The vibe I get is there are 3 major lessons live service need to know: - find/create a niche, fill a hole in the market - Don't launch like crap, makes recovery difficult nowadays. Have enough bang and polish for players time/money - Have offline options/player servers incase the game dies, adds security to a purchase
@stefanwosinsky1935 mod support should be a standard for all games. I get why it's not there (mainly money reasons) but it only increases play time. Hell I still play old Doom mods
Battlefield is failing because its battling Battlefield. They tried to escape themselves by reinventing the wheel, while truly the thing most ppl wanted was a current age tech remake of a BF3/BF4 with some added/modernised content & a roadmap. The vast amount of people who stepped out of BF went to play CoD or Apex, or finals or Battlebit. Because those games or -stay true to their roots and basicly keep expanding on their formula (in CoD a bit too often imho) or -fill in the blanks that BF left with the fail of 2042 🤷♂️
There’s a huge number of players from BF that have also moved into more realistic shooters like HLL and Squad. Which makes sense, as BF got more arcadey some people drifted towards more realistic and grounded games
I do agree but I would have to say a majority that plays 2042 are actually cod and apex players as takedown and movement and specialist are like cod and specialist and their ability are like apex. Battle went away from battle and played copy cat to these two titles to try getting that money but they failed to understand those who are true fans of BF are not huge fans of cod. 2042 a red head step child of cod and apex and it's horrible.
@@michaelrichardson9626you're comparison is right. Yet I hate every COD in the last ten year's will not buy or even play one and I really hated Apex. Yet still enjoying playing 2042 and yet I'm an og player right back to the medal of honor day's and played all the bfs up to date. Maybe it's me and I'm one of them old people who just stay with what they know even if it's not the best it could be.
@@chriscollins550 don't worry same boat hate apex and cod. The only thing cod ever had was single player. Played every bf title since it started. I don't play as much as I did with bfv that for sure I play one day every other week. I enjoy it only for simple fact only shooter I can stand at the moment. Out all my friends around 100 all met thru bf titles around two of them that play it daily the rest can't stand it won't even touch it again.
@@michaelrichardson9626 it's funny for me because even after all these year's of playing so many different game's and I'm definitely more of a single player story gamer but not an RPG style gamer. This is the kick you will not get. Up to 2042 I never used my headset and never talk to other at all in any multi player game even any bf, I still massively team played the game just never talk to anyone. But 2042 was the first time I ever did that and made friends over the game. But that not what makes the game enjoyable for me. It's the game play. Bf has always had more of a strategy style team play we're cod and Apex is just run and gun, but yet you will never seen me player as a sniper as that doesn't hold my attention.
Live service is a cover for putting out an unfinished product in order to meet a timeline to appease to the shareholders. Then polish the game in post production to appease to the fans. Games inevitably fail when you put the desires of the fans last.
Bf3/4 and including bf1 come out unfinished very bad at lunch with glitches and rubber banding many other faults and they wasn't live service game's. The problem with live service is about making money and not having to give you a full game at launch adding dlc latter if you want to buy them and that doesn't make them billions we're stupid micro transactions do. Being a live service if they don't make billions from it they can pull the plug on that game at anytime.
@@chriscollins550 The definition of live service games is as follows: A live service game is a game that sees a constant stream of new content added post launch, and is purposefully designed to keep you playing years after launch.
Many developers no longer want to appease the fans. That's usually far too difficult for them. When I hear that a game of a certain franchise is for a new generation or a new audience, I already know that it won't work...
Let's not forget, content creators were some of the loudest voices pushing for free to play/ live service. Premium was always a guarantee of content, it was contractual.
I dont think Live Service is the issue, as a matter of fact it's probably more healthy for MP titles than the old school DLC formula that would split the playerbase into pieces based on who owned what DLC. The issue is on a fundamental level, that being the obvious fact that these companies could not care less about the quality of their games that they deliver, everything is to be monetized and politicized and everything else is just an afterthought, if even that.
@@JozseffirstGamingchannel you should rethink, take a look at a game, any game, and than think about what is bad about it. Than think WHY that is… 9 out of 10 times it due to it being a live services. Live service just means less game releases, less game releases, and increase of cost to US.
You're wrong about titanfall 2, it didn't fail because of live service. It failed because EA had the grand idea of launching the game between the release of COD:IW and Battlefield 1
The launch time was terrible, and it would have likely sold better at a different time. The question that neither of us can answer for certain is if TF2 launched during a better window would it now be a competitor to COD and BF or would it have trickled off and be in the same boat it is today. Based on the live service principles Mark explained better than I did, I think its likely it would have ended up with a small/unsustainable playerbase by comparison.
@LevelCapGaming no it wouldn't have, because the first game wasn't on Playstation. It would have struggled on that platform to gain players unless it eventually went on sale. If Titanfall 2 was a F2P live service it would be worth a lot more.
@LevelCapGaming lol i can almost guarantee that titanfall 2 would've failed no matter what month it released. The problem wasn't its timing, quality, or anything like that.. the problem is that it's a niche shooter game. Battlefield and COD are super basic crowd-pleasing shooters with the flexibility to cover a wide range of themes (modern, future, historical, etc). They're like.. idk.. what chess & checkers are to board games. Titanfall is like.. chinese checkers. Cool game. Just not the first game people think of when they think "shooter game" Its essentially a flavor of the month game, that once its had its time in the spotlight, everyones just gonna run right back to their safe multiplayer shooter options. Rainbow Six is another "safe" shooter because the name carries a lot of weight and history
Great video, one of the best discussion ones lately. Games as a service was really just “we don’t like games being products: products have specs, and things people can demand. Services can be more wishy washy” It turns games into weird gambles where seemingly everyone loses “Oh you like MW2 cause it’s gone for a more serious tone, with more realistic mechanics? Well here’s a bunny costume for some reason” “Oh you like we marketed this game using military gear in the trailers? Well here’s Andrew Tate (Crawford) in a fur coat for some reason” It’s why BF4 won’t die for me. Tons of issues in that game, but god did 3 and 4 commit to immersion. Rolling 4 tanks out of firestorm looks amazing. The HUDs feel true to life, the systems we can use feel good. And then the premium model brings in some great content over time and people end up happy. With 2042 it’s all zany “personality skins” and reworked 6/10 maps.
I still praise all of the developers that worked on BFBC2, BF3, BF4, & BF1. Even more now than ever before because they've never been able to really capture that gritty immersive tone with their latest titles and the games feel tone-deaf. The older I've gotten, and as the gaming industry grew with me, I keep learning how much better the Battlefield titles were a decade ago, especially for the time. The level of detail still blows me away as I am still discovering new little details in the games that I never noticed before. Those games were made with true passion for an amazing idea that really took off and blew everyone's socks off. I wish AAA games were still made today with that passion, but the greed and lack of details are so obvious it ruins modern gaming so much.
I know this is a hot take, but I have had a lot of fun with 2042. I think they've gotten it to a much better place now than it was at launch. I tried going back to 4 recently and I found myself logging back into 2042 after only a few rounds. With that being said, I still think the Close Quarters DLC for BF3 was the greatest thing Dice ever created, and I desperately wish they woukd do something similar in 2042. At least give us those maps in Portal.
@@xlDysenterylx not a hot take, I have been saying for a while that it’s a fun FPS, it just doesn’t feel like a BF game to me. Too much zooming specialist abilities and things that break the “boots on ground” vibe BF usually goes for. That being said, I honestly assumed when close quarters came out, that in the future we’d play on full conquest maps with that same level of destruction fidelity. I thought that was a glimpse of the future. Oh how wrong I was.
You seem to forget there are other games aside the ones you play. There are other live service games that is already a decade and is still heavily supported by its playerbase. Just say your AAA fps games are turning into live service games. No need to generalize a whole gaming genre due to your ignorance
It has partly to do with these companies history. I knew when Riot released their new FPS game that I could buy a skin without needing to worry that they would release Valorant 2 next year and I'd lose all my progress. Even Warzone (COD) has more of a long term progression/game sale model that Battlefield. If you want players to invest in a game you need to make sure they know you won't be replacing it on such a frequent basis.
The industry can't control what games do/don't become "Forever Games" (Skyrim, Team Fortress 2, Titanfall 2), but they absolutely can control a game's disposability (people still go back to play nearly every Souls Title, but nobody goes back to play older Splatoon titles)
Problem with live service is simple. Live service should be a completed game and the live service should be for extra content to build on the product. However developers/publishers seem to think it’s to be able to release an unfinished game and fix the game as they go. Which then delays the extra content and the cycle goes on.
Battlebit is actually the best thing that could happen to the Battlefield franchise. It's like a proof of concept of what they should develop, a more grounded game with teamplay features in mind. They're not commiting to 128 players battles. Is not feasible when you aim for photorealism and destruction. They are not competing in all fronts.
Its sad how this is the case. I thoroughly enjoy battlebit and even during frustrating matches I still want to keep playing. Battlefield doesn't even feel like battlefield anymore. EA is trying their damnedest to ruin the BF franchise and its working.
At this point, I just want a big studio to swoop in and do what battlebit did. If 3 devs are able deliver such a good game, then imagine what a whole studio in the right minds is capable of.
@@Shaggii_the only problem with it is that premium maps have permanently remained separate from the vanilla game maps and when you go back to the games just a few years later most of the premium maps are hard to find servers for. The ideal model is that premium players could buy and play the maps and then one year later they are made free for everyone and mixed into the main vanilla game. And yes I know those maps have been made free or cheap, but they are still separated into different lists and people don’t just go check the bf dlc maps every day to see if they’re on sale.
@daveyjoneslocker4703 I don't care. There were more people playing separated than there are with the "community" being kept together. Live service is a death sentence for BF.
@@DNDaMD it seems like you care. You replied. I would like to see the premium model return, but make the maps free for the rest of the community one year after their launch. I think it’s a cool solution and I’m sure you would care about being able to play populated dlc maps as opposed to them basically dying 2 years after launch OR having to play them on a server with ridiculously rules. RIGHT NOW I would still love for dice to go back to the old BF games and mix those premium maps into the main playlists. And I have no doubt if they do that you would “care” and see it as a good thing.
The premium pass for those games were literally worth every cent imo. I got my money's worth by playing hundreds of more hours than I would have if we had to wait 6mo for 1 map and a gun like with what we get in today's Trashfield 2042. Ironic that I would rather spend more money for more content than accidentally wasting $60 on a scam game that is a pitiful shadow of its former franchise. The whales are ruining the gaming industry by giving into these evil live service business models.
@@Shaggii_ BF3 Premium was the most fun I have ever had with a battlefield title. I played every single new DLC and map and loved every second of it. Made me keep playing the game for an extra year or 2 easily. I miss those days.
@@jackoff-18yea you can a lot of the games have there DLCs still played and the ones that don’t oh well should of been there when they came out. Why keep getting shit free content not one free map DICE has ever made except for Op Outbreak have been good
Great topic, a lot of good discussion here and the napkin math analogy pretty much hits the nail on the head for why there's so few risks with these games nowadays As far as battlefields concerned, i think all EA/dice has to do is have a solid vision throughout development. This series' biggest flops were caused by them not knowing what fans would enjoy, so we always end up getting half a classic battlefield game mixed with some trend-chasing alternate game mode. The result is two half-games in one package and another 3 years of fans getting pissed off. Just give us Battlefield. No battle royale. No extraction shooter. Just 32v32, big maps, vehicles, one consistent theme (ww1, Vietnam, etc), and only put it on store shelves when it freakin works
@@terrantheblack6587 dude westie was one of the biggest ones meatriding 2042 when he knew all along it was trash. 2042 did so much damage to the franchise I doubt it'll recover. Sad.
@@DNDaMD live service, and f2p killed gaming imho. I’m using a 6950x with a 3090ti right now, and still kill games. My cpu is damn near 8 years old. The innovation is gone. That’s why I was so against the live service model.
I feel in general people have lost interest in battlefield type games and gaming scene moved hugely towards battle royal. BF2042 was supposed to be going big on battle royal but it completely failed because the battle royal was just not good enough
We've spent almost 10 years telling them what we want. It would be nice if they listened to us for once. They want monetization? Deliver a top notch shooter and they'll have it.
One of the big problems with live service games is that monetization is designed into the core of the product. Instead of making a complete product, parts of the product are intentionally made worse so they can monetize it. Example: gold skins in CoD are a staple. You play a lot, complete challenges and unlock one of the nicest skins. But they don't want to give nice skins for nothing. They want to sell you nice skins for that micro transaction money. So they make the gold skins look piss yellow instead of gold, and then sell you a "black gold" skin that should have been the gold skin but isn't because money. These big companies simply can't create a game better than in the past because with the success of those past games the only thing that increased was their greed. They didn't get more developers. They didn't increase the budget of the games (more than inflation). They only increased their "expected" revenue. With this comes more micro transactions which help keep the box price "low" and doesn't increase the player expectation. However building those micro transactions costs development time which means that the base product can't even match the previous product since the budget didn't increase to support that extra development. It's not surprising players don't want to spend money on an inferior product. Specially when that product seems to be probing them to spend money every 5 minutes. Multi-tier battle pass systems, item offers on the main menu when opening the game, "Discount" rewards after winning a game, lootb... surprise mechanics just to name a few. It ruins the escapism that many people look to games for.
Microsoft has been doing a pretty bad job managing their IP and I don’t see the gamepass model ending well for consumers or the industry in about a decade
@@SandyCheeks1896 I'm not talking about the console wars. Both Sony and Microsoft can be awful companies. But lately Microsoft has been the lesser of the two evils and will bring back the old multiplayer servers. Sony definitely won't do anything with old game servers if they get it. All I want is for the old game servers to come back like they did with cod because to be honest, there is no hope for anything new. The og DICE devs are all gone and no 2023 mega corp employee is going to replace them. Microsoft are the ones to most likely revive old game servers which is why I want them to get it.
Yes, let's just allow more and more companies like take two, Microsoft and Sony buy more and more of the market until we have an oligopaly, that will end good for consumers right guys
@@GreenHobbit I wasn’t talking console wars either; my IQ is above 60. Just saying I really think Microsoft owning so much of the market and putting it all on gamepass seems like it’s going to bleed talent, competition and demand out of the market and their IP are basically all dead or boring.
@@SandyCheeks1896 You're probably right and I don't disagree. But EA has no talent left to bleed. They're pretty much a dead company already. All I want is for the old servers to come back online for the games that were good.
I could care less about live service and extra content. It’s all about making a fun game through gameplay. That’s why I still play BF4 Golmud 24/7 everyday.
one of the problems is that different groups of players want different and, at times, opposite game styles - mil-sim lite, arcadey, fast movement with sliding , etc pretty hard to make one game do ALL of these
Damn, you only get the all-around problem that everybody talks. Thing is that every individual player and at the end groups of players wants and enjoys different stile of gameplay, and pushing comments in their way. Only, but only BATTLEFIELD games delivers diversity of gameplay in one game, team play, campers, assault, pilot... Everyone wants something to be changed..
Dice can make bf2042 better with good maps, dense surroundings, forests, dark corners, and less open spaces, make rounds longer, more destruction. For example 3 levels of map, more underground gameplay, then on ground and hight in the sky. Dice, better maps more hideouts, secret passages, AND YOU GOT NEXT LEVEL GAMEPLAY!!!
as long as EA/DICE just keep chasing other trends and not making battlefields it will be doomed. as bad as it sounds I'd rather just have premium or a seasons pass again.
I do think you have to clarify the difference between developers and publishers. A lot of publishers did the napkin math and forced a lot of developers to do that. Also love the mention of Mark Darrah. He is such a great guy and has a great channel.
True, its easy to blame studios, but those are often just the grunts doing the hard work for the publisher c***s I mean suits in the giant skyscraper who've never played a game in their life.
The main issue for me really is that we went from having 3-4 maps and guns etc every few months to 1 or 2 maps every 4-5 months. I remember them saying that "premium" was gone to reunite people but really for either cod or bf franchise live service is a failed service. The only content we get is "skins" for the whales and folks who want to buy skins from time to time which is fine. But their main goal with this is to sell as much stuff as they can and things that takes way less time to make but cost way more. We used to get so much actual content for 40-50 bucks back then now that's what 2-3 operator packs... They don't care about the "live service" it's just there to sell other stuff for 1-2 years and that's it.
Call of Duty used to sell map packs for 15$ now they sell skins for 10-20$ each and people are stupid enough to buy them. There's no incentive for them to make actual content when they make more money making and selling skins.
I still think this model is better than DLCs because it really does split the playerbase and essentially leave a short lifespan on some really dope DLC maps. If they actually made 2 solid maps each season, PLUS had a substantial amount of maps at launch I would be happy. Biggest problem is unlike CoD, 2042 had a pathetic amt of maps I guess a good alternative would go back to the premium model, but just make the maps free after like 3 years after the game releases. BF4 essentially did that, they made every DLC free at one point (atleast on the Microsoft store).
Cosmetics are killing the industry, it goes un noticed but cosmetics > micro transaction > live service > dead player base > studios go out of business > video games not longer exist and a AAA platform. (I'll check this comment in 10 years)
Battlefield has killed itself due to seriously bad decisions, I've never been so disinterested in a battlefield game and the new release. I've loved BF series but the slow spiral into the woke world from BF1 just got worse and worse, then they shat all over what even makes a battlefield game a battlefield game, feels over to me....
Agreed. The series has been on the decline since V and the state 2042 launched in - and remained in for most of the next year or so - was enough for many players. My friends and I were always Battlefield players but we gave up on 2042 after about 3 months and moved to COD/WZ where we've remained since. I personally still feel cheated by 2042 and wasting 70 euro on it at the time. I certainly won't be buying the next one early or even at release until real reviews come in. Even then I'll have to think about it and it'll depend on what the others want to play as well.
The original crew that made the good BFs are gone. I don't expect or hope for another good Battlefield game ever again. It's gonna be the cycle of "reinventing, revolutionizing, new direction, brand new experience" crap they've been doing. Nobody is asking for that and yet they keep doing it. Premium may have been a pain in the ass to buy, but at least it was a guarantee that a bunch of content and support would follow
Interesting take, I work in the world of television and there seem to be similar issues of big, high viewer figures taking up old series or certain new titles, but struggles to get finance and resources for titles that are in decline
Great video! It's really crazy how with the advent of live service, we also see the integration of economics into video game management. I think economics, if it isn't already, is going need to become a well understood world in gaming journalism. With older, often offline video games, the game itself was the singular commodity. A publisher would try to gauge the demand for the game, often based on how well other games similar to that game were selling, which is another reason why those games are produced in the first place--publishers can more easily measure demand, which means their confidence in the production of the game is increased, which means they are more willing to more resources into pushing out a game. With the advent of live-service content, things become infinitely more complicated. The game itself ceases to be a singular commodity, but a marketplace-commodity. For example, Battlefield is sold as a commodity. However, within the commodity, there is also a marketplace, such as DLC, skins, and other smaller, diminutive commodities. A publisher is then prompted to both gauge demand for the game itself *as well as* the demand for the diminutive commodities within the game. As established before, the publisher can gauge demand for a game based on how well other games are performing. However, the marketplace within the game has almost no consistent, reliable metric off of which the publisher is able to gauge demand. This is often why prices for DLC, skins, etc. often sit at ridiculous price points: firms set their prices arbitrarily, mostly because they cannot gauge demand for their own products. This is also why DLCs, skins, etc. are so divisive among the gaming community. It peels back the layer just enough to show us that the gaming industry is out of touch. But it's not just out of touch with us, it's out of touch with it's own products. They do not market games based on quality or playability, but existing demand which is oftentimes located outside of a game's community (see demand for Call of Duty as a metric for demand for Battlefield). So it's one thing to say that companies like EA are greedy, but it's another to really rip apart how exactly they set prices. This also goes to show why capitalism is simply not good for games! The only way for a publisher to be confident about a game is not the quality of the game itself, but the existing demand for games which are adjacent to it in superficial aspects. Capitalism does not then promote innovation, but actively rewards the overabundance of similarity. P.S., if you want to read more about economics and modern price setting, hit me up!
They should cut their advertising budget in half, if not a third, only use Streamers/TH-camrs playing their game for ads, and put the saving into the actual development of the game. The problem is they usually have over bloated advertising budgets, when they needed to put that money into development. Also, they are publicly traded, and they only care about their shareholders and per the Supreme Court case in the 70's don't have to care about their customers or employees.
As a former Battlefield fanboy, it was thanks to 2042's map design that I finally tried COD with MW2. I was happy enough with the large urban maps with vehicles in Ground War and Invasion. Yes, I liked the old Battlefield's team role aspect and assortment of vehicles; but the maps in 2042 felt like a chore just to die from a sniper, heli, or tank moving in an open field from point A to B. COD had better map design for big warfare thanks to using Warzone map areas.
Premium can work if they just add the maps into the normal playlists after some period of time, can be a few weeks to several months to a year. Fans would still buy Premium to get earlier access to those new maps, and in the long term this would solve the problem of splitting the playerbase once they're added into the regular rotation
no, they screwed the pooch by trying to rush 2042... and I think that's the mistake a lot of these huge software publishers make. the execs get greedy and try for a money grab, and get burned for it. Corel did the same thing... they had it pretty good, neck & neck competition with Adobe, a better, context sensitive fully customizable UI, should have been a slam dunk, they got greedy, rushed the releases, pushed the programmers too hard, decided to let the users do the debugging by releasing too early... no one wants to deal with that frustration, and that's what's going to kill Start Citizen too if it hasn't already... they need to complete SOMETHING entirely THEN expand on that, not have the entire thing half-assed for years. some things are forgivable, there was no way to know how the persistent objects were going to affect the live server and server meshing is giving to be similar, but, after last time, they should probably just fully open up the testing servers for a week when they are ready to test the next big update before they fully update the live servers.
I think battlebit remastered revitalized the "core battlefield experience" and I know literally every single person has already talked about that. But what it showed me, beyond that, is what good business practices look like, and how they're received by players. So not only does EA need to release a game with a good "core battlefield experience" but they also need to respect their customers and not try to siphon money out of them constantly. It honestly feels like AAA games (with a AAA price tag) have adopted the business models of Free-To-Play games. Everyone saw how much money the battlepass was making Fortnite and decided to just copy it, because it forces players to continually play the game, but Fortnite is free and Battlefield isnt... It's an issue that extends far beyond just Battlefield, but we as customers need to vote with out wallets and time a little bit more, and not allow these companies to take advantage of us anymore.
I refuse to do any micro transactions after paying £100 for the game. It doesn’t feel like I got anywhere near that value from the game, even after near 2 years.
You guys remember Lawbreakers ? It was supposed to rival Overwatch but back then the hero shooter market was extremely exaggerated and Lawbreakers failed, miserably. And Cliffy B failed again with the next game, Radical Heights, a battle royald game, with the same reason as why Lawbreakers failed. Conclusion: chasing trends, trying to get a piece of the pie is a death trap.
For me it comes down to 2 things: 1. Market saturation , and 2. How long do you expect players to stick with your game? For instance, Online Shooters are in an oversaturated market. There are your main heavy hitters (Fortnight, COD, BF). Then there are long established, but more niche games (Counter Strike, Rainbow Six, Quake) and then there's everyone trying to break into the market. With the aforementioned choices all having an established reputation and player base, it's basically impossible for a new game to get a steady player base of its own, without which, the game dies. Live service games also need to retain their players long term, indefinitely if possible. I don't see this as a sustainable business plan UNLESS you already have the player base. Even then, you need to pull out all the stops to stay ahead of the competition, and to keep their attention. There is also the huge issue of TIME. Everyone has a finite amount of time that they can spend playing games, and many people aren't looking to sink thousands of hours into a generic multiplayer game. Many are like me; I prefer a short (30-40 hour) well polished experience. In the time I spend getting competent in a multiplayer game, I could have run through 1 or 2 single player games, and enjoyed myself much more. In my opinion, there is an untapped goldmine of gamers that are looking for shorter single player experiences. Focus on making these, and you'll get a loyal fanbase ready to purchase DLCs and sequels, and you don't have to compete for the customers time as much. You also don't have to foot the bill for ongoing support/servers.
you are talking about the Pareto distribution. It is a very common distribution, like hight of trees, size of planets and stars, number of books written, game sales, where 20% have 80% of the measured item (or something like that). It is a quite unitutive way the world seems to fundamentally work with some things.
we need to go back to the premium map model. We got way more content and more frequently. The only issue is the player fragmentation. Think it could be alleviated if the maps became free for periods of time and or discounted regularly.
About titanfall 2, I understand being a shooter is part of it's downfall,but the main reason is that titanfall 2 is infected by hackers hijacking all servers and LITERALLY making it so nobody can play
Live service fails when its done the wrong way....if you take a complete game and a well tested formula gameplay-wise and give it a live service treatment it can make a game better and keep people invested...for example fortnight....if you take an unfinished buggy mess release it to the public and use the live service model to bring the game to a state that should had been launched with then yeah they fail....
The idea of providing a "minimal viable product" to then pump out monetization over time while you fix the game/ad content over time just kills the player base, hurts consumer confidence in the company, and cuts out 50-95% of the player base who WOULD have been playing, buying cosmetics, season passes, etc but instead passed for an actual complete game on day one. The new corporate attitude to create games as a SaaS model don't work in gaming. It feels like every gamer actually knows this, but a few games that break this rule (COD, sports games, etc) have convinced all the suits in the industry it works. It's insanely frustrating having the best studios with the most resources constantly put out half baked, broken, and uninspired games because of their bottom line - while simultaneously HURTING their bottom line when opportunity cost of their half baked games versus an actual decent product is factored in.
Until today I don't understand why they moved away from the expansion packs (like in BF3). Some said that it "splits the community" but imho this is nonsense. At the time of BF3 everyone in our clan had all expansions. If you want to play competitive you always have every expansion. And if you want to play with direct friends who are not that deep in the game, you simply play vanilla. Together with server browsers etc. this was so awesome. I really would prefer to simply buy an expansion all x months instead of getting nothing new because EA doesn't know how to finance the games.
Something that was kind of an eye-opener for me was when MW2 (2022, which I hate that I need to specify) added the transport helos with the seamless "walkable" interiors. In that moment, it occurred to me that Battlefield has been wholly unable to improve its formula and really generate excitement with cool additions to the sandbox. I mean, something like that feature in BF would have totally fit the brand. DICE have always been the ones to push the technical limits of a massive multiplayer environments to provide cinematic and fun spectacles, yet I can't really think of any legitimate innovations in the past few years. I really think that DICE/EA/whoever could make waves if they totally dove back into the all-out war feeling. I'm sure for all kinds of reasons they just won't do it anymore, but I really want to see a modern conflict between superpowers again. It's all just sitting there, you could borrow "balance" from the sort of real-world rock paper scissors of military hardware, there's no need to make up sci-fi gadgets. As an example, I think people would be receptive to a C-130 crewed with players. It could maybe airlift armor or infantry to certain spots of the map, but it's very venerable if you can't achieve air superiority with your team's fighter jets. That's just an example, but I really think that the more gameplay layers you borrow from real life, theoretically, the less you have to "gamify" and fudge the details for balance. I guess I just get frustrated that EA has so much money to throw at a game like this evidently, but they just can't really blow people away with something novel. Much like Halo in some ways, I think the development of the game lost sight of the value of giving the player agency to just have fun ahead of other goals like competitive viability or player retention. I don't know how to say it other than that AAA game development feels so algorithmic and engineered, it can be hard to get excited about anymore.
I think dice is a shell of its former self, but there is still something they could do to produce a successful BF live service game 1) lift the maps and modes from bf3 and bf4. No originality or hard level design required. Boost the graphics. Robust hosting/server browsing. Optional cosmetics every season that actually fit every class/faction. 2) sell map packs like the hood old days. The maps become free to the entire community one year after launch. Hardcore fans will buy them at launch. They wouldn’t have to do the hard work of actually designing a good game and could profit from non-intrusive cosmetics and map pack sales.
I know people and me included hated paying for DLC, but when BF used to do that, we got a lot of content in a few months. Now we have to wait months for 1 map and 2 weapons.
Ea really needs to stop chasing trends. The reason I loved battlefield was mostly because it wasn’t cod. Now it’s trying to be every thing else but battlefield. Go back to their roots and the player base will return. But it has to be good out of the box.
I liked the way they did BF3, 4, and 1. The Premium system had its flaws I agree but we got piles of new content every few months and people loved that. The live service model feels lazier, like the devs can take more time to do one or two maps seemingly every six months or so. Also, it definitely doesn't help when they launch a game half finished like they did with 2042.
It wasn't live service that killed this battlefield, it was the fact that it yet again released 6 months too early, just like BFV. 2042 was planned to have 1 map and 2 portal maps each season. Instead the focus changed to fixing maps. BFV had to spend 6 months finishing the game which is why the only map that released in that period was a massive farm. The content that released after that was excellent quality.
30 seconds, non skippable adds at each lobby. That makes them money and removes need for any mtx. Then add in a “no ads” option for $5 a month or $30 permanent. Your doing bugger all waiting in lobby so its win win for us and if you hate ads then its a small fee to get rid them.
I might be the only one, remembering the good old days of BF3 and BF4, but I honestly wish payed DLCs would make a comeback. Not as in delivering 65% complete game and the remaining 35% in DLCs. Like a full game, and after two months a whole new DLC. I think the fact that they would need to create a good DLC so people would buy it would force the dev and execs hands to actually make something worthwhile. Sorry for my somewhat clumsy english, its my 2nd language.
Yep, we're all stuck in this middle ground of devs not wanting to support a game for long because they don't think people will play it much but also people don't want to play it much because they don't think the devs will support it for long. Both sides are uncertain so both sides become apathetic.
Back in 2010 I was complaining about games becoming too much like CoD. I felt that it was pointless because the audience they were chasing was never going to come because they already had a series of games to themselves. Back then I was made fun of for saying that.
I caught some flak due to a post regarding the redux and how they are bringing back recycled content and postponing the s6. My argument being that they have failed with live service model. they called me a hater. 🙄I dont hate battlefield. I hate that they mismanaged this title so bad that they had to rework the whole game. And when the exec's see that the game is not living up to what they projected, they pull development. Complete, good games sell. BG3 for example. No micro transactions at all in that game.
I feel like only a small portion of live service games from the start can turn out successful. Another set of live service games become live service games due to initial success (I'm thinking Rocket League) . That is an organic progression of being a very good multiplayer game to then becoming a live service game years after release. It requires first of all, a good game.
They need to return to their roots. They could absolutely follow their older model where they release a full fledged battlefield game, then sell expansions for said game. Problem with devs now days they are “afraid to deliver a high quality product” because it sets the bar high and they have to reach it every time or face backlash. I think a compromise could be made where you release one huge expansion, then next you deliver a smaller one (being straight forward with the structure towards consumers) then deliver another huge one. Break up the work, keep the community engaged, and give them something to be hyped about.
Only way for EA to revive the series is to make Bad Company 3. Release it with at least 10-13 maps and bring the same gun and vehicle mechanics from BF4.
For me personally, any game based on microtransactions is essentially doomed before it even hits the market. I would rather interface with the game through a command line than the current menu system where it just feels like a huge ad for dumb microtransactions I am never going to buy. Bring back the premium/DLC model!
one thing i would disagree on is that the devs dont have a lot of input on these live service stuff and its usually the bean counters/suits/pencil pushers aka people who have absolutely no idea about what goes in to making a game, make the decisions. and more often than not the devs who actually put the stuff together just get told "make this/make that"
I don't think people talk about the root cause of this live service model and why it exists in the first place. Games area clearly just getting too expensive and time consuming to make. The live service model wouldn't have existed if that weren't the case. I don't ever see this changing for AAA studios and this is why we will probably see the AAA studios pump out garbage for $70 with only a fraction of the quality and care we got with games from their studios a decade ago. Just look at the world around you, almost everything that can be, has shifted to a subscription service. Every day we get closer to making the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy" a fact. Although I sure as hell won't be happy about it lol, but you get the point. There must be a way to make games cheaper and easier to make. Unreal Engine 5 has a lot of new features that are really cool in concept like Chaos Destruction, but still aren't feasible enough to implement into a full-fledged game. Chaos Destruction doesn't run well and you'd barely be able to use it on a small level without getting sub-60fps. We need more intuitive tools to make games that someone can develop without even knowing any coding languages. I know that sounds crazy but just think of how much easier it would be to make games if we didn't have to debug all day and actually continually add features without running into bug after bug or performance issue after performance issue. I genuinely think the ease of use with video game engines our only hope. Especially given that smaller independent studios would thrive tremendously if a game engine allowed you to deploy, say a sufficient multiplayer mode that can scale up to high player counts with lots of player interactions. Maybe then we'd see less live service models because games would be made with such less time which in turn directly effects development costs.
The thing is, if you look at a game currently succeeding and think you can copy it, you are too late to the party and when you publish so will 5 others. I fell like the only game companies winning (other than mobile giants) are making the games they wanted to play, not the ones to make money. Steam gets some flak, but its saved gaming in my opinion by opening it up to indie game studios and small teams to make passion projects.
I dont want to play a live service, I want to play a game that is fun and doesnt make me feel like I am going to miss out on something if I dont log in. Also live services dont seem to respect players time and money as they keep demanding more time and more money constantly.
There is so many people are are turned off by Battlebits pitiful graphics and yet still bought it anyways because the gameplay just triumphs over that. That suggests that yes if someone made a battlefield with good core battlefield gameplay it would definitely have an audience.
In my opinion, people just want a good battlefield game. Destructible environments, good vehicle/infantry balance, etc. Like you said the player base is still playing the old titles waiting for the next real battlefield. Stop rushing the devs and let them do what they are passionate about.
My thought on battlefield is how are they going to compete with battlebit? Battlebit may have worse graphics but in exchange it has increadible draw distances and lots of stuff rendered at once without issues. How can battlefield possibly compete with that? Battlebit has sprawling maps and insane amounts of freedom to modify the battlefield and get creative. I just don't see how battlefield can compete as a military shooter teamplay sandbox. So, what, does it become a horrible compromise between CoD and Battlebit? I just don't see any other future for it, and i doubt that's going to do well.
Titanfall 2 had it's launch in between 2 behemoth franchises new game launches and didn't get much content in multiplayer after the first year. It's an incredibly good game and had a huge audience considering the launch window. However, that launch window was the main reason for it's collapse. It wasn't just that others preferred the other existing shooters. Some never heard about it cuz of the news about the new games from the other franchises just over powering Titanfall 2, while most just wanted to get in the new massive and hyped games instead cuz they were new and huge and amazing games. They either didn't know about Titanfall 2 or forgot cuz of new titles that launched almost the same week.
Liveservice as a way to keep building onto the game you love and want to succeed is what should be the focus, but instead liveservice as a way to rake in easy money not-so much. Something like Warframe versus what we often end up getting with other games.
I hate the fact that youtubers sugarcoat and act like they really like 2042 and on the other hand fans are being soo blunt about how bad the game is. Our standards have fallen so low to accept this game which doesn’t have its original BF formula, has no grittiness to it, gameplay/ animations are choppy, no server browser and many more. The EXECUTIVES are the real problem here. This whole thing was just a cash grab.
I think the sudden shut down of Battlefield V really hurt the franchise in the long run. I'ts like you say, 2042 came out in a terrible state and many people feared the same fate to happen. We don't know much about the next season and if it even gets support beyond. Also many people didn't even give it a chance in the first place due to it's bad launch. I couldn't get a single of my old battlefield buddies to try the game, even though it's free on game pass.
old battlefield fan, but now I just play battlebit to quench my thirst on battlefield and play way more other type of games even if EA push out a good battlefield, I doubt I'll sink as much time as before with my new gaming cycle, EA may need 1-2 good ones to gain back the traction
ปีที่แล้ว
I have a feeling that EA disabled anti-cheat and stopped fixing bugs in previous Battlefield games on purpose to drive people away from old titles, but they didn't take into account that many of those people instead of buying 2042 will move away from the whole franchise.
Live service games also fail when they don't live for long. It's baffling that anyone would drop money on lootboxes or skins for a game that will be abandoned in 2 years because the developers released a sequel. Successful live action service games are those that are very long lived, like Counter Strike, Dota 2, LoL, Fortnite, Destiny, hell even Maplestory. These games don't have endless sequels that render the concept of their live service moot.
If we would've gotten a modern setting battlefield with the movement, fortification system, and attrition system from BFV, it would've been the perfect battlefield.
They need a best of battlefield 2 3 4 with all the old maps. Portal is not big enough, and it's why I was excited for 2042. Paying for the regularly four map dlc would be fine if it was half the price from the start rather than 50$
I play CoD:DMZ exclusively now and have zero desire to play the regular multiplayer because the formula is so stale. That's essentially what I loved so much about Battlefield 3. It was like the open world version of CoD that was even more badass. Now 2042 just feels like an unrefined version of DMZ. At least DMZ has SQUAD VOICE CHAT and prox chat. BF2042 feels like you're playing solo on a 50 man team.
6:56 "They're almost being punished for having developed good games in the past" No, they're getting punished for scaling back the amount of content and polish in the new game compared to their older games and mark my words; whatever the next BF game is, I can guarrantee that it will have less content than 2042
I Honestly don't think they're capable of creating another actual battlefield game anymore.
I feel the same way. All of the original developers left.
They turned BF into COD with sliding and tactical sprinting. It’s annoying.
Most left to go work on The Finals, so probably not.
i heard ex devs are coming back🎉
@@Black__Hawk_II some of them are coming Back
The vibe I get is there are 3 major lessons live service need to know:
- find/create a niche, fill a hole in the market
- Don't launch like crap, makes recovery difficult nowadays. Have enough bang and polish for players time/money
- Have offline options/player servers incase the game dies, adds security to a purchase
I agree, especially the singleplayer part. Also allow the community to make content after discontinuing support
Long live BF4. From start to finish how a title should be from top to bottom.
I think you hit the nail on the head there, that pretty accurately describes DRG!
They are following trend like br
@stefanwosinsky1935 mod support should be a standard for all games. I get why it's not there (mainly money reasons) but it only increases play time. Hell I still play old Doom mods
Battlefield is failing because its battling Battlefield.
They tried to escape themselves by reinventing the wheel, while truly the thing most ppl wanted was a current age tech remake of a BF3/BF4 with some added/modernised content & a roadmap.
The vast amount of people who stepped out of BF went to play CoD or Apex, or finals or Battlebit. Because those games or -stay true to their roots and basicly keep expanding on their formula (in CoD a bit too often imho) or -fill in the blanks that BF left with the fail of 2042 🤷♂️
There’s a huge number of players from BF that have also moved into more realistic shooters like HLL and Squad.
Which makes sense, as BF got more arcadey some people drifted towards more realistic and grounded games
I do agree but I would have to say a majority that plays 2042 are actually cod and apex players as takedown and movement and specialist are like cod and specialist and their ability are like apex. Battle went away from battle and played copy cat to these two titles to try getting that money but they failed to understand those who are true fans of BF are not huge fans of cod. 2042 a red head step child of cod and apex and it's horrible.
@@michaelrichardson9626you're comparison is right. Yet I hate every COD in the last ten year's will not buy or even play one and I really hated Apex. Yet still enjoying playing 2042 and yet I'm an og player right back to the medal of honor day's and played all the bfs up to date. Maybe it's me and I'm one of them old people who just stay with what they know even if it's not the best it could be.
@@chriscollins550 don't worry same boat hate apex and cod. The only thing cod ever had was single player. Played every bf title since it started. I don't play as much as I did with bfv that for sure I play one day every other week. I enjoy it only for simple fact only shooter I can stand at the moment. Out all my friends around 100 all met thru bf titles around two of them that play it daily the rest can't stand it won't even touch it again.
@@michaelrichardson9626 it's funny for me because even after all these year's of playing so many different game's and I'm definitely more of a single player story gamer but not an RPG style gamer. This is the kick you will not get. Up to 2042 I never used my headset and never talk to other at all in any multi player game even any bf, I still massively team played the game just never talk to anyone. But 2042 was the first time I ever did that and made friends over the game. But that not what makes the game enjoyable for me. It's the game play. Bf has always had more of a strategy style team play we're cod and Apex is just run and gun, but yet you will never seen me player as a sniper as that doesn't hold my attention.
Live service is a cover for putting out an unfinished product in order to meet a timeline to appease to the shareholders. Then polish the game in post production to appease to the fans. Games inevitably fail when you put the desires of the fans last.
Agreed .
Bf3/4 and including bf1 come out unfinished very bad at lunch with glitches and rubber banding many other faults and they wasn't live service game's. The problem with live service is about making money and not having to give you a full game at launch adding dlc latter if you want to buy them and that doesn't make them billions we're stupid micro transactions do. Being a live service if they don't make billions from it they can pull the plug on that game at anytime.
@@chriscollins550 The definition of live service games is as follows: A live service game is a game that sees a constant stream of new content added post launch, and is purposefully designed to keep you playing years after launch.
Very well put
Many developers no longer want to appease the fans. That's usually far too difficult for them. When I hear that a game of a certain franchise is for a new generation or a new audience, I already know that it won't work...
For EA to bring battlefield back from the dead they need to release a BATTLEFIELD game! Stop chasing other games and what they are doing.
A regular battlefield game, BC2/BF3 style and the game needs to work at launch with enough maps
I would even be okay with a crap launch in terms of bugs if it would be a Battlefield, not just a soulless cod-/apex-copy 😅
Battlebit is out, we don’t need them anymore
@@BrotherO4 consoleplayer....😢
bro battlebit is only out on PC@@casanera1990
Let's not forget, content creators were some of the loudest voices pushing for free to play/ live service.
Premium was always a guarantee of content, it was contractual.
I dont think Live Service is the issue, as a matter of fact it's probably more healthy for MP titles than the old school DLC formula that would split the playerbase into pieces based on who owned what DLC. The issue is on a fundamental level, that being the obvious fact that these companies could not care less about the quality of their games that they deliver, everything is to be monetized and politicized and everything else is just an afterthought, if even that.
Exactly, I wish payed DLCs would make a comeback.
@@JozseffirstGamingchannelno it’s not. Name a live free to play game with longevity. No single player, no offline, no long term future for the game.
@@TaylorWilmes Fortnite?
@@JozseffirstGamingchannel you should rethink, take a look at a game, any game, and than think about what is bad about it. Than think WHY that is… 9 out of 10 times it due to it being a live services.
Live service just means less game releases, less game releases, and increase of cost to US.
You're wrong about titanfall 2, it didn't fail because of live service. It failed because EA had the grand idea of launching the game between the release of COD:IW and Battlefield 1
It's like there are no months in a year besides October and November.
The launch time was terrible, and it would have likely sold better at a different time. The question that neither of us can answer for certain is if TF2 launched during a better window would it now be a competitor to COD and BF or would it have trickled off and be in the same boat it is today. Based on the live service principles Mark explained better than I did, I think its likely it would have ended up with a small/unsustainable playerbase by comparison.
Actually it was respawn idea
@LevelCapGaming no it wouldn't have, because the first game wasn't on Playstation. It would have struggled on that platform to gain players unless it eventually went on sale. If Titanfall 2 was a F2P live service it would be worth a lot more.
@LevelCapGaming lol i can almost guarantee that titanfall 2 would've failed no matter what month it released.
The problem wasn't its timing, quality, or anything like that.. the problem is that it's a niche shooter game. Battlefield and COD are super basic crowd-pleasing shooters with the flexibility to cover a wide range of themes (modern, future, historical, etc). They're like.. idk.. what chess & checkers are to board games.
Titanfall is like.. chinese checkers. Cool game. Just not the first game people think of when they think "shooter game"
Its essentially a flavor of the month game, that once its had its time in the spotlight, everyones just gonna run right back to their safe multiplayer shooter options.
Rainbow Six is another "safe" shooter because the name carries a lot of weight and history
Great video, one of the best discussion ones lately.
Games as a service was really just “we don’t like games being products: products have specs, and things people can demand. Services can be more wishy washy”
It turns games into weird gambles where seemingly everyone loses
“Oh you like MW2 cause it’s gone for a more serious tone, with more realistic mechanics? Well here’s a bunny costume for some reason”
“Oh you like we marketed this game using military gear in the trailers? Well here’s Andrew Tate (Crawford) in a fur coat for some reason”
It’s why BF4 won’t die for me.
Tons of issues in that game, but god did 3 and 4 commit to immersion. Rolling 4 tanks out of firestorm looks amazing.
The HUDs feel true to life, the systems we can use feel good.
And then the premium model brings in some great content over time and people end up happy.
With 2042 it’s all zany “personality skins” and reworked 6/10 maps.
I still praise all of the developers that worked on BFBC2, BF3, BF4, & BF1. Even more now than ever before because they've never been able to really capture that gritty immersive tone with their latest titles and the games feel tone-deaf. The older I've gotten, and as the gaming industry grew with me, I keep learning how much better the Battlefield titles were a decade ago, especially for the time. The level of detail still blows me away as I am still discovering new little details in the games that I never noticed before. Those games were made with true passion for an amazing idea that really took off and blew everyone's socks off. I wish AAA games were still made today with that passion, but the greed and lack of details are so obvious it ruins modern gaming so much.
You've described the problem bang on
I know this is a hot take, but I have had a lot of fun with 2042. I think they've gotten it to a much better place now than it was at launch. I tried going back to 4 recently and I found myself logging back into 2042 after only a few rounds.
With that being said, I still think the Close Quarters DLC for BF3 was the greatest thing Dice ever created, and I desperately wish they woukd do something similar in 2042. At least give us those maps in Portal.
@@xlDysenterylx not a hot take, I have been saying for a while that it’s a fun FPS, it just doesn’t feel like a BF game to me.
Too much zooming specialist abilities and things that break the “boots on ground” vibe BF usually goes for.
That being said, I honestly assumed when close quarters came out, that in the future we’d play on full conquest maps with that same level of destruction fidelity. I thought that was a glimpse of the future.
Oh how wrong I was.
You seem to forget there are other games aside the ones you play. There are other live service games that is already a decade and is still heavily supported by its playerbase.
Just say your AAA fps games are turning into live service games. No need to generalize a whole gaming genre due to your ignorance
It has partly to do with these companies history. I knew when Riot released their new FPS game that I could buy a skin without needing to worry that they would release Valorant 2 next year and I'd lose all my progress. Even Warzone (COD) has more of a long term progression/game sale model that Battlefield. If you want players to invest in a game you need to make sure they know you won't be replacing it on such a frequent basis.
The industry can't control what games do/don't become "Forever Games" (Skyrim, Team Fortress 2, Titanfall 2), but they absolutely can control a game's disposability (people still go back to play nearly every Souls Title, but nobody goes back to play older Splatoon titles)
Problem with live service is simple.
Live service should be a completed game and the live service should be for extra content to build on the product.
However developers/publishers seem to think it’s to be able to release an unfinished game and fix the game as they go. Which then delays the extra content and the cycle goes on.
I love how Battlebit is destroying 2042.
Battlebit is actually the best thing that could happen to the Battlefield franchise. It's like a proof of concept of what they should develop, a more grounded game with teamplay features in mind. They're not commiting to 128 players battles. Is not feasible when you aim for photorealism and destruction. They are not competing in all fronts.
Yeah I've got 100hrs so far and I haven't had as much fun since BF4
Its sad how this is the case. I thoroughly enjoy battlebit and even during frustrating matches I still want to keep playing. Battlefield doesn't even feel like battlefield anymore. EA is trying their damnedest to ruin the BF franchise and its working.
Is it really tho
At this point, I just want a big studio to swoop in and do what battlebit did. If 3 devs are able deliver such a good game, then imagine what a whole studio in the right minds is capable of.
I had no issue with battlefield premium and if i could id go back to it
Same, I'd kill to go back to that business model over a live service one any day.
@@Shaggii_the only problem with it is that premium maps have permanently remained separate from the vanilla game maps and when you go back to the games just a few years later most of the premium maps are hard to find servers for. The ideal model is that premium players could buy and play the maps and then one year later they are made free for everyone and mixed into the main vanilla game.
And yes I know those maps have been made free or cheap, but they are still separated into different lists and people don’t just go check the bf dlc maps every day to see if they’re on sale.
@daveyjoneslocker4703 I don't care. There were more people playing separated than there are with the "community" being kept together. Live service is a death sentence for BF.
@@DNDaMD it seems like you care. You replied. I would like to see the premium model return, but make the maps free for the rest of the community one year after their launch. I think it’s a cool solution and I’m sure you would care about being able to play populated dlc maps as opposed to them basically dying 2 years after launch OR having to play them on a server with ridiculously rules.
RIGHT NOW I would still love for dice to go back to the old BF games and mix those premium maps into the main playlists. And I have no doubt if they do that you would “care” and see it as a good thing.
I can only hope the next Battlefield title abandons the live service model. I would rather have a BF3/4-esque Premium offering than live service.
The premium pass for those games were literally worth every cent imo. I got my money's worth by playing hundreds of more hours than I would have if we had to wait 6mo for 1 map and a gun like with what we get in today's Trashfield 2042. Ironic that I would rather spend more money for more content than accidentally wasting $60 on a scam game that is a pitiful shadow of its former franchise. The whales are ruining the gaming industry by giving into these evil live service business models.
@@Shaggii_ I 100% agree.
If those premiums are actually ready
Cos I don't want this to be unfinished development like what happened at launch
@@Shaggii_ BF3 Premium was the most fun I have ever had with a battlefield title. I played every single new DLC and map and loved every second of it. Made me keep playing the game for an extra year or 2 easily. I miss those days.
Premium was the way for the battlefield franchise just look at the amazing content of BF3/4
Cqc is still my favorite.
I've never had problems finding new map servers on PC. I play BF4 and BF1 regularly@@jackoff-18
@@jackoff-18don’t know what you’re talking about. Bought map packs for 3, 4, and 1 and never had problems finding matches in map packs
@@jackoff-18yea you can a lot of the games have there DLCs still played and the ones that don’t oh well should of been there when they came out. Why keep getting shit free content not one free map DICE has ever made except for Op Outbreak have been good
Great topic, a lot of good discussion here and the napkin math analogy pretty much hits the nail on the head for why there's so few risks with these games nowadays
As far as battlefields concerned, i think all EA/dice has to do is have a solid vision throughout development. This series' biggest flops were caused by them not knowing what fans would enjoy, so we always end up getting half a classic battlefield game mixed with some trend-chasing alternate game mode. The result is two half-games in one package and another 3 years of fans getting pissed off.
Just give us Battlefield. No battle royale. No extraction shooter. Just 32v32, big maps, vehicles, one consistent theme (ww1, Vietnam, etc), and only put it on store shelves when it freakin works
Live service is just a cover for companies to spit in the face of loyal fans. Modern day Blizzard is a great example of this.
I vividly remember telling folks about live service being a bad move for bf.
Lol everyone said that, but it's kind of hard for the devs to hear when they're so far up their own asses.
@@DNDaMD I had a twitter spat with Westie over that bs. Look at him now, playing cod more than anything now
@@terrantheblack6587 dude westie was one of the biggest ones meatriding 2042 when he knew all along it was trash. 2042 did so much damage to the franchise I doubt it'll recover. Sad.
@@DNDaMD live service, and f2p killed gaming imho. I’m using a 6950x with a 3090ti right now, and still kill games. My cpu is damn near 8 years old. The innovation is gone. That’s why I was so against the live service model.
I think Battlebit proved that as long as you have solid core gameplay, the players will come.
I feel in general people have lost interest in battlefield type games and gaming scene moved hugely towards battle royal. BF2042 was supposed to be going big on battle royal but it completely failed because the battle royal was just not good enough
agreed
We've spent almost 10 years telling them what we want. It would be nice if they listened to us for once. They want monetization? Deliver a top notch shooter and they'll have it.
One of the big problems with live service games is that monetization is designed into the core of the product. Instead of making a complete product, parts of the product are intentionally made worse so they can monetize it. Example: gold skins in CoD are a staple. You play a lot, complete challenges and unlock one of the nicest skins. But they don't want to give nice skins for nothing. They want to sell you nice skins for that micro transaction money. So they make the gold skins look piss yellow instead of gold, and then sell you a "black gold" skin that should have been the gold skin but isn't because money.
These big companies simply can't create a game better than in the past because with the success of those past games the only thing that increased was their greed.
They didn't get more developers. They didn't increase the budget of the games (more than inflation). They only increased their "expected" revenue. With this comes more micro transactions which help keep the box price "low" and doesn't increase the player expectation. However building those micro transactions costs development time which means that the base product can't even match the previous product since the budget didn't increase to support that extra development.
It's not surprising players don't want to spend money on an inferior product. Specially when that product seems to be probing them to spend money every 5 minutes. Multi-tier battle pass systems, item offers on the main menu when opening the game, "Discount" rewards after winning a game, lootb... surprise mechanics just to name a few. It ruins the escapism that many people look to games for.
My only hope for EA anymore is that it gets bought by Microsoft so they can revive all of the old game servers.
Microsoft has been doing a pretty bad job managing their IP and I don’t see the gamepass model ending well for consumers or the industry in about a decade
@@SandyCheeks1896 I'm not talking about the console wars. Both Sony and Microsoft can be awful companies. But lately Microsoft has been the lesser of the two evils and will bring back the old multiplayer servers. Sony definitely won't do anything with old game servers if they get it.
All I want is for the old game servers to come back like they did with cod because to be honest, there is no hope for anything new. The og DICE devs are all gone and no 2023 mega corp employee is going to replace them. Microsoft are the ones to most likely revive old game servers which is why I want them to get it.
Yes, let's just allow more and more companies like take two, Microsoft and Sony buy more and more of the market until we have an oligopaly, that will end good for consumers right guys
@@GreenHobbit I wasn’t talking console wars either; my IQ is above 60. Just saying I really think Microsoft owning so much of the market and putting it all on gamepass seems like it’s going to bleed talent, competition and demand out of the market and their IP are basically all dead or boring.
@@SandyCheeks1896 You're probably right and I don't disagree. But EA has no talent left to bleed. They're pretty much a dead company already. All I want is for the old servers to come back online for the games that were good.
I could care less about live service and extra content. It’s all about making a fun game through gameplay. That’s why I still play BF4 Golmud 24/7 everyday.
Yep, I’m still on R6
Blimey 24/7 that's dedication
everyone said premium split the player base but that was the best way to get new content. Battlefield needs premium back now
one of the problems is that different groups of players want different and, at times, opposite game styles - mil-sim lite, arcadey, fast movement with sliding , etc pretty hard to make one game do ALL of these
Damn, you only get the all-around problem that everybody talks.
Thing is that every individual player and at the end groups of players wants and enjoys different stile of gameplay, and pushing comments in their way.
Only, but only BATTLEFIELD games delivers diversity of gameplay in one game, team play, campers, assault, pilot... Everyone wants something to be changed..
Dice can make bf2042 better with good maps, dense surroundings, forests, dark corners, and less open spaces, make rounds longer, more destruction.
For example 3 levels of map, more underground gameplay, then on ground and hight in the sky.
Dice, better maps more hideouts, secret passages, AND YOU GOT NEXT LEVEL GAMEPLAY!!!
as long as EA/DICE just keep chasing other trends and not making battlefields it will be doomed. as bad as it sounds I'd rather just have premium or a seasons pass again.
I do think you have to clarify the difference between developers and publishers. A lot of publishers did the napkin math and forced a lot of developers to do that.
Also love the mention of Mark Darrah. He is such a great guy and has a great channel.
True, its easy to blame studios, but those are often just the grunts doing the hard work for the publisher c***s I mean suits in the giant skyscraper who've never played a game in their life.
@@plav032 I agree with that. That was my point.
The main issue for me really is that we went from having 3-4 maps and guns etc every few months to 1 or 2 maps every 4-5 months. I remember them saying that "premium" was gone to reunite people but really for either cod or bf franchise live service is a failed service. The only content we get is "skins" for the whales and folks who want to buy skins from time to time which is fine. But their main goal with this is to sell as much stuff as they can and things that takes way less time to make but cost way more. We used to get so much actual content for 40-50 bucks back then now that's what 2-3 operator packs... They don't care about the "live service" it's just there to sell other stuff for 1-2 years and that's it.
Call of Duty used to sell map packs for 15$ now they sell skins for 10-20$ each and people are stupid enough to buy them. There's no incentive for them to make actual content when they make more money making and selling skins.
I still think this model is better than DLCs because it really does split the playerbase and essentially leave a short lifespan on some really dope DLC maps. If they actually made 2 solid maps each season, PLUS had a substantial amount of maps at launch I would be happy. Biggest problem is unlike CoD, 2042 had a pathetic amt of maps
I guess a good alternative would go back to the premium model, but just make the maps free after like 3 years after the game releases. BF4 essentially did that, they made every DLC free at one point (atleast on the Microsoft store).
Cosmetics are killing the industry, it goes un noticed but cosmetics > micro transaction > live service > dead player base > studios go out of business > video games not longer exist and a AAA platform. (I'll check this comment in 10 years)
We need control of servers and not the switching of players in every game.
Battlefield has killed itself due to seriously bad decisions, I've never been so disinterested in a battlefield game and the new release.
I've loved BF series but the slow spiral into the woke world from BF1 just got worse and worse, then they shat all over what even makes a battlefield game a battlefield game, feels over to me....
Agreed. The series has been on the decline since V and the state 2042 launched in - and remained in for most of the next year or so - was enough for many players.
My friends and I were always Battlefield players but we gave up on 2042 after about 3 months and moved to COD/WZ where we've remained since. I personally still feel cheated by 2042 and wasting 70 euro on it at the time.
I certainly won't be buying the next one early or even at release until real reviews come in. Even then I'll have to think about it and it'll depend on what the others want to play as well.
amen
The original crew that made the good BFs are gone. I don't expect or hope for another good Battlefield game ever again. It's gonna be the cycle of "reinventing, revolutionizing, new direction, brand new experience" crap they've been doing. Nobody is asking for that and yet they keep doing it. Premium may have been a pain in the ass to buy, but at least it was a guarantee that a bunch of content and support would follow
Interesting take, I work in the world of television and there seem to be similar issues of big, high viewer figures taking up old series or certain new titles, but struggles to get finance and resources for titles that are in decline
They could make new DLCs for old titles like BF1 and BF5. People would buy that.
Great video! It's really crazy how with the advent of live service, we also see the integration of economics into video game management. I think economics, if it isn't already, is going need to become a well understood world in gaming journalism.
With older, often offline video games, the game itself was the singular commodity. A publisher would try to gauge the demand for the game, often based on how well other games similar to that game were selling, which is another reason why those games are produced in the first place--publishers can more easily measure demand, which means their confidence in the production of the game is increased, which means they are more willing to more resources into pushing out a game.
With the advent of live-service content, things become infinitely more complicated. The game itself ceases to be a singular commodity, but a marketplace-commodity. For example, Battlefield is sold as a commodity. However, within the commodity, there is also a marketplace, such as DLC, skins, and other smaller, diminutive commodities. A publisher is then prompted to both gauge demand for the game itself *as well as* the demand for the diminutive commodities within the game.
As established before, the publisher can gauge demand for a game based on how well other games are performing. However, the marketplace within the game has almost no consistent, reliable metric off of which the publisher is able to gauge demand.
This is often why prices for DLC, skins, etc. often sit at ridiculous price points: firms set their prices arbitrarily, mostly because they cannot gauge demand for their own products. This is also why DLCs, skins, etc. are so divisive among the gaming community. It peels back the layer just enough to show us that the gaming industry is out of touch. But it's not just out of touch with us, it's out of touch with it's own products. They do not market games based on quality or playability, but existing demand which is oftentimes located outside of a game's community (see demand for Call of Duty as a metric for demand for Battlefield).
So it's one thing to say that companies like EA are greedy, but it's another to really rip apart how exactly they set prices. This also goes to show why capitalism is simply not good for games! The only way for a publisher to be confident about a game is not the quality of the game itself, but the existing demand for games which are adjacent to it in superficial aspects. Capitalism does not then promote innovation, but actively rewards the overabundance of similarity.
P.S., if you want to read more about economics and modern price setting, hit me up!
They should cut their advertising budget in half, if not a third, only use Streamers/TH-camrs playing their game for ads, and put the saving into the actual development of the game. The problem is they usually have over bloated advertising budgets, when they needed to put that money into development. Also, they are publicly traded, and they only care about their shareholders and per the Supreme Court case in the 70's don't have to care about their customers or employees.
The problem is that battlefield doesnt wanna b battlefield anymore. It wants to be whatever is working at the time
As a former Battlefield fanboy, it was thanks to 2042's map design that I finally tried COD with MW2. I was happy enough with the large urban maps with vehicles in Ground War and Invasion. Yes, I liked the old Battlefield's team role aspect and assortment of vehicles; but the maps in 2042 felt like a chore just to die from a sniper, heli, or tank moving in an open field from point A to B. COD had better map design for big warfare thanks to using Warzone map areas.
Premium can work if they just add the maps into the normal playlists after some period of time, can be a few weeks to several months to a year. Fans would still buy Premium to get earlier access to those new maps, and in the long term this would solve the problem of splitting the playerbase once they're added into the regular rotation
ngl, but i kinda miss premium pass, atleast with that we got 4 maps and 5-7 guns per expansion.
no, they screwed the pooch by trying to rush 2042... and I think that's the mistake a lot of these huge software publishers make. the execs get greedy and try for a money grab, and get burned for it. Corel did the same thing... they had it pretty good, neck & neck competition with Adobe, a better, context sensitive fully customizable UI, should have been a slam dunk, they got greedy, rushed the releases, pushed the programmers too hard, decided to let the users do the debugging by releasing too early... no one wants to deal with that frustration, and that's what's going to kill Start Citizen too if it hasn't already... they need to complete SOMETHING entirely THEN expand on that, not have the entire thing half-assed for years. some things are forgivable, there was no way to know how the persistent objects were going to affect the live server and server meshing is giving to be similar, but, after last time, they should probably just fully open up the testing servers for a week when they are ready to test the next big update before they fully update the live servers.
I think battlebit remastered revitalized the "core battlefield experience" and I know literally every single person has already talked about that. But what it showed me, beyond that, is what good business practices look like, and how they're received by players. So not only does EA need to release a game with a good "core battlefield experience" but they also need to respect their customers and not try to siphon money out of them constantly. It honestly feels like AAA games (with a AAA price tag) have adopted the business models of Free-To-Play games. Everyone saw how much money the battlepass was making Fortnite and decided to just copy it, because it forces players to continually play the game, but Fortnite is free and Battlefield isnt... It's an issue that extends far beyond just Battlefield, but we as customers need to vote with out wallets and time a little bit more, and not allow these companies to take advantage of us anymore.
Stick to what worked before. BF4 is my all time favorite. No extra fluff. Good maps and guns. If it aint broke, don't fix it.
I refuse to do any micro transactions after paying £100 for the game. It doesn’t feel like I got anywhere near that value from the game, even after near 2 years.
Moral of the story is. Todd Howard needs to be charged with crimes against humanity for oblivions horse armor
You guys remember Lawbreakers ? It was supposed to rival Overwatch but back then the hero shooter market was extremely exaggerated and Lawbreakers failed, miserably. And Cliffy B failed again with the next game, Radical Heights, a battle royald game, with the same reason as why Lawbreakers failed.
Conclusion: chasing trends, trying to get a piece of the pie is a death trap.
They'll be better off making more BF3 and BF4 DLC's XD and also gaining some social credit with the fans
For me it comes down to 2 things:
1. Market saturation , and
2. How long do you expect players to stick with your game?
For instance, Online Shooters are in an oversaturated market. There are your main heavy hitters (Fortnight, COD, BF). Then there are long established, but more niche games (Counter Strike, Rainbow Six, Quake) and then there's everyone trying to break into the market. With the aforementioned choices all having an established reputation and player base, it's basically impossible for a new game to get a steady player base of its own, without which, the game dies.
Live service games also need to retain their players long term, indefinitely if possible. I don't see this as a sustainable business plan UNLESS you already have the player base. Even then, you need to pull out all the stops to stay ahead of the competition, and to keep their attention.
There is also the huge issue of TIME. Everyone has a finite amount of time that they can spend playing games, and many people aren't looking to sink thousands of hours into a generic multiplayer game. Many are like me; I prefer a short (30-40 hour) well polished experience. In the time I spend getting competent in a multiplayer game, I could have run through 1 or 2 single player games, and enjoyed myself much more.
In my opinion, there is an untapped goldmine of gamers that are looking for shorter single player experiences. Focus on making these, and you'll get a loyal fanbase ready to purchase DLCs and sequels, and you don't have to compete for the customers time as much. You also don't have to foot the bill for ongoing support/servers.
Would love to go back to the 60 price and 60 for a year 1 pass with 4 seasons actually getting 4-5 new maps and tons of new weapons like bf4.
you are talking about the Pareto distribution. It is a very common distribution, like hight of trees, size of planets and stars, number of books written, game sales, where 20% have 80% of the measured item (or something like that). It is a quite unitutive way the world seems to fundamentally work with some things.
we need to go back to the premium map model. We got way more content and more frequently. The only issue is the player fragmentation. Think it could be alleviated if the maps became free for periods of time and or discounted regularly.
About titanfall 2, I understand being a shooter is part of it's downfall,but the main reason is that titanfall 2 is infected by hackers hijacking all servers and LITERALLY making it so nobody can play
You said EA and competent in the same sentence. 😂 But seriously, a BF with community support and finished prior to release would be nice
Live service fails when its done the wrong way....if you take a complete game and a well tested formula gameplay-wise and give it a live service treatment it can make a game better and keep people invested...for example fortnight....if you take an unfinished buggy mess release it to the public and use the live service model to bring the game to a state that should had been launched with then yeah they fail....
I'm not buying the next battlefield game if it doesn't have a road map and severs
The idea of providing a "minimal viable product" to then pump out monetization over time while you fix the game/ad content over time just kills the player base, hurts consumer confidence in the company, and cuts out 50-95% of the player base who WOULD have been playing, buying cosmetics, season passes, etc but instead passed for an actual complete game on day one. The new corporate attitude to create games as a SaaS model don't work in gaming. It feels like every gamer actually knows this, but a few games that break this rule (COD, sports games, etc) have convinced all the suits in the industry it works. It's insanely frustrating having the best studios with the most resources constantly put out half baked, broken, and uninspired games because of their bottom line - while simultaneously HURTING their bottom line when opportunity cost of their half baked games versus an actual decent product is factored in.
Until today I don't understand why they moved away from the expansion packs (like in BF3).
Some said that it "splits the community" but imho this is nonsense. At the time of BF3 everyone in our clan had all expansions. If you want to play competitive you always have every expansion. And if you want to play with direct friends who are not that deep in the game, you simply play vanilla. Together with server browsers etc. this was so awesome.
I really would prefer to simply buy an expansion all x months instead of getting nothing new because EA doesn't know how to finance the games.
OK, that hip fire with the pistol at 1:56 was just clean AF.
Something that was kind of an eye-opener for me was when MW2 (2022, which I hate that I need to specify) added the transport helos with the seamless "walkable" interiors. In that moment, it occurred to me that Battlefield has been wholly unable to improve its formula and really generate excitement with cool additions to the sandbox. I mean, something like that feature in BF would have totally fit the brand. DICE have always been the ones to push the technical limits of a massive multiplayer environments to provide cinematic and fun spectacles, yet I can't really think of any legitimate innovations in the past few years.
I really think that DICE/EA/whoever could make waves if they totally dove back into the all-out war feeling. I'm sure for all kinds of reasons they just won't do it anymore, but I really want to see a modern conflict between superpowers again. It's all just sitting there, you could borrow "balance" from the sort of real-world rock paper scissors of military hardware, there's no need to make up sci-fi gadgets. As an example, I think people would be receptive to a C-130 crewed with players. It could maybe airlift armor or infantry to certain spots of the map, but it's very venerable if you can't achieve air superiority with your team's fighter jets. That's just an example, but I really think that the more gameplay layers you borrow from real life, theoretically, the less you have to "gamify" and fudge the details for balance. I guess I just get frustrated that EA has so much money to throw at a game like this evidently, but they just can't really blow people away with something novel.
Much like Halo in some ways, I think the development of the game lost sight of the value of giving the player agency to just have fun ahead of other goals like competitive viability or player retention. I don't know how to say it other than that AAA game development feels so algorithmic and engineered, it can be hard to get excited about anymore.
theres a world out there where 2042 wasnt a thing a bfv was the best WW2 game
I think dice is a shell of its former self, but there is still something they could do to produce a successful BF live service game
1) lift the maps and modes from bf3 and bf4. No originality or hard level design required. Boost the graphics. Robust hosting/server browsing. Optional cosmetics every season that actually fit every class/faction.
2) sell map packs like the hood old days. The maps become free to the entire community one year after launch. Hardcore fans will buy them at launch.
They wouldn’t have to do the hard work of actually designing a good game and could profit from non-intrusive cosmetics and map pack sales.
I know people and me included hated paying for DLC, but when BF used to do that, we got a lot of content in a few months. Now we have to wait months for 1 map and 2 weapons.
You shot the pilot out and didn’t steal the chopper? Was it stuck?
Ea really needs to stop chasing trends. The reason I loved battlefield was mostly because it wasn’t cod. Now it’s trying to be every thing else but battlefield. Go back to their roots and the player base will return. But it has to be good out of the box.
Its sad too because this is honestly quite simply put, but they have continued to do the EXACT opposite for the past two titles.
I liked the way they did BF3, 4, and 1. The Premium system had its flaws I agree but we got piles of new content every few months and people loved that. The live service model feels lazier, like the devs can take more time to do one or two maps seemingly every six months or so. Also, it definitely doesn't help when they launch a game half finished like they did with 2042.
i bet if EA did a bf4 portal update and brought in like 5 maps from that game into Conquest 64, TONS of new players would jump in
It wasn't live service that killed this battlefield, it was the fact that it yet again released 6 months too early, just like BFV.
2042 was planned to have 1 map and 2 portal maps each season. Instead the focus changed to fixing maps.
BFV had to spend 6 months finishing the game which is why the only map that released in that period was a massive farm. The content that released after that was excellent quality.
30 seconds, non skippable adds at each lobby. That makes them money and removes need for any mtx. Then add in a “no ads” option for $5 a month or $30 permanent. Your doing bugger all waiting in lobby so its win win for us and if you hate ads then its a small fee to get rid them.
I might be the only one, remembering the good old days of BF3 and BF4, but I honestly wish payed DLCs would make a comeback. Not as in delivering 65% complete game and the remaining 35% in DLCs. Like a full game, and after two months a whole new DLC. I think the fact that they would need to create a good DLC so people would buy it would force the dev and execs hands to actually make something worthwhile. Sorry for my somewhat clumsy english, its my 2nd language.
They just need to make a complete game with no shenanigans behind it that people will buy and not say things like "if you don't like it don't buy it".
It’s funny how Battlefield was know for destruction and bad ass maps and it just got worse and less of both with each game.
Just give us Bad Company 3
Yep, we're all stuck in this middle ground of devs not wanting to support a game for long because they don't think people will play it much but also people don't want to play it much because they don't think the devs will support it for long. Both sides are uncertain so both sides become apathetic.
Back in 2010 I was complaining about games becoming too much like CoD. I felt that it was pointless because the audience they were chasing was never going to come because they already had a series of games to themselves. Back then I was made fun of for saying that.
I caught some flak due to a post regarding the redux and how they are bringing back recycled content and postponing the s6. My argument being that they have failed with live service model. they called me a hater. 🙄I dont hate battlefield. I hate that they mismanaged this title so bad that they had to rework the whole game. And when the exec's see that the game is not living up to what they projected, they pull development. Complete, good games sell. BG3 for example. No micro transactions at all in that game.
I feel like only a small portion of live service games from the start can turn out successful. Another set of live service games become live service games due to initial success (I'm thinking Rocket League) . That is an organic progression of being a very good multiplayer game to then becoming a live service game years after release. It requires first of all, a good game.
They need to return to their roots. They could absolutely follow their older model where they release a full fledged battlefield game, then sell expansions for said game. Problem with devs now days they are “afraid to deliver a high quality product” because it sets the bar high and they have to reach it every time or face backlash. I think a compromise could be made where you release one huge expansion, then next you deliver a smaller one (being straight forward with the structure towards consumers) then deliver another huge one. Break up the work, keep the community engaged, and give them something to be hyped about.
I miss getting hyped for Battlefield Map Packs. BF4 Naval Strike was by far my favorite.
Only way for EA to revive the series is to make Bad Company 3. Release it with at least 10-13 maps and bring the same gun and vehicle mechanics from BF4.
For me personally, any game based on microtransactions is essentially doomed before it even hits the market. I would rather interface with the game through a command line than the current menu system where it just feels like a huge ad for dumb microtransactions I am never going to buy. Bring back the premium/DLC model!
one thing i would disagree on is that the devs dont have a lot of input on these live service stuff and its usually the bean counters/suits/pencil pushers aka people who have absolutely no idea about what goes in to making a game, make the decisions. and more often than not the devs who actually put the stuff together just get told "make this/make that"
I don't think people talk about the root cause of this live service model and why it exists in the first place. Games area clearly just getting too expensive and time consuming to make. The live service model wouldn't have existed if that weren't the case. I don't ever see this changing for AAA studios and this is why we will probably see the AAA studios pump out garbage for $70 with only a fraction of the quality and care we got with games from their studios a decade ago. Just look at the world around you, almost everything that can be, has shifted to a subscription service. Every day we get closer to making the phrase "you will own nothing and be happy" a fact. Although I sure as hell won't be happy about it lol, but you get the point. There must be a way to make games cheaper and easier to make. Unreal Engine 5 has a lot of new features that are really cool in concept like Chaos Destruction, but still aren't feasible enough to implement into a full-fledged game. Chaos Destruction doesn't run well and you'd barely be able to use it on a small level without getting sub-60fps. We need more intuitive tools to make games that someone can develop without even knowing any coding languages. I know that sounds crazy but just think of how much easier it would be to make games if we didn't have to debug all day and actually continually add features without running into bug after bug or performance issue after performance issue. I genuinely think the ease of use with video game engines our only hope. Especially given that smaller independent studios would thrive tremendously if a game engine allowed you to deploy, say a sufficient multiplayer mode that can scale up to high player counts with lots of player interactions. Maybe then we'd see less live service models because games would be made with such less time which in turn directly effects development costs.
The thing is, if you look at a game currently succeeding and think you can copy it, you are too late to the party and when you publish so will 5 others. I fell like the only game companies winning (other than mobile giants) are making the games they wanted to play, not the ones to make money. Steam gets some flak, but its saved gaming in my opinion by opening it up to indie game studios and small teams to make passion projects.
If dice don't pull a load of maps out of their ass It will be very hard to get me to buy a bf game ever again, coming from a 30 year old long time fan
I dont want to play a live service, I want to play a game that is fun and doesnt make me feel like I am going to miss out on something if I dont log in. Also live services dont seem to respect players time and money as they keep demanding more time and more money constantly.
There is so many people are are turned off by Battlebits pitiful graphics and yet still bought it anyways because the gameplay just triumphs over that. That suggests that yes if someone made a battlefield with good core battlefield gameplay it would definitely have an audience.
In my opinion, people just want a good battlefield game. Destructible environments, good vehicle/infantry balance, etc. Like you said the player base is still playing the old titles waiting for the next real battlefield. Stop rushing the devs and let them do what they are passionate about.
My thought on battlefield is how are they going to compete with battlebit?
Battlebit may have worse graphics but in exchange it has increadible draw distances and lots of stuff rendered at once without issues. How can battlefield possibly compete with that?
Battlebit has sprawling maps and insane amounts of freedom to modify the battlefield and get creative. I just don't see how battlefield can compete as a military shooter teamplay sandbox.
So, what, does it become a horrible compromise between CoD and Battlebit? I just don't see any other future for it, and i doubt that's going to do well.
That was so awesome you mentioning Ultima 100 and Everquest; games I played a lot.
Titanfall 2 had it's launch in between 2 behemoth franchises new game launches and didn't get much content in multiplayer after the first year. It's an incredibly good game and had a huge audience considering the launch window. However, that launch window was the main reason for it's collapse. It wasn't just that others preferred the other existing shooters. Some never heard about it cuz of the news about the new games from the other franchises just over powering Titanfall 2, while most just wanted to get in the new massive and hyped games instead cuz they were new and huge and amazing games. They either didn't know about Titanfall 2 or forgot cuz of new titles that launched almost the same week.
Liveservice as a way to keep building onto the game you love and want to succeed is what should be the focus, but instead liveservice as a way to rake in easy money not-so much. Something like Warframe versus what we often end up getting with other games.
I hate the fact that youtubers sugarcoat and act like they really like 2042 and on the other hand fans are being soo blunt about how bad the game is. Our standards have fallen so low to accept this game which doesn’t have its original BF formula, has no grittiness to it, gameplay/ animations are choppy, no server browser and many more.
The EXECUTIVES are the real problem here.
This whole thing was just a cash grab.
I think the sudden shut down of Battlefield V really hurt the franchise in the long run. I'ts like you say, 2042 came out in a terrible state and many people feared the same fate to happen. We don't know much about the next season and if it even gets support beyond.
Also many people didn't even give it a chance in the first place due to it's bad launch. I couldn't get a single of my old battlefield buddies to try the game, even though it's free on game pass.
old battlefield fan, but now I just play battlebit to quench my thirst on battlefield
and play way more other type of games
even if EA push out a good battlefield, I doubt I'll sink as much time as before with my new gaming cycle, EA may need 1-2 good ones to gain back the traction
I have a feeling that EA disabled anti-cheat and stopped fixing bugs in previous Battlefield games on purpose to drive people away from old titles, but they didn't take into account that many of those people instead of buying 2042 will move away from the whole franchise.
Live service games also fail when they don't live for long. It's baffling that anyone would drop money on lootboxes or skins for a game that will be abandoned in 2 years because the developers released a sequel.
Successful live action service games are those that are very long lived, like Counter Strike, Dota 2, LoL, Fortnite, Destiny, hell even Maplestory. These games don't have endless sequels that render the concept of their live service moot.
If we would've gotten a modern setting battlefield with the movement, fortification system, and attrition system from BFV, it would've been the perfect battlefield.
They need a best of battlefield 2 3 4 with all the old maps. Portal is not big enough, and it's why I was excited for 2042. Paying for the regularly four map dlc would be fine if it was half the price from the start rather than 50$
That "love letter to bf fans" now seems like a break-up note, right.
I play CoD:DMZ exclusively now and have zero desire to play the regular multiplayer because the formula is so stale.
That's essentially what I loved so much about Battlefield 3. It was like the open world version of CoD that was even more badass.
Now 2042 just feels like an unrefined version of DMZ. At least DMZ has SQUAD VOICE CHAT and prox chat. BF2042 feels like you're playing solo on a 50 man team.
Another example business people in the office don't follow the original source and fail.
6:56 "They're almost being punished for having developed good games in the past"
No, they're getting punished for scaling back the amount of content and polish in the new game compared to their older games and mark my words; whatever the next BF game is, I can guarrantee that it will have less content than 2042
No offline content no purchase for me. How people didn’t see this as a terrible idea earlier is beyond me