My opinion on what could save the RSP for little to no effort (long read posts)

«134
TheQue
285 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
edited March 2017
I honestly believe after reading as many posts, tweets, and redit threads as I have that the RSP program is having difficulties getting available resources to create any new features and functionalities. From a business perspective, I think a major reason is a lack of revenue from this offering. I know this is a huge assumption, but I would go so far as to say that the projected revenue vs. the actual revenue has caused the product management team to allocate resources to more revenue generating features such as DLC’s. I honestly would make the same decisions if I did not believe in the RSP program based on numbers alone.

With all of that, I would like to propose what I believe would be the simplest way to monetize the RSP program to a level that will generate enough money to justify further resources for development of features. These are purely from a business stand point of cost vs. return. The idea is just to get the sales back so you can get the resources back. With that, I have three phases below.

Phase 1:

The absolute minimum would be to re-Implement the Quick Match system that existed prior to the “Thanksgiving” patch on 24 November, 2016. For those that are not aware, the system use to populate RSP servers very fast. Unfortunately, a YouTuber complained to the developer that they were “Quick Matched” into a Custom server. Based on that, a change was made that instantly created empty RSP servers. We owned servers on Day one of the RSP program, and even with the larger start numbers (I believe it was 15 on each side), we could start a server within 10 minutes of having about 4-6 platoon members joining.

This should be a trivial change as all you need to do is roll back the QM changes. The risk should also be low as the live servers were running with this for 6 weeks before the change. The reality is, no one wants to purchase something they cannot use. Even with the lack of administration, our platoon was content with the RSP program knowing new features would be added later. This is ONLY because we could use what we paid for.

Even with a single administrator, no VIP lists, and none of the other dozen feature request, people WILL buy these servers because they will be getting SOMETHING for their money other than an empty server.


Phase 2:

The most important feature here is the ability to create a list of people who can also administrate the server. Clearly, there are many ways to do this, but having a single administrator is silly and everyone knows that.
Now, there are a lot of features most of us can wait on if we are being 100% honest. So I am going to focus on what brings traffic and regular visitors to the server. Again, if people feel as though their purchase is being used, they can put up with a lot of “coming soon.”

With that, I think the ability to hit escape or tab to see the name of the server the QM put you in is very important. If you used the QM and was placed in a server that you like, how are you to know what server it is to favorite at the moment? This is key in my opinion.

I would follow this up with the displaying of platoon tags. I know you want to do some major development for platoons, but let’s be realistic here; you do not have the resources to do any features right now. Give people the ability to type in a 4-character platoon tag. This is very simple and every single game I have ever played has this feature. Is it perfect? No, clearly there is no protection against other people using your platoon tags. With that, I am sure the community can police itself and remove people who are impersonating on their servers. This is important from a marketing standpoint. If the QM system puts you in a server that has a nice balanced game with 10 people from that group in the server that you seem to get along with, you will probably want to come back.

The last item on Phase 2 would be the addition of a whitelist for platoon members or donators to your server. If you have ever run a BF4 server, you would know this is the biggest benefit you can offer someone as an incentive to donate to your servers. No one wants to wait 7 in queue to get onto a server they are a major donator.


Phase 3:

This is where the revenue for the service should start paying for resources for future features. I believe all the above (with maybe the exception of the multiple administrator) are extremely trivial changes that could be done at absolute minimum cost to the development budget. However, I firmly believe with the above changes, there will be many servers rented in a very short time. This is where we can start looking at the community requests.

You have added a few things to the system that are really good. Unfortunately, these things are not the reason people are refusing to purchase/re-up their servers. The ability to select all maps is a great change. The ability to do Vote Map is a great change (though it should no mark your server as custom). The ability to kick / ban people who are negatively impacting your server is a great change (one person cannot possibly be online or on a computer with Battlefield 1 running 24x7 though). The reason people are not buying the servers is because you cannot populate them and get a game running most of the time. When a cool looking car only runs 10% of the time, the only people buying them are the zealots, not the average consumer.

I am sure there will be many people who disagree with what I have said. All I ask is you look at it from a pure business perspective and be honest. If your server were populated most of the time because the Quick Match system was actively sending people to it, would you re-up your contract or purchase a new one given some of the other “coming soon” features? Money talks, and this program is not currently a money machine.

-TheQue

For some reason my last post did not post to the forum.
Post edited by TheQue on

Comments

  • AdolfTrumpler47
    21 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    You need to post this on reddit. Also try to get ahold of Alexander Hassoon on this. Unfortunately. They are Likely to see this on Twitter or reddit rather than their own forums for whatever reason.
  • Jaskaman
    647 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2017
    Good post, please post it to Reddit/Twitter.
  • BruceWillii
    706 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    TheQue wrote: »
    Unfortunately, a YouTuber complained to the developer that they were “Quick Matched” into a Custom server. Based on that, a change was made that instantly created empty RSP servers.

    Is it so hard to program the options for the quick match in the menu?
    Maybe something where you could set hooks on "EA servers" and/or "rented servers" and/or "custom mode".
  • Jaskaman
    647 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited February 2017
    TheQue wrote: »
    Unfortunately, a YouTuber complained to the developer that they were “Quick Matched” into a Custom server. Based on that, a change was made that instantly created empty RSP servers.

    Is it so hard to program the options for the quick match in the menu?
    Maybe something where you could set hooks on "EA servers" and/or "rented servers" and/or "custom mode".

    I do not think it's hard. I have been also suggesting this and it would really be a great idea but I afraid it's a decision not to set them there. Like we do not have clantags, there are some reasons behind these choices...
  • PBS-powerbits01
    302 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    i think they know wat we want and wat procon gave us, after all mr soon works with the creator of procon...
    They dont want to give us allot because they consider admins as dictators , that ban people for fun!
    Nothing is further from the truth ofcourse , but maybe they see it on economical value, after all a players that is banned on many servers is not a good client...

    I am happy they do some effort, but it very slow and very limited...
  • Px-Progdogg
    442 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Good post. I believe the RSP will be 200% better right now if they just fix the damned server browser so it actually works, so we can actually find custom/rented servers, make the filters actually filter - a button to disable DICE servers displaying would be a huge benefit too.

    The browser has been broken since they launched RSP and it is incomprehensible as to why this wasn't the first fix when offering rented servers. If we can find servers and filter our preferred settings then there wouldn't be so many admins struggling to get their servers off the ground.

    IMO the server browser being fixed should be priority ONE, I would have preferred it to be fixed before we even got Kick/Ban, not very useful when there is no-one to kick is it ?
  • AcTiv_Loulouuu
    16 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    NetRngr wrote: »
    They offered us a crappy version of a console server and wanted us to be ok with it. We arent. We are the members of the community that made BF what it is today and all they give a flying rip about is casual console players and YouTubers. If you dont want the metric ton of money the clans/communities are willing to throw at you just flippin say so and we will go our separate ways. Im sure there are indie developers and or other games that will GLADLY accept our money.
    I love this game, really I do, but the incompetent approach to the RSP has absolutely floored me.

    I could not have written it better^^ And yes also very good post OP. But iam afraid they wont care what anyone writes about the rsp. IF they would have given only the slightest
    f*** about us they never would have released such a bs. -_-
  • Slashette
    290 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    NetRngr wrote: »
    The only thing I disagree with is multiple admins/vip list are things we can wait on. Sorry. I've been waiting going on 6 months. ANY semi competent dev team could have implemented these within weeks and here we are near 6 months in and out of the 10 or 15 things we can agree with as being required for basic server control functions they have implemented 1 and its buggy as all get out.
    They offered us a crappy version of a console server and wanted us to be ok with it. We arent. We are the members of the community that made BF what it is today and all they give a flying rip about is casual console players and YouTubers. If you dont want the metric ton of money the clans/communities are willing to throw at you just flippin say so and we will go our separate ways. Im sure there are indie developers and or other games that will GLADLY accept our money.
    I love this game, really I do, but the incompetent approach to the RSP has absolutely floored me. I mean I'm seriously gobsmacked looking at this. Ali states he was a server admin yet he is so clueless about what's needed it's inconceivable that he could have ever run a server much less a popular one.
    They have had the fix for this since the beginning. They hired the dev for ProCon. Give him Two guys and let them just work on this. Hell in the 6 months we've been waiting it could be really polished. I have no clue what these guys are doing but it damn sure isn't working on the RSP program. Im giving it til the DLC patch. if significant improvement has not been made my clan will have an uninstall party and say screw you to DICE/ EA/ BF.

    we are saying the same thing as you, our server still sits freaking empty and we are DONE with Dice and EA's games they are playing with us... the RSP is the biggest fail EVER!
  • NetRngr
    567 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Que,
    I have had this conversation almost exactly with Ali as well. Here's the rub. IF the managers/investors can't see PLAINLY what caused the backlash then they are lazy and about as clueless as it comes. I can see investors not getting into the minutiae of why as they only care about returns on the initial investment.
    Yes we has 2 initial servers that ran pretty much full all day upon release. We in fact did refund them when QM traffic was cut because as you state why pay for something you can't use.

    I have tried to be constructive, assist in making thing better, and generally trying to quell the masses only to be made to look a fool when saying her they said this will be fixed in this patch only to have been given false info or not enough info and feature X is still broken or just not implemented. I have a good bit of experience in an ancillary capacity regarding the gaming world and know how it works so shame on me for just blindly taking their word for it.
    It should have been obvious to everyone after delaying HL based on end user feedback how well showing your fanbase you get it is received. Sadly this does not seem to have been remembered.

    We are all under no uncertain terms oblivious to the fact it's all about return on investment however this feature of the BF franchise is a proven money maker and what sets it apart from all the other games of its ilk. Comments from Ali on Twitter about how he can do this better than hosting services that have done this for decades is on its face ludicrous. I Like Ali. Honestly I do I do think however he bit off way more than he can chew and does not possess the business savvy to admit he was wrong in the sense that maybe professional hosting solutions are the best way to go about it. Unfortunately this will hurt us worse than them as far as servers go as they have already invested quite a lot in setting up hosted servers. There is literally no going back for BF1 at this point.

    I have pretty much given up at this point but would love to be proven wrong however i doubt I will be. I will gladly repost this to Reddit as I think it needs to be seen. It is an eloquent, well worded analysis of where we find ourselves.
  • NetRngr
    567 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Posted.
  • TheQue
    285 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited March 2017
    NetRngr wrote: »
    Que,
    IF the managers/investors can't see PLAINLY what caused the backlash then they are lazy and about as clueless as it comes. I can see investors not getting into the minutiae of why as they only care about returns on the initial investment

    I am not sure calling them clueless and lazy is appropriate. This is a very large company, and the small group of individuals making these decisions are generally limited to the information presented to them by their subordinates. The likelihood of one of these decision makers actually playing Battlefield 1, then putting enough time into it where a Platoon and private servers is something they are interested in, finally they have to be as passionate about them as we are to read these threads... is pretty slim.

    The more likely story is there was a management meeting and it was asked why it is not working as planned, and the 1000 point complaint list was given. In most companies, individuals (Striterax for example) would not stand up and say "it was my fault for messing up the QM system."

  • Axlerod1
    1372 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I completely agree with OP on this. It is to bad that this has been brought up multiple times and and it is being ignored. HE is the real fix.

    Those that did not purchase premium will not buy any DLC. Also almost everyone canceled the RSP's and after the March 14th release then DICE might notice that they have a problem. Once the cash flow to DICE and EA stops, their ears will perk up.

    I now plan to unistall the game on the 14th if RSP is not fixed by then. The game will be 6 months old and if dice can not fix problems within 6 months, then they will not be fixed because that is when the games usually die out anyways.

    If they lose enough money from not bringing in DLC dollars and RSP dollars, then we might get a fix, in 6 more months.

    Sorry guys, DICE screwed the pooch on this game so bad it just isn't funny. I gave them 6 months to turn it around. The new crew they have have no idea what communities over the size of 5 players want. It is going to take them 3 more years to figure anything out I am afraid. EA buying DICE has has ruined the battlefield series. Ali and Tiggr have no clue what we as gamers want after telling them what we want and what is worse, they do not know how to implement it into the game. This is MW2 all over again.

    Someone email me when DICE gets their head out of their **** please.
  • TheQue
    285 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited March 2017
    NetRngr wrote: »
    We are all under no uncertain terms oblivious to the fact it's all about return on investment however this feature of the BF franchise is a proven money maker and what sets it apart from all the other games of its ilk. Comments from Ali on Twitter about how he can do this better than hosting services that have done this for decades is on its face ludicrous. I Like Ali. Honestly I do I do think however he bit off way more than he can chew and does not possess the business savvy to admit he was wrong in the sense that maybe professional hosting solutions are the best way to go about it. Unfortunately this will hurt us worse than them as far as servers go as they have already invested quite a lot in setting up hosted servers. There is literally no going back for BF1 at this point.

    I wanted to address this separately. I am curious as to the metrics being used here to determine this is a proven money maker. Sure logic can be used to say that the free market has deemed this a money maker by the simple fact that server rental companies would not offer this service if it was not a money maker. However, the question is much more in depth than that from a corporate standpoint.

    1. How much revenue are these companies making from this offering?
    2. What is the profit margin of these offerings (more specifically the Battlefield offerings)? i.e my company will not even entertain anything less than 40% margin.
    3. What is the opportunity cost of creating this program internally or externally? i.e. could these resources be working on something more profitable?
    4. What is the overall public opinion of this offering? i.e. is the negative publicity of "badmins" (right or wrong) eating into the overall product revenue?

    I just do not think it is as simple as stating "this feature of the BF franchise is a proven money maker," when EA / Dice has little to no metrics to work on given they have not had this offering as a "money maker" for their own books in the past.

    The fact that Striterax is arrogant enough to think he can do it better is probably a testament to his ability in general. In our company, our best engineers and coders are pretty arrogant and capable. This is because they have years of proven success. This does not mean they are the ones to make the decisions though; you MUST have a product manager who can reign them in from time to time to keep things on track. A good product manager would have asked him for his entire plan, the cost and roadmap of that plan while having a second engineer present another plan for going with what already exists in the industry. This would have allowed an educated decision to be made. I do not believe this was the case here.

    -TheQue
  • TheQue
    285 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited March 2017
    At this point, if I were @Striterax (Ali), I would address the multiple admin function in the next patch while rolling back the Quick Match changes. This would allow him to "save face," by pointing to the multiple administrators feature as the major "fix." I am not asking him to fall on his sword, I know I would not. But there has to be a way for all parties to win here.

    -TheQue
  • Px-Progdogg
    442 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Screen_Shot_2017_03_03_at_11_30_25_AM.png

    When these changes are made there shouldn't be any problems with getting traffic, the reason admins can't get their server off the ground is because no one can find it. Once that is implemented then the others will start rolling out (hopefully) multi-admins and other admin tools.
  • TheQue
    285 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Screen_Shot_2017_03_03_at_11_30_25_AM.png

    When these changes are made there shouldn't be any problems with getting traffic, the reason admins can't get their server off the ground is because no one can find it. Once that is implemented then the others will start rolling out (hopefully) multi-admins and other admin tools.

    I completely disagree on this point. The is NO reason the QM system (which clearly a LOT of people use) should not prioritize RSP. I can find servers just fine in the server browser. The problem is they all are empty so not at the top of the list. Most people check the box for 1-5 slots open as they want a full server to join. As long as an RSP server is not marked as Custom, it should get QM traffic.

    -TheQue
  • Px-Progdogg
    442 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    TheQue wrote: »
    Screen_Shot_2017_03_03_at_11_30_25_AM.png

    When these changes are made there shouldn't be any problems with getting traffic, the reason admins can't get their server off the ground is because no one can find it. Once that is implemented then the others will start rolling out (hopefully) multi-admins and other admin tools.

    I completely disagree on this point. The is NO reason the QM system (which clearly a LOT of people use) should not prioritize RSP. I can find servers just fine in the server browser. The problem is they all are empty so not at the top of the list. Most people check the box for 1-5 slots open as they want a full server to join. As long as an RSP server is not marked as Custom, it should get QM traffic.

    -TheQue

    My post or tweet has nothing to do with QM traffic. It is specifically about the broken server browser. The filters don't filter properly. Why do you think 99% of custom servers can't get them filled? If you have a vanilla server then sure you can have the QM traffic, your server is no different to a DICE server so it defeats the purpose of buying one (imo).

    When I filter the settings by region and change certain aspects (bullet damage or minimap) servers do not filter, it shows DICE Custom servers. Servers I know exist do no show up.

    The filter/browser needs to be fixed so it works properly, it should be priority, and yes it should be priority over QM traffic going to Vanilla RSP. They may as well just remove all of the server settings completely because if you change them your server is only searchable by name. RSP needs to work for all parties and not just Vanilla servers and not just QM traffic, the browser MUST be fixed before anything else.
  • TheQue
    285 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    TheQue wrote: »
    Screen_Shot_2017_03_03_at_11_30_25_AM.png

    When these changes are made there shouldn't be any problems with getting traffic, the reason admins can't get their server off the ground is because no one can find it. Once that is implemented then the others will start rolling out (hopefully) multi-admins and other admin tools.

    I completely disagree on this point. The is NO reason the QM system (which clearly a LOT of people use) should not prioritize RSP. I can find servers just fine in the server browser. The problem is they all are empty so not at the top of the list. Most people check the box for 1-5 slots open as they want a full server to join. As long as an RSP server is not marked as Custom, it should get QM traffic.

    -TheQue

    My post or tweet has nothing to do with QM traffic. It is specifically about the broken server browser. The filters don't filter properly. Why do you think 99% of custom servers can't get them filled? If you have a vanilla server then sure you can have the QM traffic, your server is no different to a DICE server so it defeats the purpose of buying one (imo).

    When I filter the settings by region and change certain aspects (bullet damage or minimap) servers do not filter, it shows DICE Custom servers. Servers I know exist do no show up.

    The filter/browser needs to be fixed so it works properly, it should be priority, and yes it should be priority over QM traffic going to Vanilla RSP. They may as well just remove all of the server settings completely because if you change them your server is only searchable by name. RSP needs to work for all parties and not just Vanilla servers and not just QM traffic, the browser MUST be fixed before anything else.

    Yes, but if you read my post, it had everything to do with QM traffic. You pose the question of what is the purpose of buying a server and not putting custom settings...

    Well, there is a large portion of people who want to play the game in it's default setting, but do not want to deal with toxic chat and abuse. Maybe certain maps are not fun to play?

    TheQue
Sign In or Register to comment.