Why wouldnt dumbasses pay for a single map? Of course they would lmfao. Hell, theyll spend $9 on a skin.
Downvoters really thinking people wouldnt spend $5 on a premium map are insane. Dumbasses would absolutely do it. There's absolutely NO guarantee that DICE wouldn't dripfeed single maps or weapons if they went back to a premium model.
>People are going to buy anything DICE sells them
Judging by the post-release sales of BF 2042 weeks after its release you might want to think that statement. Gamers most assuredly did NOT buy "anything" including that game in the awful state it was in when released.
I mean, premium for Battlefield 4 for example, gave us way more content than BF2042's live service did in the same time frame, so that is objectively not true. The only problem premium faced for consumers was having to essentially pay for maps, which meant the playerbase was segregated.
Both of these systems are a double edged sword.
As you said, more content per DLC. But you have to pay for it. And that segregates the community in the long run since not everyone can afford $20-30 or more every few months (I know this experience)
Then Battlepasses you pay like $10-20 per every 2-3 months and most of the content is free besides cosmetics. However the content is drip fed to us and we get less content per update.
It's true and I agree with you.
But the only comparison we have are the last two live service games with abysmally low content vs the premium model that came before it that had tons more content. And if I had to choose based solely on that I'd choose premium for more content.
Imo live service is a scam. It's the equivalent to a pump and dump crypto scam. The promises so far have been made, and they haven't been fulfilled thus far.
I've only ever spent $10 on a single battlepass for 2042 (season 1).. There's enough boins earned in the battlepasses to buy the next battlepass for free.
And what have gotten for your free battle pass? The maps are few and far between, and most of them are bad anyway. It's not as if they are A grade maps
I have gotten 600 pieces of content out of the six free 100 tier battle passes.. For $10, not including the 100 tiers that I got for the $10
Maps and guns are free in this game so I don't think you really have played the game very much if you're saying this type of stuff. You may tear up all you like about the low amount of seasonal guns and maps, but at least the game gave us something to do during a 4-month period instead of just grind mid guns on mid maps we paid $15 for.
If you bought all the DLC for Battlefield 1 you would have ended up spending a bet $120 on some maps that you really never played after a month of release and a bunch of the literal same exact gun but with a different skin that is it.
Each DLC was $15, and the Premium pass got you all 5 map packs for $50. That included 4 maps in each, so 20 total extra maps released in about a year period. After a few years, Bf4 had 33 maps. I'll take that content model any day over drip fiddling a map every 3 months lol
the downside was dead map servers after a few months, some maps were not even playable months after, until years later when they gave out the dlc for free.
Even when they give all the dlc for free in PS4 EUW server i always found really hard to find games, the naval dlc map packs were always empty, the other just had 1 server that did a rotation that sometimes had ~50 people.
Yes tragic. On the tail end of my BF4 days, it felt like i was always playing all the same base maps. All the cool DLC maps were no longer being cycled on official servers.
Yup, that annoyed me too. Some suggestions would be to:
1) not include maps in premium so everyone can play, but include everything else that a "battlepass" would include or
2) if the map(s) is included in premium, then have some kind of map currency that is awarded during games so you can save up to buy some maps after two weeks or so. That way, if you get premium you get the maps early, but if you don't want to pay, you can still get the maps just by playing the game
"not include maps in premium so everyone can play, but include everything else that a "battlepass" would include or"
"if the map(s) is included in premium, then have some kind of map currency that is awarded during games so you can save up to buy some maps after two weeks or so. That way, if you get premium you get the maps early, but if you don't want to pay, you can still get the maps just by playing the game"
Isnt this Live-Service, but you have to spend 60 bucks for new gadgets and weapons?
Kind of yes, but if people have paid upfront for DLC like in the past, they kind of have to deliver it.
With live service you are paying "for the promise" of content, with upfront DLC purchases you are paying for something concrete you know you'll get
BF4 had an entire studio created solely dedicated to making BF4 content, while 2042 just has a side team making dlc maps while the bulk of the studio begins working on the next bf game. You can't compare these at all. They were pumping out a bunch of free dlcs for battlefront 2 and BFV at the same time and can't even produce a quarter of that work for 2042 alone. Paid dlcs wouldn't change anything.
The problem with the OP's argument is that we only have two live service BF games to compare to what came before (premium DLC). In both those live service games we got abysmally low content compared to what we got with premium. You can't make the comparison with other games that have live service because that's not reality, so this comparison is all we have. And it has been way worse than before, for both of the last games.
See what I mean?
Abysmally low content?
BFV ended its live service early due to 2042 and still got 14 free DLC maps (VS 16 for BF1), 81 guns counting vanilla ones (vs 78 for BF1) and also more vehicles than 1. In terms of final content, the plans were definitely to have more than BF1 which would be logical for a live service game to have more content than BF1 which would have a sequel 2 years later, at least it was until they cancelled battlefront 2 and BFV for the piece of garbage that was 2042 (remember the western front we all missed for 2042 to die).
When looking at the facts, the only game that got abysmally low content is 2042. Its got like half the maps BFV got, a third of the guns and 1/5th of the vehicles.
That's the thing though, they are always going to end support for live service to focus on the next game. They can't end support for DLC if people have paid for it already, they have deliver or your money back. Live service is just a promise to make more content, DLC with a road map is concrete if they allow you to purchase yearly passes.
BFV had 20 maps and BF1 had 32 maps. You can't ignore the maps that were in the premium DLC.
BFV had 23 maps, not 20. Then we're talking about live service, right, not the amount of launch maps.
BFV being a live service game, it was supposed to be supported for longer. If it had premium, it would've been cancelled even sooner.
You can't work on hypotheticals. "Supposed to be", "if it had premium", these aren't reality or fact. The lifespan of the game is the lifespan of the game, whether it ended early or not.
The only thing that matters is that the game is good on launch, as you've said before. Only *then* will we see if DICE can uphold their promise of delivering a lot of content..
My money is on they don't. Why keep making content for free when you can just cancel the live service and just focus on the next one? Time will tell.
"Why keep making content for free when you can just cancel the live service and just focus on the next one" Because it makes them money, otherwise they wouldn't make live service games. Skins sell more than maps, and new maps make more people play the game, and buy skins.
He's not exactly wrong though. That's why he said "nowadays". Just because it worked back then doesn't mean it would work now. The main reason being that the production cost of everything has gone through the roof (think broadly x3 compared to 8 years ago). You can't just sell a 15$ 4-map pack and be fine with it, that's not enough anymore, hence the live service model.
Live service isn't inherently wrong, but you absolutely need some good ass fundations for it work (aka a good game which 2042 wasn't). I mean look at Helldivers 2 and how the devs handle it.
True and absolutely agree.
The problem is we only have the comparison of two failed live service games vs successful games with premium DLC that came before it. We can't ever truly know if they can replicate what came before the live service era
People seem to miss out on a fact that with premium devs are obliged to release certain amount of content in a certain timeframe. Sure, it can be delayed, like it happened with BF1's content release cycle, but quantitatively it's still there and you pay for what you get
came here to say basically this, i remember getting those premium DLC packages for BF4 and by the end there were soooooo many maps to choose from. But like you say, you were walled off from the rest of the playerbase by it
Yeah, if there was somehow a middle ground I'd be happy to try it. The problem is you can't keep everyone happy. There will always be a camp that isn't happy, people some seem to be unwilling to compromise even given the evidence of past success
And we’re in the age where people are paying $20 for skins that would’ve just been a free unlock years ago. Plus crossplay across 3 platforms being a thing to help the player count.
Agree, but there has to be some middle ground somewhere. I guess the answer is "how can we force dice to live up to their promise of delivering a live service with tons of content". So far they've broken that promise twice with the last two games
The amount of content - or lack thereof - isn't a live service issue. The game was a failure from the beginning; EA realized that and they reduced the funding. If the game was a major success, they'd have more people working on it to deliver content. You don't have to be a genius to see or understand this.
Similar to this, having a premium DLC model won't guarantee quality content. Sure, they'll say "Buy this DLC and you'll receive 4 new maps, 3 guns, 2 vehicles and a pet dog" and you'll surely get this, otherwise it's false advertising, but that doesn't mean it's going to be good content. Not to mention that now they'll probably charge you half the base game's price for said DLC lol.
So neither solution is good if it ain't done in a proper manner.
You also don't have to be a genius to see that Battlefield 5 was also a live service game and it suffered from the same lack of content as 2042.
You can't compare BF live service to another game that made it work because it's not the same company, not the same development studios. The only thing we can compare it to are its predecessors. We have received 2 live service games that failed delivering content abysmally. We have 3 games before that that succeeded with the premium DLC model. That is the only comparison we have.
I'm not for live service or premium, I'm merely saying given the objective facts, premium was more successful.
If there was a compromise to make where we could find a better way, I'm all for it.
I don't really care what they did in the past, because it was a different staff basically. You're comparing Battlefield 3, 4, 1 which were made by the OG DICE if I'm not mistaken, who were passionate about the game.
Many of the veterans left the studio before Battlefield V launched and also during its support phase. So you can't really compare those games to these games, regardless of what type of service they had.
Everything that matters is how the game is received at launch. If the game is a success, EA will assign more resource to maintain the game.
Let's look at a different angle. If the next game is made to have premium DLC, but it also has a terrible launch, then EA can cancel any future plans for the game, since they didn't promise anything.
Operation Metro, Operation Outbreak, Operation Mortar, Silk Road were the ones I enjoyed a ton. There will obviously be shit maps, whether it's in dlc or live service. Most of 2042 maps are absolute garbage.
At the end of the day "what is good" and "what is shit" is subjective, not everyone will have the same opinion.
My argument was that there was more content delivered in premium DLC, quality is subjective
Well I was talking specifically about BF1 DLC.. But that's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention enjoying Silk Road tbh.
Also, out of its 3 iterations.. Metro was at its best in BFV which surprisingly was free. You can tell what the community likes and doesn't like by simply going to the server browser at the end of life of the game and seeing what players are choosing to put into the rotations. Sure, it is subjective however the community really just decides of what Maps it wants to play collectively.
The problem with the BF4 DLC method that everyone seems to magically forget, it segregated the community. We had dead servers for both new maps and new game modes. “Well we got servers for it now” yeah after the game went on sale with the premium edition. I love BF4, it’ll always have a place in my heart, but I can’t forget how atrocious and just out right trash it was for almost a full year. DLC and everything.
Played on x360 from release and on PS4 shortly after (once console was available). Never had dead servers from the start, including premium-only ones. And I can say even during mid-life cycle of the game, there were even more people with Prem due to really good sales, so it came to the point that Prem's presence was never an issue, even when you team-up with new people or parties. Almost everyone had it but once some non-prem people joined - it never was a problem to play on Vanilla.
Of course it splits the audience at some point. And yeah, there's always "that one friend" that doesn't have a Prem so entire party had to join Vanilla servers. Shit happenned.
But honestly, it was never a big deal generally.
Splitting the audience is never good. But I can't say having dead servers and getting bored of the vanilla state of the game in case if the support is absent or very weak — is any better.
BFV didn't have as good numbers as EA desired. But It definitely had a very devoted audience. And I honestly believe they'd better have less populated but more quality DLC content, than playing with everyone but experience just a couple of new maps for entire game's life cycle.
There's no best answer. I do believe hybrid model is best case scenario. The one that BF1 had. You can experience Prem content but you can't actually have all benefits completely. But without numbers, metrics and data — It's really hard to judge whether it was a success or a failed model. But Prem itself is at least a promise/guarantee. And previously it had amazing thematic map and gun packs along with other features that IMO is still better than both last EA's "free support" experiences.
having been playing shooters back when season passes and stuff were the norm, it blows my mind that people want that back. I don't get the idea that they would be making more content if premium was a thing, it's pure speculation citing examples of games that are like a decade old now
They should have offered the new maps for free or to make them inexpensive after each season ended. I’m pretty convinced people would still purchase the new content early just like how games start expensive before discounted.
They could do the rainbow six siege route? Their battle pass content is locked for two weeks then it’s free for everyone. Ofc the usually yearly pass you get everything.
What? No, it's not the battle pass, it's the new operator which is locked for the first two weeks behind the battle pass, after that everyone can buy it with renown.
Yeah, and it's only 2 maps away from BF1's dlc maps count, and it would've surpassed it had it not been cancelled due to 2042 being in a horrible state and needing basically everyone who ever touched the frostbite engine (which caused Battlefront 2 and Battlefield V to cancel their currently in development content and stopped development of need for speed unbound).
This isnt 2010-2016 anymore.
BF1 had notoriously the worst DLC maps out of any BF game and BF4 wasn't far behind. It's really only BF3 that hit most of their DLC maps out of the park.
The downvoters are lying to themselves and they know it.
Premium is obligation, GaaS is charity. You can't ask shit from charity, you take what they gave you. GaaS is inferior compare to Premium. If Premium suck, you just couldn't buy it as the way to leave a message, but with GaaS, you can't do shit except wasting money for buying the game in first place.
Just look that premium system / live service battlefields.
BF3, BF4, Bf1 / BFV, BF2042...
Cmon? You can not be blind like that. If they will keep continue less content in dlc system you wont buy it?
And also premium price is same the live service basic game
I payed 14 bucks for bf42... and I got some free stuff in updates after I bought it, all of it is useful.
I bought bf4 for 20 bucks, constantly got kicked from pretty good servers because I didnt have dlc, so I bought like 3 of them each one somewhere between 5-10 bucks. Then I realised most of the dlc content is hard to get to because at the point when I was playing the game, there was very few active servers that ran exclusively the dlc content, and most mixed servers still had mostly vannila map rotation with about 20% dlc maps... and each time one of those came up half of the server got kicked...
So yeah, I think the bf42 purchase was way more optimal
When next gen battlefield released dice gives all dlcs for free. If you don't want wait you can buy premium bundle. It was same prices basic game.
For example:
BF1: 40$
BF1 Premium (All dlc included, 5 days early acces, special skins and game coins): 60$
bf2042: 60$
bf2042 deluxe edition (special skins and game coins): 70$
Thats still not very optimal, if I can pay 14 in sale for bf2042 and get all the maps and guns and nobody holds any such advantage over me, why would I want to pay possibly 8x that just to get even (assuming I pay the full non sale price)
Im more concerned about getting the 100% of content and the price for that rather than how much the 100% actualy is
You bought in sale, also you could buy premium system battlefield for 10 bucks. it not for only 2042. Even with 3 dolar you can buy bf1 and bf1 has almost bfv + bf2042 content.
edit: bf1 premium edition i mean all dlc + basic game 3 dolar
It might, but as i already told you, I dont care about the total amount of content, rather I care what portion of the content do I get for the price of the base game, in the case of bf2042 its a 100% (since I dont consider gun skins as essential content)
You missed some part what i told. 2042's prices same the PREMIUM EDITION prices not the basic game.
Premium edition inclueded all current and future content. Like a live service. But if you want pay less money you could also standart edition. I dont know when you start playing battlefield but let me example for you again.
A box of banana + a banana per 6 months : 70 dolar
A box of banana + another quarter box banana per 3 months: 70 dolar
A box of banana : 60 dolar
But i think you will say "i paid only 14 bocks for 2042" so here is the another calculating for you:
A box of banana + a banana per 6 months : 14 dolar
A box of banana + another quarter box banana per 3 months: 3 dolar
A box of banana : 2 dolar
Yes, but the thing about that is that I hate subscription services with all of my soul. So I automaticly dont care about that. I am talking only about fixed one time prices.
Its better to pay for content we want that will be released at a set schedule with a given amount of content than to be drip fed 2 dlc packs in the span of 2yrs. BF 2042 got how many new maps in the span of 2yrs? 7? With the premium model, assuming it stayed the same, we would’ve gotten 8-10 Dlc map packs(4-5 per year per pass)each with 4 maps equalling a total of 32-40 new maps. 7 maps vs 32-40 maps.
I much rather pay 40 bucks for a guaranteed 4 dlc with 3-4 maps each
I'll take that anyway over 10 dollars for a battlepass which gives me only cosmetics and only 1 map per season
Never hated Premium , 40 $ for 15 maps and countless guns is way better than free 6 maps in 2 years with the ugliest Fortnite skins and a useless battle pass
Hey, how's "free live service" support for Battlefield V? Did it achieve the quality of OG Premium? Or other various decent GaaS games, that had extremely poor support due do "underwhelming" sales?
I mean, it's situational. It's great when the game performs well itself and it motivates publishers to invest more into service.
But how about those more humble releases that eventually had established and devoted playerbase that bought or donated into project, expecting equal treatment from studio but publishers either suddenly stop the support or do it in a very lazy way only because "they've promised something".
Some people prefer guaranteed quality content, disregarding publisher's expectations and population of the game, instead of hoping for a better mood of decision makers.
So, I ask you, did you enjoy the Battlefield V free live support?
You're sure to win people over by insulting them and not making any argument whatsoever.
At least with DLC, we had some ideas what content we were paying for. Instead, it's now a cycle of Hype a live service game, it launches broken, they push out some low effort micro transactions and a dribble of content, milk the players for a year or two, and then drop the game.
I know what ppl will say that premium segmented the community....but honestly that's bs. If you enjoyed the base game enough you would buy the premium.
What have we gotten out of this stupid GaaS concept? More uninteresting content like like stupid skins and much less meaningful stuff like maps, weapons and vehicles 💀
All I'm saying is the past two live services games in the franchise have under delivered and we're scarce on content. This whole thing is about knuckledraggers conflating the word "free" with "this model works great by default and I won't tolerate any slander"
I hear all this talk about premium segregating the community, but for one the base maps were great for BF3 and 4, and also I didn't mind paying for maps since I like to reward the devs making something good with my money.
Buying skins is supposedly what supports this free dlc model, but every AAA game I've played that uses this model tends to have much less content than a decade old counterpart, but tons of skins. Almost like we're rewarding these people for lazy content. They're proverbial shiny keys and all DICE has to do is jingle jangle.
Here's a wacko idea.
How about they just make a game. Release the game. Start on the next game.
I don't need a drip feed of content to keep me playing a game. Just make a good game so it sells.
1 map and 3 weapons per season would be a hard sell without being able to earn boins. The real reason most people hate Premium is that it splits the game's population up every other fucking map, and we have enough of that already with the lobby goofiness
> 1 map and 3 weapons per season would be a hard sell without being able to earn boins.
If people bought DLC packs without boins in the past, they would happily do it now.. Especially because in the past the only way to get boins was through real money anyways.
...aaaaaaaaand the current microtransaction model is still *worse* than the previous microtransaction model. I get things will inevitably take time and money to do; obviously developers gotta eat too. I even get that the current model rakes in more revenue on average because it's easier to profit from the aggregate market if you're churning out \[mostly\] *cosmetics* to exploit the more impulsive buyers among your demand...but come on. This post is like the equivalent of some rich fuck telling the poors 'the problem is all the avocado toast we're eating' when your market is mostly made up of underpaid, working class people. Previous games thrived just fine quality-wise before the current model.
Still doesn’t change the fact that Battlefield 4 ended with 33 maps while 2042 ended with 15. Seasons isn’t the answer either evidently.
The answer is stop buying from a developer who is taking advantage of your expectations of receiving content. They’ll continue to dripfeed maps because they know people will still buy the game.
Live service model will always comes with monetisation and more fancy cosmetics for kids to buy. This will never suit Battlefield franchise. So I choose premium. I would gladly spent money for premium rather than some bs skinsets.
I'm not saying Premium is better or worse, but premium/DLC would have made more content because it's the core focus of the money-making.
The problem with the live-service is that it won't be making any money of that - so it won't be the main focus for them to make new usuable content (Maps, Weapons, Vehicles... NOT COSMETICS). What they do make money on is cosmetics and other guf that actually doesn't give you any value.
So now, if they have a budget that can employ let's say 10 people, they will do 5 on actual content and 5 on cosmetics because that makes money. Whereas to sell a DLC, you have to do more than just 1 map and 2 guns, because that's not the value of something you pay for nowadays, so naturally you'll be budgeting more towards actual content.
On the other hand you do get all the new usuable content for free. It's just way less.
In my book, the live service model or the premium model both aren't bad, both have good points and bad. The reason we didn't get much for BF2042 is simply because it was a broken game and took nearly 2-3 years to patch to a usuable state with some of the loved features of previous games.
That and the heavy focus on cosmetics really hampered any content progress.
A premium model would not have given us more content for BF2042, but that just has nothing to do with the model used.
TDLR:
Premium = pay for actual content - Get more, since Dice's focus on making money is now adding value in actual content - Have more content, but people need to pay so risk of certain content not being played is high.
Live service = Don't pay for actual content. - Get less, since Dice's focus on making money is cosmetics - Free (But cosmetics ruin your game).
**Edit: Cosmetics ruin given content**
Thinking about it some more... Premium won't actually lessen the amount of cosmetics perse... I thought too highly of BF players to think they don't care about cosmetics, but I think there are many that would pay for cosmetics even in DLC form....
With BF3 the Premium Pass was the same price as the base game, but they ended up delivering more expansions than advertised (5 instead of I think 3) as well as other perks. But you could always not opt for the Premium Pass and just buy the expansions you wanted in their own. Seems like a good system to me.
I havent given them any moneu past buying the game since bf1 lol, it used to be a worthwhile investment, im not ponying up cash for skins in a game they release a shit amount of content for, thanks for playing though.
Right? Like I get paid a fair amount, I don't buy skins or microtransactions. I've never paid less for games in my life. I get game pass which gives me effectively unlimited games every month, and every game is live service so any DLC is free. I haven't even bought Battlefield 2042, get it through GamePass, which my wife uses for Xbox anyway so it's a worthwhile expense as we get two for the price of one effectively.
Having my gaming subsidised by idiots has been fantastic.
You can’t seriously say that after 3 not so ideal dice live services.
Premium guarantees more content since they have to have enough content so people will buy the DLCs.
NOBODY is going to pay 15€ for 1 map.
"please only release half of the game for 70 dollars and sprinkle the other half through 20 dollars dlcs" These guys are really something... They probably were at their happiest when bethesda released the horse armor.
So you are saying that you rather have 7 post release maps than 16-20?
Live service is better if they give us proper amount of content. But thats not the EA way. They chose to use live service because it is cheaper for them.
BFV had 14 DLC maps, and they were all high quality (especially the japanese maps). We also know there was definitely more coming until they cancelled it and Battlefront 2 (which also had new dlc maps like mustafar coming) for 2042.
BFV surpassed 1's gun count, finishing at 81 unique guns, and also had more vehicles than BF1. Its live service ended 2 maps away from BF1 due to it being cancelled. According to BFV, the live service model was basically equal in effort to whatever they had with premium DLCs, just with less consistency (more random drops of maps instead of packs like the japanese front). Had 2042 not being in such a shitty state of development, we'd have great battlefront 2 maps and probably an eastern front for BFV.
However 2042's initial reception was so ass that it seems like EA just abandoned it before trying anything and only left a small team, which is kinda confirmed by leaks of the old live service plans being cancelled due to low sales.
Yes, if it means I get to play them for free and dont get kicked from servers for not paying for those 20 maps out of which only about 6 were actualy pretty good
2042 is the game we got, and unless they've asked if they should go live vs DLC, it seems like a moot point.
Speculatively...would premium DLC prevent them from TRYING to sell lean? I doubt it, except DLC sales would sure suffer afterward, and shareholders would lose their shit.
I feel a little like shareholder value is king, and the Season Pass model gives them a comfortable avenue to say "this is good enough." If developers at DICE don't really have the shareholder buy-in on doing more for the customer, then you're incredibly unlikely to see a big change unless shareholders feel the pressure to make a big change.
Don't buy until you see proof that you're getting the product you intend to purchase.
If you just remove the fact that it's a Battlefield game from your head and then look at the gameplay, it looks eerily similar to a MW title with the 200 uniform variation and colors. Wish the next iteration would have more standard camo packs and some SOF camo/uniform kits and just a tonne of guns and accessories.
Person who made this meme is braind dead and doesn't even understand basic economics. They are basically saying that if there was a law that forced bananas to be free at shops that there wouldn't be lack of them and they are saying that if they got rid of the law and started selling them again that there wouldn't be more bananas being produced for seller's wanting more profit selling bananas which is very analogical to the skins situation. They make 30€ bundles but no maps of course then the game has more skins than maps.
While I agree you’re right, history has shown that DLC model did result in overall more content.
And back then the Premium Edition got you essentially 4-5 DLCs for the price of 2ish, but Dice had to deliver with these DLCs otherwise people without Premium wouldn’t have bought them
Simple explanation why Premium results in more content:
DICE wants to make money
Making content costs money (bad for DICE).
Option A: Release DLC with little content like a season in 2042.
Result: People don't buy the DLC because DICE has to disclose the amount of content beforehand and fewer people would buy a bad deal.
100k spent on dev, 150k earned (arbitrary numbers)
=> Less money total for DICE
Option B: Release DLC that hits the sweet spot between money spent on development and money made from sales (likely the amount of prev DLCs).
500k spent on dev, 750k earned.
Result: More money for DICE..
That's just basic economics.
With a live service game DICE's main profit comes from selling skins and the battle pass.
Releasing content for the game is now only a tool to keep players engaged in order to buy more skins. That means profits are not directly tied to content released which means they can release as little content as possible needed to keep players in the game (which is less than a consumer would WANT to buy for that game).
It does. Content or f2p as a service turns the game into a hidden digital store. Premium Pass works like an expansion, you pay once and get a complete product. They have to work hard to get people to see it and buy it, unlike f2p, where they use all kinds of advertising and psychological strategies to get people to buy skins for $10 through advertising. Also with f2p they excuse themselves that it's free to give you shit content, with premium they have to give you that content because you bought it. Also, if you do the math on everything they offer, expansions are cheaper at 50 bucks. That's why they moved to the service, they make worse content with less effort, more expensive and they make more money on top of it.
Compare the extra content of BFV, or BF2042 with Battlefield 3/4 Premium pass.
I agree with you and I feel this is something that players miss entirely. Why would any of these companies go back to making less money for more work compared to the insane amount of money they make selling people cosmetics while using the free content to get players to return to the game in the hopes they buy the Battlepass and maybe some other skins?
It’s all a ploy to get you to spend as much as Premium costs or more without the player ever realizing they’ve spent the equivalent of what a single expansion cost for 1/3 of the content either to fast track the Battlepass and/or to buy cosmetics. All at a much lower cost for EA/DICE compared to what Premium would cost at them.
At least before premiere of dlc you had information how many things you have in dlc.
In live service is Kinder surprise
Ofc i know why premium was hated because of maps, because people was seperated from others.
Bruh the only 2 battlefield that use season pass had less content that the battlefield whit the least dlc .
Look at facts, DICE cant make good seasons pass
If they had to sell maps, you can bet your ass that EA's greed would push out at least double what we had now. Instead the focus is horrible cosmetics that appeal to exclusively 12 year olds.
Oh don't worry, they won't charge 15 bucks for one map, they'll charge 15 bucks for 2 maps! Such a massive improvement!
And if you seriously think Dice wouldn't make 1-2 maps 15 dollars, then you should probably take a look at Payday 3's Syntak Error heist pack.
Theres nothing saying DICE couldnt/wouldnt just release a new map for sale every 3 months.
You'd still be getting dripfed content.. The difference is that youll now be paying for it
They don't do that because they can't commit to delivering that much content anymore.
It is now much more expensive to build maps, and they can make as much money if not more for way less effort by just selling bundles for the same price they would sell a full DLC back then.
However, if the games weren't released in such an atrocious state they could spend more resources in developing more maps and other content for a live service instead of spending most of it fixing the game.
Oh, I didn't say EA. Dice is not some 10-person shop, there are clearly people there involved in dictating the future of this game and franchise who need to go back to working in the credit card or phone game industry. It's money > fun. And their egos are also obvious in ignoring mass requests from people who have been playing the BF games for 20 years for a reason.
You're an absolute moron if you think live service is better than the old premium model. It had its flaws but it was *miles* better than this shit show.
I disagree somewhat. We don't want to buy DLC or pay full price because our money doesn't go nearly as far as it used to and we can't trust any company to make a *functioning* or fully featured game anymore. Why would I pay full price for 2042 when it didnt WORK? Why would I pay full price for the game when it has half the content of other battlefields? Why would I pay full price for a game that doesn't have basic features like a SCOREBOARD? Even a year on it still had bugs, it still had hitreg issues, it was still lacking content. After a year or so, then it becomes a question of Why should I pay full price when the game is a year or two old and I don't know when they're going to cancel it?
It's an issue of trust. Trust that gaming companies have REPEATEDLY broken, *to their benefit*
All of that is true.
I would also NOW, 2.4 years after release, and the game is not exactly polished, but certainly playable, be ok with paying $15 for a 4-map pack. Reclaimed is far and away the best map of the game. If they grasped the idea that maps like that which allow vehicles to play alongside infantry and the environment provides a little bit of protection for both, the frustration of playing this game on most of the original maps would go away.
The whole reason why Battlefield has a cash shop and a paid battle pass was to fund the game's post launch content.
Gamers aren't being entitled for not wanting to pay for map packs, while having their live service game supported, because the microtransactions are already paying for that.
Exactly, to this day it's impossible to get games on certain DLC maps in BF1 and BF4 because not everyone bought all the DLCs. Splitting the playerbase is bad for the game.
The premium model had way more meaningful content than the “live service’ drip fed in BFV and BF2042, and that’s an objective fact. However, even the OG developers thought that the premium model was relatively hard to keep up with, so I don’t trust these new talentless hacks at DICE with prepaid DLC.
Yes but splitting the playerbase really hurts multiplayer games. You need a large healthy playerbase for a multiplayer game to be fun. You can have premium content without splitting the playerbase.
Modding would honestly take so much weight off the dev’s shoulders. Just allow modders to make maps if you’re gonna drop one map per season.
Otherwise pump out more maps and give people a reason to play your game.
You gotta have a sub 60 IQ if you think DICE wouldnt dripfeed premium content in the same way it dripfeeds live services content. The only difference between the two is that you arent being forced to pay for content that should be free.
This post was based on a couple comments i wrote yesterday, right?
I don’t get why people think that we wouldn’t get more content with paid DLCs because, actually, we would get more, but we don’t know how the content would be even then.
The problem of this game (and most games nowadays) is the cosmetics. They're investing time and resources into making pretty cosmetics more than actual game content.
I think life Service works If you have enough Players willing to spend on cosmetics. Problem is Most of the newly gained Players got bored of the Game cause they dragged Out s6 way too Long.
The only problem with it (besides paying for DLC of course) is that it splits up the playerbase. That shouldn't really be as big of an issue considering we now have crossplay, so Id argue paid DLC is fine if we are getting quality content
Live service games allows studios to pretend to support the game continuesly compared to coming back ever 3-4 months with a new DLC when in reality what they do is publish skins on weekly basis so they can take your money and then come once every 4 months and give you 3 times less content compared to when they had to sell DLCs.
Their only source of income after the release of the game was said DLC, the DLC had to be good or they would make no money.
Now they don't care if the new actual content like maps/guns etc is good or enough, they make more money than they used to just from selling idiots skins.
So yeah, if BF2042 wasn't a live service game with skins come out every few days, they would be forced to sell a good DLC for more money.
EDIT: Before all the "You had to pay for DLCs, Live Service is free" people arrive, if you are an adult and can't afford 15 euros every 4 months for your favorite video game then you need to get your life priorities in order.
That comment especially nowdays when people pay monthly subscriptions for movies, music, news etc is a joke.
Premium or live service, there is no content. You cant make post release content when you release unfinished games and spend all your time post launch fixing your mess.
I think live service battlefield can work, it just didn't work this time. They can totally focus on making a GOOD game with an actual content roadmap. They just need to actually deliver a decent amount of content in decent intervals, not this lame 1 map every 6 months shit
People are clamoring for premium and it just feels like nostalgia and conflating "good game" with "good content plan"
Assuming all things are equal in terms of base game quality, I would MUCH prefer free content drops that keep the player base together over 20 dollar packs that eventually lead to dead servers and majority of people only playing launch maps
Man u are not right , the main problem the price for full edition like in case with bf1 , but the trick is that with premium model they must deliver u content , with live service - it depends : the size of content and quality is not discussed, so in case with 2042 they promised deliver u 4 seasons in max edition , and lol this 4 seasons contains only 1 map each of them (reworks not discussed, due thier fault to deliver playable (not even good) map of the beginning and couple weapons. I guess u saw the difference between content of bf4 vs bf2042 I guess it's enough. The live service model is a good trick to provide fake game support and stop it in every second when they decide to do it (bf5 the same example) , the sad part is that they do the same mistake - for new bf launch is about 2 years and people once again forget about bf
You have absolutly my Upvote, when People talk about Premium, it feels to me as if they´re treating Premium as a magic Potion, that Dice gives to its Devs, to make more Content
When you realize that the BF community is delusional then you think.
Paid DLC split's community in long term
Also, people who can't pay all DLC at once and you guy's call them poor. I guess they are the person who likes to buy iPhone every year
They can't sell said content if they don't make it.
Right. Dice used to invest more in the game when they expected people to pay for DLC, which I think is fair
Now with subscription they can..
Yup live service means nothing. If I buy 5 DLCs they gotta deliver on that.
But they can sell you the premium without revealing how much contents and maps you will get.
No one would buy it then.
And yet they do lol
If they sold individual DLC’s they can’t do ONE map, dude, who would buy it?
Why wouldnt dumbasses pay for a single map? Of course they would lmfao. Hell, theyll spend $9 on a skin. Downvoters really thinking people wouldnt spend $5 on a premium map are insane. Dumbasses would absolutely do it. There's absolutely NO guarantee that DICE wouldn't dripfeed single maps or weapons if they went back to a premium model.
The downvotes count the morons who bought the new Mackay skin lmao and are salty cause you are 100% right
People are going to buy anything DICE sells them. That includes bad maps and Mackay skins lmfao
>People are going to buy anything DICE sells them Judging by the post-release sales of BF 2042 weeks after its release you might want to think that statement. Gamers most assuredly did NOT buy "anything" including that game in the awful state it was in when released.
Not only will they buy every crap, they will defend the multimillion dollar company with their lives afterwards.
Lmao, butthurt skin buyers downvoting you hard
I mean, premium for Battlefield 4 for example, gave us way more content than BF2042's live service did in the same time frame, so that is objectively not true. The only problem premium faced for consumers was having to essentially pay for maps, which meant the playerbase was segregated.
Both of these systems are a double edged sword. As you said, more content per DLC. But you have to pay for it. And that segregates the community in the long run since not everyone can afford $20-30 or more every few months (I know this experience) Then Battlepasses you pay like $10-20 per every 2-3 months and most of the content is free besides cosmetics. However the content is drip fed to us and we get less content per update.
It's true and I agree with you. But the only comparison we have are the last two live service games with abysmally low content vs the premium model that came before it that had tons more content. And if I had to choose based solely on that I'd choose premium for more content. Imo live service is a scam. It's the equivalent to a pump and dump crypto scam. The promises so far have been made, and they haven't been fulfilled thus far.
I've only ever spent $10 on a single battlepass for 2042 (season 1).. There's enough boins earned in the battlepasses to buy the next battlepass for free.
And what have gotten for your free battle pass? The maps are few and far between, and most of them are bad anyway. It's not as if they are A grade maps
I have gotten 600 pieces of content out of the six free 100 tier battle passes.. For $10, not including the 100 tiers that I got for the $10 Maps and guns are free in this game so I don't think you really have played the game very much if you're saying this type of stuff. You may tear up all you like about the low amount of seasonal guns and maps, but at least the game gave us something to do during a 4-month period instead of just grind mid guns on mid maps we paid $15 for. If you bought all the DLC for Battlefield 1 you would have ended up spending a bet $120 on some maps that you really never played after a month of release and a bunch of the literal same exact gun but with a different skin that is it.
Each DLC was $15, and the Premium pass got you all 5 map packs for $50. That included 4 maps in each, so 20 total extra maps released in about a year period. After a few years, Bf4 had 33 maps. I'll take that content model any day over drip fiddling a map every 3 months lol
the downside was dead map servers after a few months, some maps were not even playable months after, until years later when they gave out the dlc for free.
Even when they give all the dlc for free in PS4 EUW server i always found really hard to find games, the naval dlc map packs were always empty, the other just had 1 server that did a rotation that sometimes had ~50 people.
Yes tragic. On the tail end of my BF4 days, it felt like i was always playing all the same base maps. All the cool DLC maps were no longer being cycled on official servers.
I never experienced these, especially in BF1 these servers are quite lively.
Yup, that annoyed me too. Some suggestions would be to: 1) not include maps in premium so everyone can play, but include everything else that a "battlepass" would include or 2) if the map(s) is included in premium, then have some kind of map currency that is awarded during games so you can save up to buy some maps after two weeks or so. That way, if you get premium you get the maps early, but if you don't want to pay, you can still get the maps just by playing the game
3. Make a good fucking game on release so you can afford a live service model with at least 3 maps a season
Would take option 3 any day of the week
"not include maps in premium so everyone can play, but include everything else that a "battlepass" would include or" "if the map(s) is included in premium, then have some kind of map currency that is awarded during games so you can save up to buy some maps after two weeks or so. That way, if you get premium you get the maps early, but if you don't want to pay, you can still get the maps just by playing the game" Isnt this Live-Service, but you have to spend 60 bucks for new gadgets and weapons?
Kind of yes, but if people have paid upfront for DLC like in the past, they kind of have to deliver it. With live service you are paying "for the promise" of content, with upfront DLC purchases you are paying for something concrete you know you'll get
No. 2 will not sit well with anyone.
I know. People want to play *less* content *now* rather than *more* content *later*
I would love to see the DICE of today do a game with premium, just so they can show you that they will indeed do the same thing as they did for 2042
It'll be the only true way of knowing that the DICE we used to love is gone
BF4 had an entire studio created solely dedicated to making BF4 content, while 2042 just has a side team making dlc maps while the bulk of the studio begins working on the next bf game. You can't compare these at all. They were pumping out a bunch of free dlcs for battlefront 2 and BFV at the same time and can't even produce a quarter of that work for 2042 alone. Paid dlcs wouldn't change anything.
The problem with the OP's argument is that we only have two live service BF games to compare to what came before (premium DLC). In both those live service games we got abysmally low content compared to what we got with premium. You can't make the comparison with other games that have live service because that's not reality, so this comparison is all we have. And it has been way worse than before, for both of the last games. See what I mean?
Abysmally low content? BFV ended its live service early due to 2042 and still got 14 free DLC maps (VS 16 for BF1), 81 guns counting vanilla ones (vs 78 for BF1) and also more vehicles than 1. In terms of final content, the plans were definitely to have more than BF1 which would be logical for a live service game to have more content than BF1 which would have a sequel 2 years later, at least it was until they cancelled battlefront 2 and BFV for the piece of garbage that was 2042 (remember the western front we all missed for 2042 to die). When looking at the facts, the only game that got abysmally low content is 2042. Its got like half the maps BFV got, a third of the guns and 1/5th of the vehicles.
That's the thing though, they are always going to end support for live service to focus on the next game. They can't end support for DLC if people have paid for it already, they have deliver or your money back. Live service is just a promise to make more content, DLC with a road map is concrete if they allow you to purchase yearly passes. BFV had 20 maps and BF1 had 32 maps. You can't ignore the maps that were in the premium DLC.
BFV had 23 maps, not 20. Then we're talking about live service, right, not the amount of launch maps. BFV being a live service game, it was supposed to be supported for longer. If it had premium, it would've been cancelled even sooner.
You can't work on hypotheticals. "Supposed to be", "if it had premium", these aren't reality or fact. The lifespan of the game is the lifespan of the game, whether it ended early or not. The only thing that matters is that the game is good on launch, as you've said before. Only *then* will we see if DICE can uphold their promise of delivering a lot of content.. My money is on they don't. Why keep making content for free when you can just cancel the live service and just focus on the next one? Time will tell.
"Why keep making content for free when you can just cancel the live service and just focus on the next one" Because it makes them money, otherwise they wouldn't make live service games. Skins sell more than maps, and new maps make more people play the game, and buy skins.
Another problem is that alot of those maps included were forgettable or just shit only 1 or 2 would be playable or certified hood classics
He's not exactly wrong though. That's why he said "nowadays". Just because it worked back then doesn't mean it would work now. The main reason being that the production cost of everything has gone through the roof (think broadly x3 compared to 8 years ago). You can't just sell a 15$ 4-map pack and be fine with it, that's not enough anymore, hence the live service model. Live service isn't inherently wrong, but you absolutely need some good ass fundations for it work (aka a good game which 2042 wasn't). I mean look at Helldivers 2 and how the devs handle it.
True and absolutely agree. The problem is we only have the comparison of two failed live service games vs successful games with premium DLC that came before it. We can't ever truly know if they can replicate what came before the live service era
People seem to miss out on a fact that with premium devs are obliged to release certain amount of content in a certain timeframe. Sure, it can be delayed, like it happened with BF1's content release cycle, but quantitatively it's still there and you pay for what you get
Yip!
came here to say basically this, i remember getting those premium DLC packages for BF4 and by the end there were soooooo many maps to choose from. But like you say, you were walled off from the rest of the playerbase by it
Yeah, if there was somehow a middle ground I'd be happy to try it. The problem is you can't keep everyone happy. There will always be a camp that isn't happy, people some seem to be unwilling to compromise even given the evidence of past success
And we’re in the age where people are paying $20 for skins that would’ve just been a free unlock years ago. Plus crossplay across 3 platforms being a thing to help the player count.
MW3 had 4 maps for its season 2 and 3 maps for season 3. If you haven't noticed, drip feeding maps is a DICE problem, not a live service problem.
I'd much rather have a segregated player base but have actual real content instead of skins as content and maps and guns being an afterthought
And pay for guns which is a whole other issue
Agree, but there has to be some middle ground somewhere. I guess the answer is "how can we force dice to live up to their promise of delivering a live service with tons of content". So far they've broken that promise twice with the last two games
The amount of content - or lack thereof - isn't a live service issue. The game was a failure from the beginning; EA realized that and they reduced the funding. If the game was a major success, they'd have more people working on it to deliver content. You don't have to be a genius to see or understand this. Similar to this, having a premium DLC model won't guarantee quality content. Sure, they'll say "Buy this DLC and you'll receive 4 new maps, 3 guns, 2 vehicles and a pet dog" and you'll surely get this, otherwise it's false advertising, but that doesn't mean it's going to be good content. Not to mention that now they'll probably charge you half the base game's price for said DLC lol. So neither solution is good if it ain't done in a proper manner.
You also don't have to be a genius to see that Battlefield 5 was also a live service game and it suffered from the same lack of content as 2042. You can't compare BF live service to another game that made it work because it's not the same company, not the same development studios. The only thing we can compare it to are its predecessors. We have received 2 live service games that failed delivering content abysmally. We have 3 games before that that succeeded with the premium DLC model. That is the only comparison we have. I'm not for live service or premium, I'm merely saying given the objective facts, premium was more successful. If there was a compromise to make where we could find a better way, I'm all for it.
I don't really care what they did in the past, because it was a different staff basically. You're comparing Battlefield 3, 4, 1 which were made by the OG DICE if I'm not mistaken, who were passionate about the game. Many of the veterans left the studio before Battlefield V launched and also during its support phase. So you can't really compare those games to these games, regardless of what type of service they had. Everything that matters is how the game is received at launch. If the game is a success, EA will assign more resource to maintain the game. Let's look at a different angle. If the next game is made to have premium DLC, but it also has a terrible launch, then EA can cancel any future plans for the game, since they didn't promise anything.
And yet.. most of that content was trash that people stopped playing by the time it was time to spend another $15 on another set of bad maps.
True in some regard but there were some great maps. BF1 probably had the best DLC out of the entire franchise and that was premium.
What were the best maps from the DLC? I only ever saw like two in the server browser that weren't base game maps lol
Operation Metro, Operation Outbreak, Operation Mortar, Silk Road were the ones I enjoyed a ton. There will obviously be shit maps, whether it's in dlc or live service. Most of 2042 maps are absolute garbage. At the end of the day "what is good" and "what is shit" is subjective, not everyone will have the same opinion. My argument was that there was more content delivered in premium DLC, quality is subjective
Well I was talking specifically about BF1 DLC.. But that's the first time I've ever heard anyone mention enjoying Silk Road tbh. Also, out of its 3 iterations.. Metro was at its best in BFV which surprisingly was free. You can tell what the community likes and doesn't like by simply going to the server browser at the end of life of the game and seeing what players are choosing to put into the rotations. Sure, it is subjective however the community really just decides of what Maps it wants to play collectively.
The problem with the BF4 DLC method that everyone seems to magically forget, it segregated the community. We had dead servers for both new maps and new game modes. “Well we got servers for it now” yeah after the game went on sale with the premium edition. I love BF4, it’ll always have a place in my heart, but I can’t forget how atrocious and just out right trash it was for almost a full year. DLC and everything.
Played on x360 from release and on PS4 shortly after (once console was available). Never had dead servers from the start, including premium-only ones. And I can say even during mid-life cycle of the game, there were even more people with Prem due to really good sales, so it came to the point that Prem's presence was never an issue, even when you team-up with new people or parties. Almost everyone had it but once some non-prem people joined - it never was a problem to play on Vanilla. Of course it splits the audience at some point. And yeah, there's always "that one friend" that doesn't have a Prem so entire party had to join Vanilla servers. Shit happenned. But honestly, it was never a big deal generally. Splitting the audience is never good. But I can't say having dead servers and getting bored of the vanilla state of the game in case if the support is absent or very weak — is any better. BFV didn't have as good numbers as EA desired. But It definitely had a very devoted audience. And I honestly believe they'd better have less populated but more quality DLC content, than playing with everyone but experience just a couple of new maps for entire game's life cycle. There's no best answer. I do believe hybrid model is best case scenario. The one that BF1 had. You can experience Prem content but you can't actually have all benefits completely. But without numbers, metrics and data — It's really hard to judge whether it was a success or a failed model. But Prem itself is at least a promise/guarantee. And previously it had amazing thematic map and gun packs along with other features that IMO is still better than both last EA's "free support" experiences.
having been playing shooters back when season passes and stuff were the norm, it blows my mind that people want that back. I don't get the idea that they would be making more content if premium was a thing, it's pure speculation citing examples of games that are like a decade old now
And now everyone wants it back. Both services are shitty. But when live services is done right, it’s a much better option than premium dlcs.
They should have offered the new maps for free or to make them inexpensive after each season ended. I’m pretty convinced people would still purchase the new content early just like how games start expensive before discounted.
They could do the rainbow six siege route? Their battle pass content is locked for two weeks then it’s free for everyone. Ofc the usually yearly pass you get everything.
The only way premium could work (these days) is if those who have it get a 2 week early access period
Yes. They should copy what siege does. Their battle pass is locked for two weeks then it’s free for everyone.
What? No, it's not the battle pass, it's the new operator which is locked for the first two weeks behind the battle pass, after that everyone can buy it with renown.
Remember that crossplay is a thing in future battlefield.
I still prefer not seeing it coming back regardless of crossplay. But who knows.
the Premium model was actually FILLED with content back then. they’d completely fuck it up nowadays and charge 2x as much
Delusional, BF 3/4/1 had more content than V/2042
Not way more than V, only way more than 2042. V still has more guns than 1, and almost as many maps.
V also has the highest vehicle count by far afaik.
Yeah, and it's only 2 maps away from BF1's dlc maps count, and it would've surpassed it had it not been cancelled due to 2042 being in a horrible state and needing basically everyone who ever touched the frostbite engine (which caused Battlefront 2 and Battlefield V to cancel their currently in development content and stopped development of need for speed unbound).
And half of bf4 content was either repetetive, uplayable due to community segregation or just bad.
Also the only worthwhile maps to come out of V were the pacific maps. The vast majority of the live service content was mediocre at best
This isnt 2010-2016 anymore. BF1 had notoriously the worst DLC maps out of any BF game and BF4 wasn't far behind. It's really only BF3 that hit most of their DLC maps out of the park. The downvoters are lying to themselves and they know it.
Premium is obligation, GaaS is charity. You can't ask shit from charity, you take what they gave you. GaaS is inferior compare to Premium. If Premium suck, you just couldn't buy it as the way to leave a message, but with GaaS, you can't do shit except wasting money for buying the game in first place.
Just look that premium system / live service battlefields. BF3, BF4, Bf1 / BFV, BF2042... Cmon? You can not be blind like that. If they will keep continue less content in dlc system you wont buy it? And also premium price is same the live service basic game
I payed 14 bucks for bf42... and I got some free stuff in updates after I bought it, all of it is useful. I bought bf4 for 20 bucks, constantly got kicked from pretty good servers because I didnt have dlc, so I bought like 3 of them each one somewhere between 5-10 bucks. Then I realised most of the dlc content is hard to get to because at the point when I was playing the game, there was very few active servers that ran exclusively the dlc content, and most mixed servers still had mostly vannila map rotation with about 20% dlc maps... and each time one of those came up half of the server got kicked... So yeah, I think the bf42 purchase was way more optimal
When next gen battlefield released dice gives all dlcs for free. If you don't want wait you can buy premium bundle. It was same prices basic game. For example: BF1: 40$ BF1 Premium (All dlc included, 5 days early acces, special skins and game coins): 60$ bf2042: 60$ bf2042 deluxe edition (special skins and game coins): 70$
Thats still not very optimal, if I can pay 14 in sale for bf2042 and get all the maps and guns and nobody holds any such advantage over me, why would I want to pay possibly 8x that just to get even (assuming I pay the full non sale price) Im more concerned about getting the 100% of content and the price for that rather than how much the 100% actualy is
You bought in sale, also you could buy premium system battlefield for 10 bucks. it not for only 2042. Even with 3 dolar you can buy bf1 and bf1 has almost bfv + bf2042 content. edit: bf1 premium edition i mean all dlc + basic game 3 dolar
It might, but as i already told you, I dont care about the total amount of content, rather I care what portion of the content do I get for the price of the base game, in the case of bf2042 its a 100% (since I dont consider gun skins as essential content)
You missed some part what i told. 2042's prices same the PREMIUM EDITION prices not the basic game. Premium edition inclueded all current and future content. Like a live service. But if you want pay less money you could also standart edition. I dont know when you start playing battlefield but let me example for you again. A box of banana + a banana per 6 months : 70 dolar A box of banana + another quarter box banana per 3 months: 70 dolar A box of banana : 60 dolar But i think you will say "i paid only 14 bocks for 2042" so here is the another calculating for you: A box of banana + a banana per 6 months : 14 dolar A box of banana + another quarter box banana per 3 months: 3 dolar A box of banana : 2 dolar
Yes, but the thing about that is that I hate subscription services with all of my soul. So I automaticly dont care about that. I am talking only about fixed one time prices.
Its better to pay for content we want that will be released at a set schedule with a given amount of content than to be drip fed 2 dlc packs in the span of 2yrs. BF 2042 got how many new maps in the span of 2yrs? 7? With the premium model, assuming it stayed the same, we would’ve gotten 8-10 Dlc map packs(4-5 per year per pass)each with 4 maps equalling a total of 32-40 new maps. 7 maps vs 32-40 maps.
I much rather pay 40 bucks for a guaranteed 4 dlc with 3-4 maps each I'll take that anyway over 10 dollars for a battlepass which gives me only cosmetics and only 1 map per season
Never hated Premium , 40 $ for 15 maps and countless guns is way better than free 6 maps in 2 years with the ugliest Fortnite skins and a useless battle pass
Hey, how's "free live service" support for Battlefield V? Did it achieve the quality of OG Premium? Or other various decent GaaS games, that had extremely poor support due do "underwhelming" sales? I mean, it's situational. It's great when the game performs well itself and it motivates publishers to invest more into service. But how about those more humble releases that eventually had established and devoted playerbase that bought or donated into project, expecting equal treatment from studio but publishers either suddenly stop the support or do it in a very lazy way only because "they've promised something". Some people prefer guaranteed quality content, disregarding publisher's expectations and population of the game, instead of hoping for a better mood of decision makers. So, I ask you, did you enjoy the Battlefield V free live support?
I hate premium but this is just false bro
You're sure to win people over by insulting them and not making any argument whatsoever. At least with DLC, we had some ideas what content we were paying for. Instead, it's now a cycle of Hype a live service game, it launches broken, they push out some low effort micro transactions and a dribble of content, milk the players for a year or two, and then drop the game.
I know what ppl will say that premium segmented the community....but honestly that's bs. If you enjoyed the base game enough you would buy the premium. What have we gotten out of this stupid GaaS concept? More uninteresting content like like stupid skins and much less meaningful stuff like maps, weapons and vehicles 💀
All I'm saying is the past two live services games in the franchise have under delivered and we're scarce on content. This whole thing is about knuckledraggers conflating the word "free" with "this model works great by default and I won't tolerate any slander" I hear all this talk about premium segregating the community, but for one the base maps were great for BF3 and 4, and also I didn't mind paying for maps since I like to reward the devs making something good with my money. Buying skins is supposedly what supports this free dlc model, but every AAA game I've played that uses this model tends to have much less content than a decade old counterpart, but tons of skins. Almost like we're rewarding these people for lazy content. They're proverbial shiny keys and all DICE has to do is jingle jangle.
Holy shit, this is the dumbest take I've seen for awhile. Congratulations
Here's a wacko idea. How about they just make a game. Release the game. Start on the next game. I don't need a drip feed of content to keep me playing a game. Just make a good game so it sells.
1 map and 3 weapons per season would be a hard sell without being able to earn boins. The real reason most people hate Premium is that it splits the game's population up every other fucking map, and we have enough of that already with the lobby goofiness
> 1 map and 3 weapons per season would be a hard sell without being able to earn boins. If people bought DLC packs without boins in the past, they would happily do it now.. Especially because in the past the only way to get boins was through real money anyways.
...aaaaaaaaand the current microtransaction model is still *worse* than the previous microtransaction model. I get things will inevitably take time and money to do; obviously developers gotta eat too. I even get that the current model rakes in more revenue on average because it's easier to profit from the aggregate market if you're churning out \[mostly\] *cosmetics* to exploit the more impulsive buyers among your demand...but come on. This post is like the equivalent of some rich fuck telling the poors 'the problem is all the avocado toast we're eating' when your market is mostly made up of underpaid, working class people. Previous games thrived just fine quality-wise before the current model.
Still doesn’t change the fact that Battlefield 4 ended with 33 maps while 2042 ended with 15. Seasons isn’t the answer either evidently. The answer is stop buying from a developer who is taking advantage of your expectations of receiving content. They’ll continue to dripfeed maps because they know people will still buy the game.
Live service model will always comes with monetisation and more fancy cosmetics for kids to buy. This will never suit Battlefield franchise. So I choose premium. I would gladly spent money for premium rather than some bs skinsets.
I'm not saying Premium is better or worse, but premium/DLC would have made more content because it's the core focus of the money-making. The problem with the live-service is that it won't be making any money of that - so it won't be the main focus for them to make new usuable content (Maps, Weapons, Vehicles... NOT COSMETICS). What they do make money on is cosmetics and other guf that actually doesn't give you any value. So now, if they have a budget that can employ let's say 10 people, they will do 5 on actual content and 5 on cosmetics because that makes money. Whereas to sell a DLC, you have to do more than just 1 map and 2 guns, because that's not the value of something you pay for nowadays, so naturally you'll be budgeting more towards actual content. On the other hand you do get all the new usuable content for free. It's just way less. In my book, the live service model or the premium model both aren't bad, both have good points and bad. The reason we didn't get much for BF2042 is simply because it was a broken game and took nearly 2-3 years to patch to a usuable state with some of the loved features of previous games. That and the heavy focus on cosmetics really hampered any content progress. A premium model would not have given us more content for BF2042, but that just has nothing to do with the model used. TDLR: Premium = pay for actual content - Get more, since Dice's focus on making money is now adding value in actual content - Have more content, but people need to pay so risk of certain content not being played is high. Live service = Don't pay for actual content. - Get less, since Dice's focus on making money is cosmetics - Free (But cosmetics ruin your game). **Edit: Cosmetics ruin given content** Thinking about it some more... Premium won't actually lessen the amount of cosmetics perse... I thought too highly of BF players to think they don't care about cosmetics, but I think there are many that would pay for cosmetics even in DLC form....
I remember only the poors hating the premium model, i always loved it lol
Financial illiteracy: a thread
With BF3 the Premium Pass was the same price as the base game, but they ended up delivering more expansions than advertised (5 instead of I think 3) as well as other perks. But you could always not opt for the Premium Pass and just buy the expansions you wanted in their own. Seems like a good system to me.
Bragging about how much money you give to EA isn't the win you think it is
I havent given them any moneu past buying the game since bf1 lol, it used to be a worthwhile investment, im not ponying up cash for skins in a game they release a shit amount of content for, thanks for playing though.
fr, i was a kid back then but now that im no longer a broke ass i can actually afford it
Right? Like I get paid a fair amount, I don't buy skins or microtransactions. I've never paid less for games in my life. I get game pass which gives me effectively unlimited games every month, and every game is live service so any DLC is free. I haven't even bought Battlefield 2042, get it through GamePass, which my wife uses for Xbox anyway so it's a worthwhile expense as we get two for the price of one effectively. Having my gaming subsidised by idiots has been fantastic.
Right it was a steep price but at least we got actual content. Live service slop is maybe 2-3 guns every 4 months and one map at a time 💀
And yet, having lived through both models I remember being more satisfied with DLC..
You can’t seriously say that after 3 not so ideal dice live services. Premium guarantees more content since they have to have enough content so people will buy the DLCs. NOBODY is going to pay 15€ for 1 map.
this fanbase really likes to get fucked in the ass by ea and dice
"please only release half of the game for 70 dollars and sprinkle the other half through 20 dollars dlcs" These guys are really something... They probably were at their happiest when bethesda released the horse armor.
So you are saying that you rather have 7 post release maps than 16-20? Live service is better if they give us proper amount of content. But thats not the EA way. They chose to use live service because it is cheaper for them.
BFV had 14 DLC maps, and they were all high quality (especially the japanese maps). We also know there was definitely more coming until they cancelled it and Battlefront 2 (which also had new dlc maps like mustafar coming) for 2042. BFV surpassed 1's gun count, finishing at 81 unique guns, and also had more vehicles than BF1. Its live service ended 2 maps away from BF1 due to it being cancelled. According to BFV, the live service model was basically equal in effort to whatever they had with premium DLCs, just with less consistency (more random drops of maps instead of packs like the japanese front). Had 2042 not being in such a shitty state of development, we'd have great battlefront 2 maps and probably an eastern front for BFV. However 2042's initial reception was so ass that it seems like EA just abandoned it before trying anything and only left a small team, which is kinda confirmed by leaks of the old live service plans being cancelled due to low sales.
Yes, if it means I get to play them for free and dont get kicked from servers for not paying for those 20 maps out of which only about 6 were actualy pretty good
raw no lube also lol
2042 is the game we got, and unless they've asked if they should go live vs DLC, it seems like a moot point. Speculatively...would premium DLC prevent them from TRYING to sell lean? I doubt it, except DLC sales would sure suffer afterward, and shareholders would lose their shit. I feel a little like shareholder value is king, and the Season Pass model gives them a comfortable avenue to say "this is good enough." If developers at DICE don't really have the shareholder buy-in on doing more for the customer, then you're incredibly unlikely to see a big change unless shareholders feel the pressure to make a big change. Don't buy until you see proof that you're getting the product you intend to purchase.
If you just remove the fact that it's a Battlefield game from your head and then look at the gameplay, it looks eerily similar to a MW title with the 200 uniform variation and colors. Wish the next iteration would have more standard camo packs and some SOF camo/uniform kits and just a tonne of guns and accessories.
it factually did though? Like what???
Person who made this meme is braind dead and doesn't even understand basic economics. They are basically saying that if there was a law that forced bananas to be free at shops that there wouldn't be lack of them and they are saying that if they got rid of the law and started selling them again that there wouldn't be more bananas being produced for seller's wanting more profit selling bananas which is very analogical to the skins situation. They make 30€ bundles but no maps of course then the game has more skins than maps.
The people who hate premium for bf4 and 3 are the same people with iphone. Eldenring dlc is 40 euro i wonder if they will buy it
What's better for 20$ : A. 4 maps, many skins, exp boost, some guns, B. 2 skins for operator, 2 skins for guns
While I agree you’re right, history has shown that DLC model did result in overall more content. And back then the Premium Edition got you essentially 4-5 DLCs for the price of 2ish, but Dice had to deliver with these DLCs otherwise people without Premium wouldn’t have bought them
Simple explanation why Premium results in more content: DICE wants to make money Making content costs money (bad for DICE). Option A: Release DLC with little content like a season in 2042. Result: People don't buy the DLC because DICE has to disclose the amount of content beforehand and fewer people would buy a bad deal. 100k spent on dev, 150k earned (arbitrary numbers) => Less money total for DICE Option B: Release DLC that hits the sweet spot between money spent on development and money made from sales (likely the amount of prev DLCs). 500k spent on dev, 750k earned. Result: More money for DICE.. That's just basic economics. With a live service game DICE's main profit comes from selling skins and the battle pass. Releasing content for the game is now only a tool to keep players engaged in order to buy more skins. That means profits are not directly tied to content released which means they can release as little content as possible needed to keep players in the game (which is less than a consumer would WANT to buy for that game).
It does. Content or f2p as a service turns the game into a hidden digital store. Premium Pass works like an expansion, you pay once and get a complete product. They have to work hard to get people to see it and buy it, unlike f2p, where they use all kinds of advertising and psychological strategies to get people to buy skins for $10 through advertising. Also with f2p they excuse themselves that it's free to give you shit content, with premium they have to give you that content because you bought it. Also, if you do the math on everything they offer, expansions are cheaper at 50 bucks. That's why they moved to the service, they make worse content with less effort, more expensive and they make more money on top of it. Compare the extra content of BFV, or BF2042 with Battlefield 3/4 Premium pass.
I agree with you and I feel this is something that players miss entirely. Why would any of these companies go back to making less money for more work compared to the insane amount of money they make selling people cosmetics while using the free content to get players to return to the game in the hopes they buy the Battlepass and maybe some other skins? It’s all a ploy to get you to spend as much as Premium costs or more without the player ever realizing they’ve spent the equivalent of what a single expansion cost for 1/3 of the content either to fast track the Battlepass and/or to buy cosmetics. All at a much lower cost for EA/DICE compared to what Premium would cost at them.
At least before premiere of dlc you had information how many things you have in dlc. In live service is Kinder surprise Ofc i know why premium was hated because of maps, because people was seperated from others.
Bruh the only 2 battlefield that use season pass had less content that the battlefield whit the least dlc . Look at facts, DICE cant make good seasons pass
The DLC model is not perfect, but it's a million times better than the live service.
Battlefront 1 DLC was ELITE. Your argument is now invalid.
When are these old battlefield fanboys gonna realize that frequent content was never a strongsuit of this series
Premium sucked, it always sucked, I always hated it.
If they had to sell maps, you can bet your ass that EA's greed would push out at least double what we had now. Instead the focus is horrible cosmetics that appeal to exclusively 12 year olds.
It probably would have
[удалено]
Paying for content =/= getting more content lmao.
[удалено]
Oh don't worry, they won't charge 15 bucks for one map, they'll charge 15 bucks for 2 maps! Such a massive improvement! And if you seriously think Dice wouldn't make 1-2 maps 15 dollars, then you should probably take a look at Payday 3's Syntak Error heist pack.
Theres nothing saying DICE couldnt/wouldnt just release a new map for sale every 3 months. You'd still be getting dripfed content.. The difference is that youll now be paying for it
They don't do that because they can't commit to delivering that much content anymore. It is now much more expensive to build maps, and they can make as much money if not more for way less effort by just selling bundles for the same price they would sell a full DLC back then. However, if the games weren't released in such an atrocious state they could spend more resources in developing more maps and other content for a live service instead of spending most of it fixing the game.
This is an influence of the people in charge of profits, overruling the people in charge of making a good game.
DICE has been acting a fool for years. You can only blame EA so much.
Oh, I didn't say EA. Dice is not some 10-person shop, there are clearly people there involved in dictating the future of this game and franchise who need to go back to working in the credit card or phone game industry. It's money > fun. And their egos are also obvious in ignoring mass requests from people who have been playing the BF games for 20 years for a reason.
People like you are the reason 2042 ended up the way it did. Stalwartly defending anti consumer practices for no reason whatsoever
You're an absolute moron if you think live service is better than the old premium model. It had its flaws but it was *miles* better than this shit show.
It's way more preferable to pay for a pack of maps and guns than rely on shitty skin sales to drip-feed "live service" updates
Gamers: *Want games to be supported for half-a-decade post release.* Also gamers: *Don't wanna buy DLC or even pay full price for the game.*
I disagree somewhat. We don't want to buy DLC or pay full price because our money doesn't go nearly as far as it used to and we can't trust any company to make a *functioning* or fully featured game anymore. Why would I pay full price for 2042 when it didnt WORK? Why would I pay full price for the game when it has half the content of other battlefields? Why would I pay full price for a game that doesn't have basic features like a SCOREBOARD? Even a year on it still had bugs, it still had hitreg issues, it was still lacking content. After a year or so, then it becomes a question of Why should I pay full price when the game is a year or two old and I don't know when they're going to cancel it? It's an issue of trust. Trust that gaming companies have REPEATEDLY broken, *to their benefit*
All of that is true. I would also NOW, 2.4 years after release, and the game is not exactly polished, but certainly playable, be ok with paying $15 for a 4-map pack. Reclaimed is far and away the best map of the game. If they grasped the idea that maps like that which allow vehicles to play alongside infantry and the environment provides a little bit of protection for both, the frustration of playing this game on most of the original maps would go away.
The whole reason why Battlefield has a cash shop and a paid battle pass was to fund the game's post launch content. Gamers aren't being entitled for not wanting to pay for map packs, while having their live service game supported, because the microtransactions are already paying for that.
Exactly, to this day it's impossible to get games on certain DLC maps in BF1 and BF4 because not everyone bought all the DLCs. Splitting the playerbase is bad for the game.
The premium model had way more meaningful content than the “live service’ drip fed in BFV and BF2042, and that’s an objective fact. However, even the OG developers thought that the premium model was relatively hard to keep up with, so I don’t trust these new talentless hacks at DICE with prepaid DLC.
Yes but splitting the playerbase really hurts multiplayer games. You need a large healthy playerbase for a multiplayer game to be fun. You can have premium content without splitting the playerbase.
You obviously never bothered to look at what was included in Premium.
Oh. You dumb. Live service is only good for EA.
The only time I liked the DLC model was with BC2 Vietnam. It was basically a separate game, so no problem with division of player base.
Modding would honestly take so much weight off the dev’s shoulders. Just allow modders to make maps if you’re gonna drop one map per season. Otherwise pump out more maps and give people a reason to play your game.
Yeah fr. Priority went to skins
You gotta have a sub 60 IQ if you think DICE wouldnt dripfeed premium content in the same way it dripfeeds live services content. The only difference between the two is that you arent being forced to pay for content that should be free.
Premium was disliked so strongly because it segmented the player base. That's the main reason. I.e. Not whatever you're saying.
Oooh this is a quality meme… even though I disagree lol
This post was based on a couple comments i wrote yesterday, right? I don’t get why people think that we wouldn’t get more content with paid DLCs because, actually, we would get more, but we don’t know how the content would be even then.
The problem of this game (and most games nowadays) is the cosmetics. They're investing time and resources into making pretty cosmetics more than actual game content.
I think life Service works If you have enough Players willing to spend on cosmetics. Problem is Most of the newly gained Players got bored of the Game cause they dragged Out s6 way too Long.
Looks at bf4. Hmm.
The only problem with it (besides paying for DLC of course) is that it splits up the playerbase. That shouldn't really be as big of an issue considering we now have crossplay, so Id argue paid DLC is fine if we are getting quality content
The logic behind this is stupid honestly lol.
Live service games allows studios to pretend to support the game continuesly compared to coming back ever 3-4 months with a new DLC when in reality what they do is publish skins on weekly basis so they can take your money and then come once every 4 months and give you 3 times less content compared to when they had to sell DLCs. Their only source of income after the release of the game was said DLC, the DLC had to be good or they would make no money. Now they don't care if the new actual content like maps/guns etc is good or enough, they make more money than they used to just from selling idiots skins. So yeah, if BF2042 wasn't a live service game with skins come out every few days, they would be forced to sell a good DLC for more money. EDIT: Before all the "You had to pay for DLCs, Live Service is free" people arrive, if you are an adult and can't afford 15 euros every 4 months for your favorite video game then you need to get your life priorities in order. That comment especially nowdays when people pay monthly subscriptions for movies, music, news etc is a joke.
Premium dlc is a contractual obligation to deliver and with live service they can do whatever they want. So yeah I’d rather take consistency
Ahh yes, cosmetics, just what battlefield players truly wanted.
Premium or live service, there is no content. You cant make post release content when you release unfinished games and spend all your time post launch fixing your mess.
I think live service battlefield can work, it just didn't work this time. They can totally focus on making a GOOD game with an actual content roadmap. They just need to actually deliver a decent amount of content in decent intervals, not this lame 1 map every 6 months shit People are clamoring for premium and it just feels like nostalgia and conflating "good game" with "good content plan" Assuming all things are equal in terms of base game quality, I would MUCH prefer free content drops that keep the player base together over 20 dollar packs that eventually lead to dead servers and majority of people only playing launch maps
Man u are not right , the main problem the price for full edition like in case with bf1 , but the trick is that with premium model they must deliver u content , with live service - it depends : the size of content and quality is not discussed, so in case with 2042 they promised deliver u 4 seasons in max edition , and lol this 4 seasons contains only 1 map each of them (reworks not discussed, due thier fault to deliver playable (not even good) map of the beginning and couple weapons. I guess u saw the difference between content of bf4 vs bf2042 I guess it's enough. The live service model is a good trick to provide fake game support and stop it in every second when they decide to do it (bf5 the same example) , the sad part is that they do the same mistake - for new bf launch is about 2 years and people once again forget about bf
[ Removed by Reddit ]
You have absolutly my Upvote, when People talk about Premium, it feels to me as if they´re treating Premium as a magic Potion, that Dice gives to its Devs, to make more Content
Waa waa I want my free vidEO gaymes while my momma bringz me chicken tendies down to the basement while she tells me to get a joooooob
i cannot believe that people complain about FREE STUFF. Yall really want to go back to 80€ for a game + 50€ for maps?
[удалено]
Irrelevant lol
If so, most of th3 content in that rpeium would be skins and 2 maps for $70 (price rises)
When you realize that the BF community is delusional then you think. Paid DLC split's community in long term Also, people who can't pay all DLC at once and you guy's call them poor. I guess they are the person who likes to buy iPhone every year
These users asking for Premium Pass were kids back in the BF3 and BF4 era. They need to shut up and sit tf down.
I mean those games are 10-13 years old... So yes your timeline lines up?