I will say this again about BF. It should be re-named Boringfield 2042.
The sheer lack of maps is embarrassing, what have we got, like 14 maps? From a New game, and now over two years since launch?
We should have something like 30 maps by now, what the hell is going on with both DICE and EA?
We need Map Pack drops to keep this rubbish going.
If this is what "Live Service" gives you, then you can stick it. Never again from me.
@80uwjx4m1chc
I don't know why they cant just salvage more maps from previous titles.
Why create new maps if we already have classics that can be ported?
@GrizzGolf wrote:
@RayD_O1 wrote:
@GrizzGolf wrote:
@RayD_O1 wrote:
@ragnarok013
@sk1lld
I would welcome the return of the Premium Model, it kept the games fresh and was well worth the money.I miss those days. Well worth the money
Four new maps every three months was really something to look forward to.
It also meant that the game's base maps did not become so stale as you didn't have to play them over and over.
Didnt we get new weapons too?
@GrizzGolf we did get new weapons, sometimes new vehicles, and new gadgets to unlock via the assignment system. The good thing about the premium system is that the assignments were permanent and not limited time so to this day I can still do the assignments in the premium BF games if I wanted to in order to get a weapon or other unlock since they're not limited time nonsense like live service battlepasses.
With Live service I feel like it's theft because if I can't complete the Battle pass during the finite time period that it's active I forever miss out on the rewards that I paid for and I'm still out the money for the battle pass since I never get a prorated amount of money back. The only games that ever did battle passes well in my opinion is Halo the MCC since all Battle passes were permanent and you could choose which one to work on forever and Red Dead Redemption Online because you ranked up the battle pass by regular game play experience instead of jumping through artificial hoops to do tiers in order to progress.
Live services aren't meant for the players to enjoy in my opinion, they're meant for the shareholders (pubicly traded companies' actual customers) to drive "engagement metrics" to report in quarterly shareholder meetings. The funny thing is that if a studio focuses on "player enjoyment" then higher player engagement metrics, player play times, and I'd argue also higher cash shop purchases naturally follow whereas when studios focus on "player engagement" as a standalone metric in a vacuum we get drudgery and unejoyable chores disguises as "game play" to artificially drive play time and engagement metrics which yields unhappy and frustrated players and fans instead of the militantly loyal player base that we had during the Premium era.
@ragnarok013
100% this, good post. 👍
I would welcome the return of the Premium Pass, well worth the money.
@ragnarok013 wrote:
@GrizzGolf wrote:
@RayD_O1 wrote:
@GrizzGolf wrote:
@RayD_O1 wrote:
@ragnarok013
@sk1lld
I would welcome the return of the Premium Model, it kept the games fresh and was well worth the money.I miss those days. Well worth the money
Four new maps every three months was really something to look forward to.
It also meant that the game's base maps did not become so stale as you didn't have to play them over and over.
Didnt we get new weapons too?
@GrizzGolfwe did get new weapons, sometimes new vehicles, and new gadgets to unlock via the assignment system. The good thing about the premium system is that the assignments were permanent and not limited time so to this day I can still do the assignments in the premium BF games if I wanted to in order to get a weapon or other unlock since they're not limited time nonsense like live service battlepasses.
With Live service I feel like it's theft because if I can't complete the Battle pass during the finite time period that it's active I forever miss out on the rewards that I paid for and I'm still out the money for the battle pass since I never get a prorated amount of money back. The only games that ever did battle passes well in my opinion is Halo the MCC since all Battle passes were permanent and you could choose which one to work on forever and Red Dead Redemption Online because you ranked up the battle pass by regular game play experience instead of jumping through artificial hoops to do tiers in order to progress.
Live services aren't meant for the players to enjoy in my opinion, they're meant for the shareholders (pubicly traded companies' actual customers) to drive "engagement metrics" to report in quarterly shareholder meetings. The funny thing is that if a studio focuses on "player enjoyment" then higher player engagement metrics, player play times, and I'd argue also higher cash shop purchases naturally follow whereas when studios focus on "player engagement" as a standalone metric in a vacuum we get drudgery and unejoyable chores disguises as "game play" to artificially drive play time and engagement metrics which yields unhappy and frustrated players and fans instead of the militantly loyal player base that we had during the Premium era.
Well, they have to focus on getting that FOMO money with the limited time battlepass, events, and cosmetic shop. Let's not forget all the boosts available if you're running behind!
