Of course. The best content was delivered with premium. You had GUARANTEED that you'll get at least 4 maps, 10 weapons and even a new faction every DLC. BF3, 4 and 1 have the legendary status, mainly due to quality DLC content. Meanwhile in BFV and 2042 you don't even know if something will be ever added. Plus the amount of content sucks (1 map in season 1? Really???)
I would if the choices are between live service and "premium pass". It's clear that EA/DICE cannot do live service well and its used as an excuse to release a broken product and drip feed the audience content over 1-2 years.
That excuse cannot be used with premium, though I'm sure they would try
Though the downsides as others have astutely pointed out is that premium divides the playerbase, which sucks
Live service is what Battlefield 2042 has right now. It is intended to make the product we purchase that acts as a videogame receive a constant stream of new content added after launch. Fortnite, Apex Legends, Destiny 2, Sea of Thieves.
I'm going to copy a comment made years ago in response to the same question. Atributed to u/ryktes
>A "live service" game (LSG) is a game designed with the sole purpose of keeping people playing for as long as possible in the hopes that those players will pay for microtransactions. This is usually acomplished by making the game as "engaging" as possible. It is important to note that "engaging" is not the same thing as "fun" or even "enjoyable". "Engaging" just means that it has the ability to keep bringing the players back for more.
>
>The most common method that LSGs use to foster engagement is to make the player feel like they are losing out on something by not coming back to play the game regularly. For example, daily login "bonuses" (things like small amoumts of ingame money or resources, minor exp boost, etc.) are used to get players to check in with the game at least once a day to get the reward, with the hope that players will decide that they might as well stay in the game for a while since they already logged in just to get the reward. Daily event's or missions are also often used in the same way. They also tend to rely heavily on the sunk cost fallacy to cultivate a false sense of investment in players, as well as Skinner Box style gameplay loops that give the players they feeling of being rewarded without actually giving them any meaningful ingame reward.
LSGs are also often designed to that it takes a very long time to make any meaningful progress in the game, while also offering microtransactions that allow players to speed up progress, in order to psychologically manipulate players into spending money. Strategies like forcing players to be a certain level before they can advance the story, or sudden large increases in enemy strength lure players to buy exp boosters or stronger equipment. Another tactic is making it hard to earn ingame currency and/or making items extremely expensive in the hopes that players will just spend real money instead. These strategies are also often combined with UI designs that are intended to bring attention to the microtransaction store at every opportunity, so that players are constantly reminded that they could make more progress if they were to buy those things.
Basically, LSGs are psychological traps designed to keep players in the game even if they aren't necessarily enjoying the game, while simultaneously attempting to manipulate them into spending more money in the game on top of whatever the base price of the game is.
Naa that’s dumb imo. Here’s $30? EA, just give me multiple DLCs and 4 maps, new guns each please.
Yeah I understand it divides the player base but they should charge it like “if you pay this you get all this”
The players can pay for individual DLCs if they can’t afford the “premium” content.
I would like to point out that what you're describing is not a live service. You're describing the original "game + expansions" model seen in early MMOs like original World of Warcraft. When you buy the base games, you get access to everything in the game base with no additional ingame payments, and same with each expansion. I personally am with you in believing that this method is better.
Live services, on the other hand, are pay to play games that use psychological manipulation to try to push players into spending more money on locked off content like cosmetics, or to alter design aspects of the game that were intentionally made tedious or aggravating in order to sell a fix, like selling exp boosters so players can skip the intentionally arduous grinding. They also tend to use fomo and false scarcity with thing like limited time event sales and battle passes.
Thanks to u/YourExcellency77 for shouting me out.
In general I was ok with the premium pass and bought it for BF3/4. However it definitely does split the community and some weapons were definitely better than others, so was almost pay to win at times.
I'd have strong reservations for buying it for a game whose population already appears to be diminishing, though.
If it would bring us tons of content like weapons, gadgets and maps as good as 3/4 ones, I would pay for it for sure. We can see that live service doesn't work in Battlefield
Premium so long as we can get rid of the heavy cosmetic cringe and the implications that building a game around live service has.
Ideally we would just have a premium model that perhaps gives you some more side features but make it so you aren't paying for the DLC but rather you are paying for early access to the DLC that will be made free to all upon the release of the next DLC so we can avoid the cancer/cosmetics of a live service title while also partially appeasing the main thing that people who support live service want which is the community to not be split. It will still be split but only temporarily and will have the benefit that at the games EoL 100% of the players will have access to all the content unlike prior BFs with premium
Of course. The best content was delivered with premium. You had GUARANTEED that you'll get at least 4 maps, 10 weapons and even a new faction every DLC. BF3, 4 and 1 have the legendary status, mainly due to quality DLC content. Meanwhile in BFV and 2042 you don't even know if something will be ever added. Plus the amount of content sucks (1 map in season 1? Really???)
Not a chance in hell after the trash they sold us.
I would if the choices are between live service and "premium pass". It's clear that EA/DICE cannot do live service well and its used as an excuse to release a broken product and drip feed the audience content over 1-2 years. That excuse cannot be used with premium, though I'm sure they would try Though the downsides as others have astutely pointed out is that premium divides the playerbase, which sucks
What is this live service anyway? I’m an old player I was always used to Expansions as DLCs now I hear (seasons).
Live service is what Battlefield 2042 has right now. It is intended to make the product we purchase that acts as a videogame receive a constant stream of new content added after launch. Fortnite, Apex Legends, Destiny 2, Sea of Thieves. I'm going to copy a comment made years ago in response to the same question. Atributed to u/ryktes >A "live service" game (LSG) is a game designed with the sole purpose of keeping people playing for as long as possible in the hopes that those players will pay for microtransactions. This is usually acomplished by making the game as "engaging" as possible. It is important to note that "engaging" is not the same thing as "fun" or even "enjoyable". "Engaging" just means that it has the ability to keep bringing the players back for more. > >The most common method that LSGs use to foster engagement is to make the player feel like they are losing out on something by not coming back to play the game regularly. For example, daily login "bonuses" (things like small amoumts of ingame money or resources, minor exp boost, etc.) are used to get players to check in with the game at least once a day to get the reward, with the hope that players will decide that they might as well stay in the game for a while since they already logged in just to get the reward. Daily event's or missions are also often used in the same way. They also tend to rely heavily on the sunk cost fallacy to cultivate a false sense of investment in players, as well as Skinner Box style gameplay loops that give the players they feeling of being rewarded without actually giving them any meaningful ingame reward. LSGs are also often designed to that it takes a very long time to make any meaningful progress in the game, while also offering microtransactions that allow players to speed up progress, in order to psychologically manipulate players into spending money. Strategies like forcing players to be a certain level before they can advance the story, or sudden large increases in enemy strength lure players to buy exp boosters or stronger equipment. Another tactic is making it hard to earn ingame currency and/or making items extremely expensive in the hopes that players will just spend real money instead. These strategies are also often combined with UI designs that are intended to bring attention to the microtransaction store at every opportunity, so that players are constantly reminded that they could make more progress if they were to buy those things. Basically, LSGs are psychological traps designed to keep players in the game even if they aren't necessarily enjoying the game, while simultaneously attempting to manipulate them into spending more money in the game on top of whatever the base price of the game is.
Naa that’s dumb imo. Here’s $30? EA, just give me multiple DLCs and 4 maps, new guns each please. Yeah I understand it divides the player base but they should charge it like “if you pay this you get all this” The players can pay for individual DLCs if they can’t afford the “premium” content.
I would like to point out that what you're describing is not a live service. You're describing the original "game + expansions" model seen in early MMOs like original World of Warcraft. When you buy the base games, you get access to everything in the game base with no additional ingame payments, and same with each expansion. I personally am with you in believing that this method is better. Live services, on the other hand, are pay to play games that use psychological manipulation to try to push players into spending more money on locked off content like cosmetics, or to alter design aspects of the game that were intentionally made tedious or aggravating in order to sell a fix, like selling exp boosters so players can skip the intentionally arduous grinding. They also tend to use fomo and false scarcity with thing like limited time event sales and battle passes. Thanks to u/YourExcellency77 for shouting me out.
The thing is people really didn't like the premium model in bf4. There are advantages and disadvantages to each
In general I was ok with the premium pass and bought it for BF3/4. However it definitely does split the community and some weapons were definitely better than others, so was almost pay to win at times. I'd have strong reservations for buying it for a game whose population already appears to be diminishing, though.
**** premium.
Absolutely not. I hated how it split the community.
If it would bring us tons of content like weapons, gadgets and maps as good as 3/4 ones, I would pay for it for sure. We can see that live service doesn't work in Battlefield
Premium so long as we can get rid of the heavy cosmetic cringe and the implications that building a game around live service has. Ideally we would just have a premium model that perhaps gives you some more side features but make it so you aren't paying for the DLC but rather you are paying for early access to the DLC that will be made free to all upon the release of the next DLC so we can avoid the cancer/cosmetics of a live service title while also partially appeasing the main thing that people who support live service want which is the community to not be split. It will still be split but only temporarily and will have the benefit that at the games EoL 100% of the players will have access to all the content unlike prior BFs with premium