I don't think that either of us are arguing that EA shouldn't make profits. As a customer, I'm providing a request on how to do it better so that EA makes more money lol. And, cosmetic microtransactions doesn't really bother me in the least, as that doesn't affect me negatively in any way when playing. But I do focus on the long run profitability and quality moving forward.
The schedule that I provide, IMHO, helps to maintain a 2-year release cycle while offering 4-year developed games that alternate between historic and modern shooters. It's what I and many other gamers would like to see. The number of BF fans requesting a new Bad Company game is astounding, and historic games that touch on 20th century wars is usually appealing in general.
I added one more, very logical progression for BF that'll attract thousands and thousands of more players:
Introduce a more MMO(-ish) experience.
Imagine a 50 v 50 or 64 v 64 server, or skew that number with a 32 defenders v 96 attackers server with an Operation Overlord D-Day Normandy beach invasion as its highlight. A huge player count is a massively desirable feature to the BF franchise, and it would be a huge upgrade. The mere thought of playing a huge D-Day map with a 100+ player count is something that players can immerse themselves into. We can do the same for an "Eagles Nest" game mode where a relatively few player count defends a high point against a huge horde of attackers.
We can even go bigger and have a crazy MMO "Grand Event" wherein it's a 200 v 200 (or 100 defenders v 300 attackers) server one weekend a month. This'll engage gamers even more and they'll feel the intensity of the invasion of Normandy or other operations by magnitudes more. This will attract a huge gamer crowd, new or otherwise, and keep everyone on their toes.
