Maybe in the "next" Battlefield, eh?
@Ironhead841 wrote:Keep in my mind I'm just spit-balling here, but it would seem the formula to make a successful modern military shooter is staring EA/Dice right in the face.
...
Well that's all I can think of right now. but I think ya'll get the idea.
Good write up. And in general I agree that this would indeed make a good Battlefield game.
But unfortunately you are completely missing the point when it comes to the goal that EA/Dice have. Spoiler (and don't be shocked): it is definitely NOT making a good game. EA is a company that needs to make money. That is the ONLY goal. And it does not matter if we like or accept it, this is a fact. And this does not even have to to be a bad thing, because if everything goes right, the goals of the players and the company can and most likely will more often than not, align.
A company makes a great game, players like it, they sell millions of copies. Both sides are happy. Having a strong franchise helps of course. And Battlefield was a good franchise.
Now, where things went wrong (horribly one might add) was when someone decided that it would also work to make a bad game that in their mind would also be able to sell a lot of copies (it did because of the good name the franchise still had at launch) and in the long run would bring in a constant stream of even more money by micro-transactions. I think we agree that this line of thinking failed. The initial sales were pretty good, but the micro-transactions idea will never fly of course as this would require players playing the game and as things look now, they don't and it would need considerable effort to bring enough of us back to have ANY hope that the micro-transactions idea could work out in the end.
I doubt that it will, but I am special in that way I guess as I have ZERO interest in those things, wear the initial uniform on all my soldiers in BF5, have over 200 unopened battle chests in BF1 (never opened even one) and would never play any game where you could buy power by spending money after launch; but I know many other players out there would and there is the potential of additional revenue IFF the game would be played by enough players. I just doubt that EA is willing to spend that many resources to make BF2042 a good and true BF game, despite of what they are now claiming. I HOPE they will prove me wrong, but at the moment I don't think they are really willing to do what it takes (remember Apex, anyone?). They will let it die. The ONLY hope is that they see that -- other than Apex -- Battlefield is an established franchise and they would lose more by killing it off completely
Fair points, disheartening to be sure but fair points.
I just think Battlefield both profit-wise and its reputation would have fared much better if they would have stuck with the unique experiences that was the heart of the franchise for so long.
As you point out they're not going make the kind of money they wanted because of the design decisions they've made, and I feel like they may have done irreparable harm to the Battlefield franchise as a whole which is going to affect future sales as well.
If they would have stuck with the actual BF-experience without these specialists, a more darker/gritty tone to the maps then I think the backlash would have been much less because maybe the game would actually be a bit more fun or balanced. I loved the whole nameless soldier part of BF which gave it that unique atmosphere that other games didn't have but they threw that away.
People came to this game because its Battlefield and they didn't deliver what they normally do so yeah, a 97.5% player drop is the result. Good luck selling skins to the few people that will still be playing by the time you guys implement "legacy features". Economics 101: Its easier to get new customers than retaining old ones, especially when you slap them in the face over and over again.
I'll probably read up on patch notes and maaaaybe give it a shot in the summer (unless something better comes along) but I'll pass on buying games from EA for at least a couple of years...
I was so excited for this game to come out because I dearly loved BF4. I have been disappointed over and over again. Why do we have no way to communicate with our team members this should have been done before the release? Why do we have base killing? How can a grenade take out a tank? OMG I can go on and on with the problems but they are not being addressed. WHY? I am so frustrated with why this game was released and common sense things were not worked out first now so many people have dropped off from playing it. Can you see where you guys went wrong? Do you care your franchise is failing? Sorry had to get this out especially due to know way to talk to my team I mean my gosh what era are we in now? Come one guys!!!! PLUS I HATE THE BREAKAWAY ICE/SNOW MAP!!!
@DuaneDibbley wrote:
@Ironhead841 wrote:Keep in my mind I'm just spit-balling here, but it would seem the formula to make a successful modern military shooter is staring EA/Dice right in the face.
...
Well that's all I can think of right now. but I think ya'll get the idea.
Good write up. And in general I agree that this would indeed make a good Battlefield game.
But unfortunately you are completely missing the point when it comes to the goal that EA/Dice have. Spoiler (and don't be shocked): it is definitely NOT making a good game. EA is a company that needs to make money. That is the ONLY goal. And it does not matter if we like or accept it, this is a fact. And this does not even have to to be a bad thing, because if everything goes right, the goals of the players and the company can and most likely will more often than not, align.
A company makes a great game, players like it, they sell millions of copies. Both sides are happy. Having a strong franchise helps of course. And Battlefield was a good franchise.
Now, where things went wrong (horribly one might add) was when someone decided that it would also work to make a bad game that in their mind would also be able to sell a lot of copies (it did because of the good name the franchise still had at launch) and in the long run would bring in a constant stream of even more money by micro-transactions. I think we agree that this line of thinking failed. The initial sales were pretty good, but the micro-transactions idea will never fly of course as this would require players playing the game and as things look now, they don't and it would need considerable effort to bring enough of us back to have ANY hope that the micro-transactions idea could work out in the end.
I doubt that it will, but I am special in that way I guess as I have ZERO interest in those things, wear the initial uniform on all my soldiers in BF5, have over 200 unopened battle chests in BF1 (never opened even one) and would never play any game where you could buy power by spending money after launch; but I know many other players out there would and there is the potential of additional revenue IFF the game would be played by enough players. I just doubt that EA is willing to spend that many resources to make BF2042 a good and true BF game, despite of what they are now claiming. I HOPE they will prove me wrong, but at the moment I don't think they are really willing to do what it takes (remember Apex, anyone?). They will let it die. The ONLY hope is that they see that -- other than Apex -- Battlefield is an established franchise and they would lose more by killing it off completely
This made me think about what if another BF game came out and was everything we all wanted…..
Id still wait for the £19 sale price before buying it to get my money back from 2042 con.
I'll certainly be a lot more wary about purchasing the next installment of Battlefield for sure.
@Ironhead841 wrote:I'll certainly be a lot more wary about purchasing the next installment of Battlefield for sure.
You and a few million more...........
