I hope battlefield doesn’t die, but, if it does, I’m calling Rockstar
They make bigger bucks for understanding their user base
Forum Discussion
@Trokey66Well if the model of the game is live service you need something like that.
Live service doesn't really give an FPS anything more to the players, all it does is to generate more cash for the publisher. The reason for that might be that games are more expensive so they want to earn more.
Live service was , back in the days, a term only applicable to MMOs that had a reason to be live service, while FPS were one shot expansions driven games that once done that's it.
I don't know if the modern model is better or worst for the players in the end in certain genres, but for sure it overstretches some games way past their normal life span, and sometimes without some real relevant content, or kills them prematurely, and in that case, it's a real pity sometimes.
Also I'm not a real fan of "seasons" as a mean to introduce "content" while playing, I don't have time to play as much as others to unlock the content, that means I'll get less from the final product. I prefer to pay 1 expansion and get all I have, and unlock while playing without a deadline.
@Kekkset "all it does is generate more cash for the publusher"?
See, this is the problem!
Whether you agree with live service and passes is moot, fact is, any model used is designed to create post release revenue that yes, adds to profits (they are a business after all) but also funds post release support.
It sounds like you want everything for free, including long term support and that is an unrealistic expectation.
See, this is the problem!
Whether you agree with live service and passes is moot, fact is, any model used is designed to create post release revenue that yes, adds to profits (they are a business after all) but also funds post release support.
It sounds like you want everything for free, including long term support and that is an unrealistic expectation.
@Trokey66I can assure you I don't expect anything for free after launch.
I never had a problem in buying additional content for the games I play the most. All I'm saying is that post launch support is often dictated by the business model and the real intention of the publisher in keeping up the support for said game.
And I also said that I don't really have a problem with any kind of model, of course I have my preference as everybody does, but that doesn't stop me enjoying a good title that has a good post launch support, no matter its business model.
Sometimes I found myself in the position of not being able to actually invest in a game to have additional content while playing for example when they use paid seasons, because I don't have time to play such seasons to arnk up getting rewards, that means I throw away money for nothing. Getting all the content and paying for it at once for example would be a nice option for a player like me that doesn't have more than 4/5 hours a week to play.I don't think more money translates to better post launch support in all scenarios (also it doesn't guarantee a certain kind of content). I think it depends on other factors that I can't really put my fingers on because I'm not in this kind of video-game businnes.
I work for a very popular company that has its business model and policies, and from what I've seen it's often artificially brought to the customers in order to maintain the control of cash flows during a pre-determined period of time (for example 10 years) spanning different iteration of the product that often don't get support but sales are skyrocket. And it works, so it might relate to the video game industry as well.
