Battlefield Playerbase is a dinosaur...
The Battlefield core Playerbase is a poison pill inextricably built into the franchise. The developer cannot produce new more universally appealing games (larger profits) for this franchise without t...
Forum Discussion
@afzSnickelfritz The problem they have is that 2042 has alienated veteran players and not attracted many new players, meaning it cannot be profitable long term if at all.
The very fact that people don't want to play it, means it is not universally appealing and is unlikely to ever be.
Simply copying bits and pieces from other franchises deemed to be profitable, does not mean you will be (especially when it is done poorly). BF games had their own identity, which appealed to certain people, who returned time after time because of that. When you ignore your own player base to chase those of another franchise, you lose your own and have to compete against established leaders for theirs (They will almost always win). Net result is a loss of players and a loss of profitability not a gain.
The only time BF has struggled to be profitable is when they alienate the players you refer to as dinosaurs.
@Rusty RatEA/DICE have forgotten that performance is one of the important keys to keeping players actively engaged in any multiplayer game. I am one of those dinosaurs I referred to that wants AAA development budgets, constant live service updates and new content, and perfectly conceived game designs at a reasonable price.
At the end of the day, the best time to be an avid gamer was the decade between 1997 and 2007 when all of this technology was being invented and explored with relatively straightforward game designs and giveaways to the gaming community, like persistent dedicated servers, server browsers, community mapping and modding, etc...
The advent of dynamic servers and matchmaking was the beginning the new paradigm, which is at odds with what got us here in the first place.- @afzSnickelfritz Live service model makes me hate the new gaming trend!
