Maybe a new business model for BF3

[|TG| Silver.7]

I reckon EA/DICE will have a new business model for BF3

I dont expect it to be the old fashioned buy a DVD

also I dont expect the free to start and then micropayments if you choose , like BF Hereos

I think its going to be a monthly subscription model

What do you reckon ?

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

I reckon EA/DICE will have a new business model for BF3

I dont expect it to be the old fashioned buy a DVD

also I dont expect the free to start and then micropayments if you choose , like BF Hereos

I think its going to be a monthly subscription model

What do you reckon ?

Unless they're going to furnish the game servers and/or provide regular content updates, there won't be a monthly fee. They couldn't in all honestly charge a monthly fee just for stat tracking.

As for the game distribution, given how large it's going to be I doubt it will be DLC. Imagine on release day everyone across the world trying to download a 5+ GB zip file.

[=98=]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

No chance it'll be subscription.

However, I suspect people will be pushed or given incentives to use EA's download service. I just really, really hope they use Steam

[TrooperJac]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

I was just thinking about this the other day.

I think one of the problems with 2142 and I suppose all the other BF series is the lack of support from DICE. I'm talking about management of the game in respect to wiping cheaters, patching exploits and maintaining the leaderboard. It would also be nice to see new developments for the games in terms of maps, equipment, players models, engine enhancements etc.

Of course a company is not gonna spend development time on things that don't generate revenue. One option is booster packs or paid for DLC. Another option is subscription.

How about this - you buy the DVD like normal and that licenses you to play online for 6 months. Thereafter you pay a nominal charge to keep playing online. Say 6 months for £5 or £1 per month. I thought the Northern Strike expansion was one of the best uses of £5 of my cash I have spent considering the use I got from it. How would people feel about coughing up £1 - £2 for a new map?

[imported_Chewie]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

I'm not paying anything to play online after I buy the game and neither will most people.

[iQue]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

I do think it will be something a bit different, if not gameplay related, the business model. I wouldn't say a subscription type of model is impossible, but I don't think they will do it, as many fans would turn their back on the franchise, and they need to make that subscription worth something. It's easier for DICE to just release the game and a make a few half-arsed expansionpacks.

It won't just be a BC2 in larger scale though, I'm pretty sure of that.

[imported_JayZ]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

I'm not paying anything to play online after I buy the game and neither will most people.

I completely agree.
Maybe for a subsequent branch-off of the Battlefield franchise, but definitely not for BF3.

A single purchase, packed to the brim with content and features is my preference.

However, a good way to possibly monetize and to expand content linearly while keeping the cost of R&D to a minimum, would be to follow Dawn of Wars example.

Year 1: Release the base game.
Year 2: Release a stand-alone expansion, which includes all of the base game while also introducing new content and features. Sold at the same price as Year 1 product.
Year 3: Release a second stand-alone expansion, which includes all of the previous two releases, while also introducing new content and features. Sold at the same price as year 1 product.
Year 4: And so on...

Less engine revisions and more development time for content creation and the refinement of gameplay, while maintaining a yearly income. Of course each release's new content must be substantial, even equivalent to the original base game in quality and quantity.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

While I would love to see additional content for sale in the form of maps, weapons, vehicles, awards, etc., remember that nobody plays EF, nobody plays AF, and aside from a couple Ghost Town and Warlord servers nobody plays SF, either. The biggest reason I don't play BF2142 much anymore is that I'm completely Gibraltar'd out. There is no shortage of Gib servers and no shortage of people to play on them, so really if DICE was to release 50 maps and have 100 different vehicles, most people would pick the one or two maps with the lowest amount of vehicles (and even then likely ask them to be removed :|: ) and play those two maps for thousands of hours on end anyway. How many people even play Northern Strike? Admittedly more than play the BF2 expansions due to the unlocks points you can only get out of NS, but still you'd be hard pressed to find a populated server for them.

That's one reason I'm actually looking forward to BF1943; more map variety (despite there only being 3 maps, at least there won't be 24/7 one map servers all over the place). BF2 and BF2142 have a ton of variety in them but since nobody plays any maps online other than Karkand and Gib the gameplay gets stale and repetitive. Server owners generally don't want to take a chance at having their server go unpopulated so they don't run any of the lesser-played maps like Zatar Wetlands, Operation Road Rage, or Shuhia Taiba conquest, so they stick with 24/7 Gib or 24/7 Karkand, and the cycle continues.

So in short, I'd be more than happy to drop $10 on an expansion pack but I grow tired of doing so and only being able to play the map for a day or two before everyone goes back to the map that gives the most points and I'm left with three awesome maps that I can't even play anymore. :hmm:

[imported_JayZ]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

Valid points. After some thought this is what I've come up with:

There should be a rank-requirement to spend a certain amount time on each and every map. As you progress up the ranks the time requirement becomes larger and larger. Problem solved .

Another factor is vehicular domination. While certain vehicles do excel at their purpose, it shouldn't be complete domination such that the one side is completely defenseless (as in BF2). So the solution would not be to remove these vehicles, but to provide enough of the proper tools to counter them. BF1942s aircraft were significantly damaged by small arms fire and was an effective deterent. A short range portable AA missile would be just as effective. So it depends on how well DICE are able to balance the game that will determine if players will play on all types of maps.

There should be no reason for a shortage of gameplay on all maps, if the game were designed properly to begin with.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

Another factor is vehicular domination. While certain vehicles do excel at their purpose, it shouldn't be complete domination such that the one side is completely defenseless (as in BF2). So the solution would not be to remove these vehicles, but to provide enough of the proper tools to counter them. BF1942s aircraft were significantly damaged by small arms fire and was an effective deterent. A short range portable AA missile would be just as effective. So it depends on how well DICE are able to balance the game that will determine if players will play on all types of maps.

There should be no reason for a shortage of gameplay on all maps, if the game were designed properly to begin with.

I'll definitely concede that BF2's aircraft domination was a contributing factor to Karkand's overall popularity, but I'm going to say stats are the biggest. BF1942 and BF:V didn't have any sort of official persistent stat tracking like BF2 and BF2142 do and as a result the official maps were all more popular (despite massive imbalance in some cases...Reclaiming Hue anyone?) and the mod community was more popular. Even in BF2142's case, where vehicles are very well balanced - especially when compared to BF2's aircraft - you'll either find 24/7 Gib or 24/7 city map servers (mostly the former) or 24/7 Titan Suez servers, and Titan mode is even spammier and point-whorable than Gib once the shields go down. I know a lot of people like quick action so they play Gib, which is fair enough, but there are enough people that e-gank to their KDRs and SPMs that I wouldn't hesitate to link stats and points to being a prime contributor to the overabundance of Gib servers and overall lack of map variety.

Problem is, DICE has really crossed the point of no return with stats; since BF2 and BF2142 had them, there's no way they can remove them for BF3 without souring the overall fanbase. The key is to make stats and points more congruent between maps. A good way to do this would be to reward extra points for destroying vehicles and not give so many points for just running around as medic rezzing everything. In BF2, the only people that got a lot of points were Karkand medics or supports, or jet pilots and heligunners on vehicle servers. Everyone else was middle of the road. Personally I take points and stats for what they are; a fun side-quest of sorts that is a supplement to gameplay. Unfortunately, not everyone feels this way and are all about pointzorz and statzorz so for them there's no incentive to play anything other than 24/7 IO Karkand as medic. Since DICE can't really change the mindset of the player, they have to change at least the scoring system to encourage players to play other maps and/or game modes.

Maybe something like point thresholds, where you stop earning career points and stats on a certain map if you've played more than four times as long on that map as you have your least-played map or something?

[imported_JayZ]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

Overall I'd say we're on the same page.

Just to reiterate in case I was unclear. I believe that in order to unlock each rank, there would be a requirement to play each and every map for a set amount of time. As an example, you'd have to spend 2 hours on every map in order to fullfill one of the requirements to progress from recruit to private. Ranks thereafter would require increasing amounts of time be spent. This could be the perfect solution.

Thresholds could become unnecessarily complex.

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

Overall I'd say we're on the same page.

Just to reiterate in case I was unclear. I believe that in order to unlock each rank, there would be a requirement to play each and every map for a set amount of time. As an example, you'd have to spend 2 hours on every map in order to fullfill one of the requirements to progress from recruit to private. Ranks thereafter would require increasing amounts of time be spent. This could be the perfect solution.

Thresholds could become unnecessarily complex.

Instead of time spent, which would likely lead to timepadding (people joining a game and then going AFK), perhaps a number of wins per map. Although that could lead to teamswitching I suppose. Meh, no system would be perfect but I like your idea.

[imported_JayZ]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

Time padding could be eliminated if the 'inactive kick' timer were hard coded (unchangable server variable). An inactive player would be automatically kicked from the server after about a minute. Thus the only way for padders to get around this would be to play on 'hacked servers'.

Despite DICE's efforts for security, it'd probably just be a matter of time until the scoring system is hacked and abused. The best option to prevent players from playing on hacked servers, would be to log all players recent server connection history in their accounts. So if the community identifies and reports a rogue server to DICE or EA, they would then scan the rogue server's IP through all their player accounts. Thus identifying only 'frequenters' to that rogue server and either reseting their scores to zero or banning their hash ID.

This might seem quite an elaborate fix, but I think it's on the same level as some of BF2's.

Another idea, a rather simple solution. Ranked servers which doesn't allow altering of the map cycle. So if you want to adjust the map cycle for 24/7 single map usage, you'd be forced to start an unranked server.

[=98=]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

Time padding could be eliminated if the 'inactive kick' timer were hard coded (unchangable server variable). An inactive player would be automatically kicked from the server after about a minute. Thus the only way for padders to get around this would be to play on 'hacked servers'.

That would be awful. Some people idle to get servers running which is fine, also, I occasionally will go AFK during a game for 5-10 minutes because I have to answer the phone, it'd be annoying to keep getting kicked!

[WolfAlmighty]

Re: Maybe a new business model for BF3

Another idea, a rather simple solution. Ranked servers which doesn't allow altering of the map cycle. So if you want to adjust the map cycle for 24/7 single map usage, you'd be forced to start an unranked server.

I like this idea. The inactive kick thing could be a problem due to reasons Alex stated, but having an unchangeable map rotation would work. TBH, I was always under the impression that ranked servers had to have certain options on in order to remain ranked as it used to be in BF2. I guess with the inclusion of IO any semblance of integrity (lol) that the ranking system had was gone in an instant so EA just said **** it and let people do whatever with them. That's what I always enjoyed about the EA official servers at the beginning of BF2 - FF was always on, and they went through full map rotations, and typically the servers were full (even though they were only 32 player servers) so you could always find a good game. Once patch 1.3 came out and the servers kept crashing every few rounds it would go Karkand -> Songhua -> Sharqi -> server crash, and repeat, so even then I had a limited map choice, and eventually the official servers, in the US at least, were shut down.

So for BF3, they should have a set map rotation, or maybe a choice of a couple of different rotation cycles, that ranked servers must do, and have the servers stable enough that they don't crash and reset the cycle every second or third map. Wishful thinking, I know, but the idea sounds good to me. :thumbsup: