 18 maps are needed on release, because most people want a server with at least a 6 map rotation, any less and it becomes repetitive, i mean six does as well but that's where it becomes bearable.
    Then there is the type of people, you have infantry only players, vehicle only players and the guys who like the middle ground. So 3 types of people need 6 map rotations is 18.
    Then comes the 'updates', releasing 1 map at a time is an absolute bad way of doing things, because that map then gets played on repeat until people are back where they started after only a few days, so you need to release map packs based on the minimum number of maps for a server rotation...6.


    Multiplayer takes a lot more time to develop content for (no linear shooting galleries and non existent balance like single player). Why do you think they borrow areas from single player to make the maps?

    What we need is quality expansions and an equal commitment to quality to encourage people to buy and developers to develop. The first 2 (I liked the first 3 imo) expansions of BF1 were good but the last 2 seriously diminished quality and scope. If you want $60 worth of content you literally get $60 of content. This is what we see in game.

    When finding lobbies is actually an issue for DLC lobbies the game is hugely reduced in player base and they should keep it discounted permanently.

    Their idea of live service is a trickling tap and 'not splitting the community' 6 months after the last DLC is launched/the next game is announced is not a good enough reason to justify having no game whatsoever by comparison.
Sign In or Register to comment.