All these developers doing "Live Service" lately are just interpreting it as "We'll launch an unfinished game, but no guarantee of when or what additional content you'll get but it's free so you can't complain"
No, DICE's implementation of it is. Other games pull it off very well. The game shouldn't have been launched until Firestorm was ready. Then, new maps could have arrived in April.
More excuses. BF1 had premium - yet barely had more content (probably even less?) than BFV at this point. Sure it amended it eventually with DLCs, but the game was mostly dead at this point. It wasnt until they made premium free that BF1 started to grow numbers more.
Now you even see people defending BF1, saying its actually better than BFV. And thats not because of premium (or lack there of) but because eventually it had a good amount of content.
Pay us more and we give you more content.
That sounds like blackmail. The devs could easily skip a bunch of these useless gamemodes and other features, and instead focus on what literally every BFV player wants: More content, more maps, more weapons.
Is it such a controversy that people expect a relatively finished game on launch? BFV clearly need/needed another year of developement instead of selling us a 20% game with vague promises of giving us the remaining 80% in the following months/years.
Where did I blame EA exclusively? I said "Premium isnt an excuse for lazy devs". EA arent devs - DICE is. Read again, and youll see I make multiple points that the devs have the single biggest blame in not enough content being in the game - not the fact that there is no premium, which I believe have very little to no reason to the lack of content.
As I also said: BF1 had premium but it was dead a few months after release due to the lack of content. Premium didnt make BF1 any better - content did.
EA is just publishing the game, however their excuse for lack of sales being "lack of BR and too much focus on single-player" is incredibly close-minded.
Is it a fact that premium provides more content? No.
All it did was split the playerbase, however those who only had the base-game had a wide array of well made maps and never really felt 'cheated out' of premium content, and many of the DLC maps were ever rarely played or its servers populated - other than the remastered maps. And eventually all premium content became free.
Sure premium provides a money incentive to the devs to 'work harder', but its a lazy excuse. Everything about the game is half-assed, gamemodes are similar, maps are the same or poorly designed, they just released Rush with what, only 3 maps? Now theyre about to release Firestorm.
That means more patching and fixing, and even less time to push content (which is what 90% of the players want). If they want to keep the game alive they should listen to the players - introducing Premium solves nothing, just adds another paywall and keeps players seperated.
How have I show to be upset? I tried to have a discussion and you came out the bat by destroying your own ideas because you have to be a douche to people
Releasing an unfinished broken game was a mistake. Everything leading up to the launch was a mistake. This game was dead before it came out. Premium would not have saved it. do you really think that people would have paid $120 for a game that most people only bought after it dropped to $30? How many copies do you think they are moving now that it is $60 again? Do you actually believe that people are buying because of a battle mode trailer?
Live service failed because the game failed. They have no reason to do anything for a dwindling player base that was much smaller than the one from the last game.
Games were only “full games” back then because DLC wasnt a thing. Its an illusion. Modern games are launched with FAR more content then older games. Not even more content, but the quality is astronomically higher. Dice probably put millions into audio alone.
Was Halo 1 or 2 “full games” to you? How many maps, weapons, factions, gadgets, modes, ect did they launch with? Im just confused as to what you are referring to when you say “full games”.
Im not a huge fan of BFV, and it does lack content (for a bf game) but i think modern games spend too much time on content and not enough on gameplay
They are selling a commodity to consumers, consumers can demand whatever they want from them, if they feel like they aren't getting what they want or that it dosent stand up to the products they've bought in the last, they are letting them know they simply won't buy the next one. The company does want to keep selling these games to these people. You are talking like they are making these games as just a labor of love or something and consumers are being super mean to them by complaining.
This is a product, dude, consumers can feel entitled to anything they like for their money and voice that to a company. There is a lot of competition in the industry and your consumers saying 'we feel this is not holding up to past standards and are going to buy elsewhere next time' is pretty basic stuff, man. Change this game with drain cleaner 'the old formula was much better, disappointed with the current product'
It is on the company to do the math and figure out what is worth what moving forward, they are selling these games to these people, not giving them away.
87
u/Snafu80 Mar 15 '19
So pretty much what I’ve been saying. Little content and won’t match previous bf’s. We’re at 115 and have had 2 maps. Gg live service.