Thoughts on Tom and his insights?
....
Forum Discussion
@emerson1975 Odds are they were, EA more than likely didn't listen to the ground floor devs.
I wouldn’t even play it if it was free.
Sadly I bought it at launch. No wait, I actually preordered! Jokes on me!!
EA's probably disappointed because they want a live service platform to sell cosmetics on, but they need a large player base in order to make that profitable.
Now they're talking about f2p in order to boost player numbers and prop up their live service business model.
What I can see happening, hazard zone going F2P and EA Play getting the rest of the game.
EA Can possibly increase the player base as well as get a few extra people signed up for their sub service.
@DominickB3EA play whas what I whas thinking as well. Put it there and you have 25 million possible players with GamePass that might try the game out.
It wont make me or others who allready left the game dissapointed come back but it just might bring in a few more.
@OskooI_007 wrote:EA's probably disappointed because they want a live service platform to sell cosmetics on, but they need a large player base in order to make that profitable.
Now they're talking about f2p in order to boost player numbers and prop up their live service business model.
I was suprised that Hazard zone was part of the same paid game when pretty much everyone in BFV said to that Firestorm should had been a standalone F2P mode.
Somebody who is in charge is really hard time learning their lessons from past failures
