criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
July Community Calendar
Obi-Wan Kenobi Community Quests

Would you be willing to pay for DLC packs at this point?

2

Replies

  • danilojbg
    837 posts Member
    I would hate them spliting the already small playerbase like this.
  • tankertoad
    5956 posts Member
    danilojbg wrote: »
    I would hate them spliting the already small playerbase like this.

    The player base only gets split in games that are not that good.

    The player base was never split in Battlefield 1. Never. You can go right now and get on any single map mode whatever you want and have games.

    Not having a server browser, forced playlist. Are the sign of a small game
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • tankertoad wrote: »
    @ArchAngeL_777

    As an old guy that grew up on the original trilogy I wasn't as big on the prequels. But I recently watched them and I can tell you I completely agree there is so so so so much content there.

    Worlds upon worlds.

    I just want fun gameplay. I want more role-playing elements. I want non-linear play.

    I want it in Star Wars.

    And I don't care if it's on Hoth Taatoine utapau or Alderaan.

    Yeah I grew up with the Original trilogy too. The prequel trilogy isn't as good, but then the Original Trilogy is legendary film making. To me the prequels are still some great sci fi movies with a lot of great content. The Clone Wars TV show is just flat fantastic, one of my favorite TV shows of all time. It really enhances the prequel movies as well, telling all the backstories of the war that a movie trilogy could never do.

    For me I want new stuff, even if it comes from Rebels. New planets, new heroes. We've had two games of OT content. I suppose a completely new set of maps from the OT would be better than nothing, but I don't think it would have the same impact as brand new planets no one has seen in the game before.
  • tankertoad wrote: »
    danilojbg wrote: »
    I would hate them spliting the already small playerbase like this.

    The player base only gets split in games that are not that good.

    The player base was never split in Battlefield 1. Never. You can go right now and get on any single map mode whatever you want and have games.

    Not having a server browser, forced playlist. Are the sign of a small game

    Yeah its never been an issue in Battlefield or COD. Games that have trouble selling DLC are where the problems occur. Battlefront 2015 would have been fine too if they didn't put the DLC packs in their own playlist.
  • tankertoad
    5956 posts Member
    tankertoad wrote: »
    danilojbg wrote: »
    I would hate them spliting the already small playerbase like this.

    The player base only gets split in games that are not that good.

    The player base was never split in Battlefield 1. Never. You can go right now and get on any single map mode whatever you want and have games.

    Not having a server browser, forced playlist. Are the sign of a small game

    Yeah its never been an issue in Battlefield or COD. Games that have trouble selling DLC are where the problems occur. Battlefront 2015 would have been fine too if they didn't put the DLC packs in their own playlist.

    Winner winner chicken dinner
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • Content.

    It's Star Wars so I don't care if it's clone or original or Thrawn or even Emo.

    If they said they were making a new DLC with at least 4 new maps, 4 new heroes, new weapons and at least 1 new not rehashed game mode (could dig some conquest) then the normal £19.99 wouldn't bother me. Potentially you could be talking months of playing until the next DLC.

    That said, it cannot be any ole stuff and just because it has all of the above, doesn't mean it will be good, however, nearly every DLC i've bought for every BF game, has had something worth it be it one new class or a new map and rarely has a DLC been completely poop..

    Those saying only clone wars, are you seriously saying if they brought out a fully fleshed out DLC with say Rebel heroes with some great maps and weapons and skills, you would say no? I'd question why you are still here and playing because for this game, any fully fleshed out content would bring people back in their droves. Me included :wink:

    Yeah Clone Wars is the popular request at the moment, so I think it would be good to start there. But Rebels has a lot of great content. I could see the second DLC pack being Star Wars Rebels DLC Pack 1:
    • Ezra Bridger
    • Grand Admiral Thrawn
    • New game mode
    • New planet Lothal with maps for all modes
    • New planet Atollon with maps for all modes

    Depending on what they do with Clone Wars, Ahsoka Tano and Mandalore could be in another Rebels pack. Other heroes could include Sabine Wren with Darksaber, Kanan Jarrus, Grand Inquisitor, Rukh, Seventh Sister.

    I hear you mate, but the problem is that these forums and Reddit and any other social media site are still a minority of a minorty, so just because clone wars is the thing most people on here want, doesn't mean that is what people who play this game want.

    I think you would find most players of the game don't give a monkeys on the era, they just want big content.

    Yes I agree, everyone has their favourite era or toon, but most just want to play Star Wars in all it's guises.

    Clone Wars DLC won't be the thing that would bring back the masses, any Star Wars DLC will.

    Put it this way, if Solo season had said it was 4 new heroes, 4 new maps, new weapons and a new mode (not rehashed stuff), do you think people would be thinking meh? Yes, the blinkered clone wars people would (blinkered in that's all you want to satisfy YOU), yet most people who bought this game would think yes, new content and just want new fun content to play with.

    I think you are underestimating how popular Clone Wars is even outside the circle of those that play this game. The crowd at Star Wars Celebration erupted when the Season 2 Rebels trailer revealed Captain Rex returning. Ahsoka Tano is a hugely popular character.

    But for this game specifically, Clone Wars represents by far the largest amount of potential content for this game. There's nothing more to add from the Original Trilogy or even Sequel Trilogy at this point. We've already had one game full of Original Trilogy content, plus Rogue One DLC. The Prequel Trilogy movies alone include far more locations, heroes, skins, etc. When you add in the Clone Wars TV show, it's not even remotely a contest.

    Star Wars Rebels is the only other option which could also bring fresh content as mentioned. Maybe the Star Wars Resistance cartoon will give something to go on too. I really don't think Solo is going to have enough to give us more than maybe 2 locations, some skins, and a couple new heroes.

    I'm not underestimating how popular the clone wars is, but I think you're overestimating it's importance.

    I went to the UK SW celebration and it was still the original era that got most of the people excited and the merch ( hate they word) was still mostly original stuff.

    What I'm saying is that it's not clone wars that is what this game needs, it's any era content and if that's clone wars, great, but too many think it's clones or nothing.

    I think with the millions of copies sold, it would be foolish to think clones is what the majority want considering in reality, clones the movies are mocked and IMO rightly so.

    Except for Mace of course. Him and Fisto are the only good things out of the prequels :wink:

    Sure Original Trilogy is the most popular trilogy. It will always be. But again, we are talking about content for the game that can bring people back. What are you going to add from the Original Trilogy that isn't already in the game? Another Endor forest map? Another Hoth map? Tatooine? We've seen all that in the 2015 game. We've got those planets already in this game. It would just be variations of the same content, maybe better or maybe worse. There aren't any heroes to add anyone cares about.

    If new content to play is what will bring people back, there's not a better place to get it than Clone Wars. That's why people are asking for it.

    I hear your passion mate and I don't fuly disagree with what you're saying, but I could counter with IG88, Old Ben, Dengar, Lobot (who :wink: )Tarkin,Jawas,Tuskens,Wedge, General Veers, Alderaan, Death Star 2 , Super Star Destroyer, dagobah.

    The OT still has plenty.

    We're both want more content, I'm saying any including Clone wars is what's needed, but don't get hung up on just clones as we really don't know what people want just these forums and ohers shouting clones is what most want.

    You are going to make me list it out aren't you? lol

    We have the Death Star in this game and had it in the 2015 game. One is as good as the other. Alderaan was only shown in the prequel era stuff. I don't think it's appearance in A New Hope would make for a good map...maybe starfighter assault in the asteroids LOL!!!

    So fine, how is your original trilogy list going to stack up against: Obi-Wan, Padme, Qui-Gon Jinn, Mace Windu, Ahsoka Tano, Anakin Skywalker, Ki Adi Mundi, Shaak Ti, Luminara Unduli, Barris Offee, Aayla Secura, Quinlan Vos, Captain Rex, Commander Wolffe, Commander Cody, Count Dooku, Mother Talzin, General Grievous, Pong Krell, Jango Fett, Asajj Ventress, Cad Bane, Embo, Sugi, Latts Razzi, Savage Oppress, Pre Viszla...need I really go on? lol

    Planets? In addition to the three in my original post: Umbara, Mustafar, Ryloth, Geonosis, Polis Massan, Mandalore, Florrum, Nal Hutta, Mon Calamari, Dathomir, Onderon, Crystophsis, and more.

    Also, it won't just be clones vs droids on all these planets. For instance, on Umbara it was the Umbaran army the Clones were fighting. On Mandalore it would be the Mandalorian Death Watch vs Clones. On Mon Calamari, the Mon Cal and others were involved. On Dathomir, it would be Droids vs the Nightsisters. Onderon it was the Onderon freedom fighters vs droids, etc.

    An avalanche of content! Too much!!! Lol Seriously, they could make DLC packs for years out of Clone Wars without recycling heroes or planets.

    I feel we're agreeing and yet disagreeing for the wrong reasons. You'rev saying clones is what people want and will bring people back, I'm saying any Star Wars content will bring people back. Semantics, but to me and you it's the details.

    Who's my number one hero I want? Mave Windu, but I'm happy to not get him as long as we get something , whereas the clones wars people are saying clones or nothing. Look it up, plenty on these forums are saying that and I don't agree, it should be full content of anything Star Wars.

    Let's just agree to disagree but we're not really disagreeing to an extent :smiley:
  • tankertoad
    5956 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    A good discussion is one that you disagree and find compromise. This is a great thread.

    Feel free to go to the Anakin Skywalker thread with 1,000 comments of nonsensical mess and bro love.
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • Landeaux2 wrote: »
    Landeaux2 wrote: »
    Landeaux2 wrote: »
    Landeaux2 wrote: »
    They promised us a live service game. We paid full price for that promise. If they can’t deliver on their current promise, why would I pay them more money for DLC? You know what they say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I’m not in the business of giving people my money when they can’t deliver in the first place.

    As someone replied to me trying to be clever, technically they have given DLC and even if they release 1 skin a month, they're still fulfilling the agreement.

    Now most reasonable people know what a DLC model is and what types of content it should have, however as I mentioned above, smarty pants posters are saying we are getting content.

    So technically they are fulfilling they're promise, but if they said you still get free content, but you can pay for this other content, they're technically still doing what they promised but fudging it.

    Sorry, the "technically" bit is because some of the defenders like to use that term as a last grasp effort.

    Best scenario, all new maps and game modes are free, guns, heroes, skin's cost.

    That would also cover the "DLC splits the playerbase rubbish that people trott out.

    And people giving them free passes for what we have received so far are the reason why we are in the current predicament.

    Nope mate, I and others didn't give them a free pass otherwise they would have kept the original plan and made us grind or pay. It's because we said no we're in this situation and it's not our fault but EAs.

    I never had a problem with paid DLCs for over 10 years, but SWBF1 decided to change the rules buy selling you a rushed content light game where if you wanted the full game you HAD to purchase the DLCs. That's where people also said no, so this new free DLC model that EA tried was never going to work without some income.

    They failed. Simple as that. Check out Titan Fall 2. Same thing.

    You pay for what you get. AAA titles (Jim Sterling voice) are a rip off mostly ( GOW and The Last of Us excluded)and yes, £60 should include all future content, however we as consumers need to make the choice of not buying if we don't think out £60 + isn't worth it
    Don't pre order and wait for reviews

    Lots of games are worth the price of the game and the extra cost for DLC. Witcher 3 and Nioh I had no problems paying for the DLC. Why should BF2 be any different if they make good quality DLC?

    Agreed.
    However, a season pass isn’t always necessary to profit. See fortnite for example.
    This one is on EA, not the consumers.

    Aye mate, but Fortnite is free and thus I put it in the freemium category that you can play without spending a penny and you know all future content is free.

    Also Fortnite is fun. Maybe not to you me and others ( I think it is good TBH) but to millions it is and when you're having fun on a FTP game you and more willing to spend cash hence the millions it made.

    If this game was fun from day 1 without all the bull, fully fleshed out, and a seasons pass/ individual DLCS roadmap explaining what you get in advance, with all maps free, we wouldn't be in this situation as the game itself isn't terrible, it's just meh.

    It's another debate about FTP games and costs of skin's and exploiting the consumer but you cannot compare these models even though one did get it right and one has/had a £60+ price tag attached to it but not much after.

    However it’s a game that makes way more money than BF2. It’s popular. They listen to their community. It’s the most streamed and watched game on twitch. They make their money through skins. They pump out content and updates weekly. A free game is embarrassing a paid game and that speaks volumes.

    Hey , your preaching to the converted mate however you won't get many on here acknowledging that and most will poo poo Fortnite out if jealousy but not specifically about the game but how well it's done.

    But!!!! Going back to this game, I'm seen by many as a "hater" whereas I think of myself as a realist and if they brought out paid DLC, I would be interested in seeing what it was.

    I think we all know paid DLC isn't coming as people will use this as a stick to beat them with as free DLC is what was promised, so I truly think the game is going to die a slow death with a few peaks, but plenty of trough's with the next cash cow bring Battlefield 5 and Anthem.


  • tankertoad wrote: »
    A good discussion is one that you disagree and find compromise. This is a great thread.

    Feel free to go to the Anakin Skywalker thread with 1,000 comments of nonsensical mess and bro love.

    Doesn't happen often mate, but it's good when people give courage to their convictions and stand up for what they think.

    Enjoyed the discussion. :smiley:
  • Landeaux2
    3138 posts Member
    Landeaux2 wrote: »
    Landeaux2 wrote: »
    Landeaux2 wrote: »
    Landeaux2 wrote: »
    They promised us a live service game. We paid full price for that promise. If they can’t deliver on their current promise, why would I pay them more money for DLC? You know what they say: fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. I’m not in the business of giving people my money when they can’t deliver in the first place.

    As someone replied to me trying to be clever, technically they have given DLC and even if they release 1 skin a month, they're still fulfilling the agreement.

    Now most reasonable people know what a DLC model is and what types of content it should have, however as I mentioned above, smarty pants posters are saying we are getting content.

    So technically they are fulfilling they're promise, but if they said you still get free content, but you can pay for this other content, they're technically still doing what they promised but fudging it.

    Sorry, the "technically" bit is because some of the defenders like to use that term as a last grasp effort.

    Best scenario, all new maps and game modes are free, guns, heroes, skin's cost.

    That would also cover the "DLC splits the playerbase rubbish that people trott out.

    And people giving them free passes for what we have received so far are the reason why we are in the current predicament.

    Nope mate, I and others didn't give them a free pass otherwise they would have kept the original plan and made us grind or pay. It's because we said no we're in this situation and it's not our fault but EAs.

    I never had a problem with paid DLCs for over 10 years, but SWBF1 decided to change the rules buy selling you a rushed content light game where if you wanted the full game you HAD to purchase the DLCs. That's where people also said no, so this new free DLC model that EA tried was never going to work without some income.

    They failed. Simple as that. Check out Titan Fall 2. Same thing.

    You pay for what you get. AAA titles (Jim Sterling voice) are a rip off mostly ( GOW and The Last of Us excluded)and yes, £60 should include all future content, however we as consumers need to make the choice of not buying if we don't think out £60 + isn't worth it
    Don't pre order and wait for reviews

    Lots of games are worth the price of the game and the extra cost for DLC. Witcher 3 and Nioh I had no problems paying for the DLC. Why should BF2 be any different if they make good quality DLC?

    Agreed.
    However, a season pass isn’t always necessary to profit. See fortnite for example.
    This one is on EA, not the consumers.

    Aye mate, but Fortnite is free and thus I put it in the freemium category that you can play without spending a penny and you know all future content is free.

    Also Fortnite is fun. Maybe not to you me and others ( I think it is good TBH) but to millions it is and when you're having fun on a FTP game you and more willing to spend cash hence the millions it made.

    If this game was fun from day 1 without all the bull, fully fleshed out, and a seasons pass/ individual DLCS roadmap explaining what you get in advance, with all maps free, we wouldn't be in this situation as the game itself isn't terrible, it's just meh.

    It's another debate about FTP games and costs of skin's and exploiting the consumer but you cannot compare these models even though one did get it right and one has/had a £60+ price tag attached to it but not much after.

    However it’s a game that makes way more money than BF2. It’s popular. They listen to their community. It’s the most streamed and watched game on twitch. They make their money through skins. They pump out content and updates weekly. A free game is embarrassing a paid game and that speaks volumes.

    Hey , your preaching to the converted mate however you won't get many on here acknowledging that and most will poo poo Fortnite out if jealousy but not specifically about the game but how well it's done.

    But!!!! Going back to this game, I'm seen by many as a "hater" whereas I think of myself as a realist and if they brought out paid DLC, I would be interested in seeing what it was.

    I think we all know paid DLC isn't coming as people will use this as a stick to beat them with as free DLC is what was promised, so I truly think the game is going to die a slow death with a few peaks, but plenty of trough's with the next cash cow bring Battlefield 5 and Anthem.


    I always say constructive criticism is better than blind following. Us coming on here and providing feedback (that may be very critical at times) means we care about the game and want it to do well.
  • I’d only buy clone wars dlc
  • tankertoad
    5956 posts Member
    Kyloren421 wrote: »
    I’d only buy clone wars dlc

    And close thread. Waaaa waaaaaaaaaa
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • HansTheBest
    1120 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    Not on release, but if after a few months the general consensus is that they're amazing, I would.
    tankertoad wrote: »
    @ArchAngeL_777

    As an old guy that grew up on the original trilogy I wasn't as big on the prequels. But I recently watched them and I can tell you I completely agree there is so so so so much content there.

    Worlds upon worlds.

    I just want fun gameplay. I want more role-playing elements. I want non-linear play.

    I want it in Star Wars.

    And I don't care if it's on Hoth Taatoine utapau or Alderaan.

    Same.
  • awakespace
    1051 posts Member
    Yes I would happily pay that price for what you offered

    I would hope there would also be new weapons, new star cards, and maybe another type of enforcement class - maybe new vehicles too - and I would pay more for more
  • The investors are financing the game. Not the players. Where just profit. It's not how the business works. If the money made in a game by the consumer is re-used for content, it's the exact same amount of money as you would of made not making content in the first place. A zero sum game. It's a bad business model that makes zero sense for a large company that relies on large profit margins to get investors to pay for financing the next game. Investors are not consumers. It doesn't matter how much people spend on dlc or mtx, that money is not put back into the game at all . It's a lie that keeps you spending money. You at best would be boosting investor confidence for the next game.
  • tankertoad
    5956 posts Member
    The investors are financing the game. Not the players. Where just profit. It's not how the business works. If the money made in a game by the consumer is re-used for content, it's the exact same amount of money as you would of made not making content in the first place. A zero sum game. It's a bad business model that makes zero sense for a large company that relies on large profit margins to get investors to pay for financing the next game. Investors are not consumers. It doesn't matter how much people spend on dlc or mtx, that money is not put back into the game at all . It's a lie that keeps you spending money. You at best would be boosting investor confidence for the next game.

    Yes.

    MTX was for bank accounts!
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    Heck no, I'll never buy into a season pass with maps/modes for any FPS again. And games touting this practice I'll likely avoid altogether. It's not a business practice I wish to support.

    Would rather have no new content than a fractured community. In my experience, games die off rapidly as more DLC surfaces. Not only my friends who played from the start but also the general population as it gets harder to find games. It's terrible for these types of games.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • I am talking about legitimate DLC packs that we are used to from EA DICE. For instance, if EA announced they would be releasing Clone Wars DLC Pack 1 in September with the following content:

    General Grievous
    Obi-Wan
    Conquest or Supremacy mode added to the game for all planets
    New planet Utapau with maps for all modes.
    New planet Coruscant with maps for all modes.
    New planet Felucia with maps for all modes.

    Then they said the pack would be $14.99. Would you be willing to buy it?

    My vote would be YES.

    The free DLC promise went out the window with the loot crate revenue. There is no current revenue stream for the game. So I see no reason why we can't revert back to the DLC pack sales model of old. The pack sales would cover development cost.

    If it does well enough, maybe they could line up packs through 2019 and sell a Season Pass. They could give us a couple more Clone Wars packs, a legacy pack from the 2015 game, a pack from Star Wars Rebels, maybe a pack from the new Resistance cartoon, and then a pack for Episode 9 after the movie comes out.

    EDIT: when I say "maps for all modes", I mean BOTH large game modes and small game modes get new maps with each planet added. No leaving out large game modes like in the 2015 DLC packs. Starfighter Assault would get a new map where it makes sense for the planet, like Coruscant would obviously be perfect with the opening of Revenge of the Sith.

    I would pay for the Clone Wars content you’re suggesting
  • tankertoad
    5956 posts Member
    Blazur wrote: »
    Heck no, I'll never buy into a season pass with maps/modes for any FPS again. And games touting this practice I'll likely avoid altogether. It's not a business practice I wish to support.

    Would rather have no new content than a fractured community. In my experience, games die off rapidly as more DLC surfaces. Not only my friends who played from the start but also the general population as it gets harder to find games. It's terrible for these types of games.

    I disagree with you so often but this is extremely reasonable and well put.

    I don't agree but I'm thankful for this input.

    More contents better than less content is my argument
    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • hsf_
    1817 posts Member
    I'd be for it and buy in a heartbeat, as long as it's similar to battlefields premium. $50 for 4 to 5 guaranteed dlc with 4-6 maps, 2-4 heros, and 2-4 weapons heck yeah. The best part about that model as well is they tell you in advance what's being planned and what to expect.
    KazJim wrote: »
    Nope, it creates a 'two-speed' system, where players are locked out of content unless they pay for it - players move to DLC, 'vanilla' maps die...

    I give you SWBF1 (2015) as evidence . . . .

    There have been games that give some free and have paid season pass. You guys still get to enjoy your free measly one map and two skins every 4-6 months and we get to enjoy the great content we paid for, win win.

    Or... You can stop contributing to the problem, which is companies are continuously allowed to throw out half hearted games at full price, then have the audacity to charge for "extra" content, that should have been there to begin with.
    Could you imagine the uproar if CSGO required paid DLC to use the M4 or AWP? Or what about in F1 2017, if you had to buy Mercedes or Ferrari via DLC's...

    If you're going to make a Starwars game, then you need to include all of the major protagonists and antagonists from each era. Or, you need to specifically state in the title of the game that it's Starwars Battlefront: Episodes VII - VIII(or whichever trilogy you want) or something like that. Having the likes of Vader and Luke locked would have been fine if they were unlocked via hero progression or something, for example to unlock Vader you need to get 25 kills with every darkside character, rather than pushing people to spend more real money on iconic characters.
  • I'd like a Dagobah map as well
  • Jello770
    5592 posts Member
    I’ll buy anything that is purchasable.
    Psn: Jello770
  • thR51V4
    33 posts Member
    YES, I sure would especially if they can do quality content like Extraction again. That was worth paying for.
  • Simply put, I will not pay for a dlc until I a decent paycheck.
    "It's true. All of it. The Dark Side. The Jedi. They're real". -Han Solo
    okjzkqv763wu.png
    On Yoda's Flying Chair: The floating chair has a little area in between the hovering part and his cushion that allows him to go whenever he wants. That is why Mace always looks like he just smelled something bad.
  • tankertoad
    5956 posts Member
    thR51V4 wrote: »
    YES, I sure would especially if they can do quality content like Extraction again. That was worth paying for.

    It's weird because it wasn't as popular on their release but it was exceptional.

    41st.org Founder "Where the Game is Winnable."

    are-you-threatening-me-gif.gif
  • Give me a huge DLC pack that is worth it, such as Clone Wars, and you got me sold.
  • Open up the lootbox system again, the whole complaint was that it was p2w, it wasnt and it certainly isn't now that the game has been out for 6 months and a lot of us have max abilites etc for the characters we play

    Opening up lootboxes again means someone like me (who likes playing officer/heavy as they are fun) can still grind their way to better cards for other classes, but newbies or impatient people can pay if they don't want to grind

    Im all up for paying if the dlc is a dynamite drop, but the game needs a continual revenue stream that hooks players in and makes new guys think "oh i can pay a wee bit and catch up quicker so i can enjoy myself quicker"

    Lets face it a newbie starting the now will be disenchanted with the game as they are smashed on a daily basis, their grind is way worse than ours ever will be, give them something that can attract and keep them playing, give them packages for guns etc, keep the cards random in boxes but sell the weapons and mods at a pretty price,
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    I'd be for it and buy in a heartbeat, as long as it's similar to battlefields premium. $50 for 4 to 5 guaranteed dlc with 4-6 maps, 2-4 heros, and 2-4 weapons heck yeah. The best part about that model as well is they tell you in advance what's being planned and what to expect.
    KazJim wrote: »
    Nope, it creates a 'two-speed' system, where players are locked out of content unless they pay for it - players move to DLC, 'vanilla' maps die...

    I give you SWBF1 (2015) as evidence . . . .

    There have been games that give some free and have paid season pass. You guys still get to enjoy your free measly one map and two skins every 4-6 months and we get to enjoy the great content we paid for, win win.

    Or... You can stop contributing to the problem, which is companies are continuously allowed to throw out half hearted games at full price, then have the audacity to charge for "extra" content, that should have been there to begin with.
    Could you imagine the uproar if CSGO required paid DLC to use the M4 or AWP? Or what about in F1 2017, if you had to buy Mercedes or Ferrari via DLC's...

    If you're going to make a Starwars game, then you need to include all of the major protagonists and antagonists from each era. Or, you need to specifically state in the title of the game that it's Starwars Battlefront: Episodes VII - VIII(or whichever trilogy you want) or something like that. Having the likes of Vader and Luke locked would have been fine if they were unlocked via hero progression or something, for example to unlock Vader you need to get 25 kills with every darkside character, rather than pushing people to spend more real money on iconic characters.

    When did unlocking vader and luke require real money? It required grinding in the game yes, everything in the lootboxes at launch date were available through time, not one penny was required to unlock everything in this game
  • This game was a live service under the idea that the DLC would be financed under mxts. That deal was upended and so was the content we were "promised". lol, you get what you pay for, and so far this free model is turning out to be crap.

    I'd seriously consider donating to a kickstarter page if it meant we got an actual roadmap with confirmed dates. Not everything pushed back into 2019, which is guaranteed at this point.
    This is how you teach scrubs:
    xnvLDB.gif
  • hsf_ wrote: »
    I'd be for it and buy in a heartbeat, as long as it's similar to battlefields premium. $50 for 4 to 5 guaranteed dlc with 4-6 maps, 2-4 heros, and 2-4 weapons heck yeah. The best part about that model as well is they tell you in advance what's being planned and what to expect.
    KazJim wrote: »
    Nope, it creates a 'two-speed' system, where players are locked out of content unless they pay for it - players move to DLC, 'vanilla' maps die...

    I give you SWBF1 (2015) as evidence . . . .

    There have been games that give some free and have paid season pass. You guys still get to enjoy your free measly one map and two skins every 4-6 months and we get to enjoy the great content we paid for, win win.

    Or... You can stop contributing to the problem, which is companies are continuously allowed to throw out half hearted games at full price, then have the audacity to charge for "extra" content, that should have been there to begin with.
    Could you imagine the uproar if CSGO required paid DLC to use the M4 or AWP? Or what about in F1 2017, if you had to buy Mercedes or Ferrari via DLC's...

    If you're going to make a Starwars game, then you need to include all of the major protagonists and antagonists from each era. Or, you need to specifically state in the title of the game that it's Starwars Battlefront: Episodes VII - VIII(or whichever trilogy you want) or something like that. Having the likes of Vader and Luke locked would have been fine if they were unlocked via hero progression or something, for example to unlock Vader you need to get 25 kills with every darkside character, rather than pushing people to spend more real money on iconic characters.

    I'm not sure you understand what he's saying. There will still be the launch game that we have with all the maps, heroes, and game modes. Just like those guns are standard in CS Go, and you'll never see an F1 game that doesn't include Ferrari or Mercedes in the launch game.

    Battlefield 4 is a great example of what he is talking about. The launch game had a single player campaign, 8-10 maps, several game modes headlined by 64-player conquest, and any major modern weapon you'd expect in the game.

    The season pass for Battlefield 4 was $50 and covered 5 DLC packs released over the course of the next year or so. Each pack added 4 maps to the game and a few new weapons. One pack had a new game mode. One of the packs was a legacy pack adding 4 fan voted maps from Battlefield 3. In total they added 20 maps to the game with the season pass, then they added 3 more free the next year for everyone. I'm not sure, but I think a year or so ago they started making these DLC packs free.

    No they didn't release a half-hearted game at launch. They just added a ton of extra content, and now Battlefield 4 has over 30 maps in the game.
  • ArchAngeL_777
    1720 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    Duplicate post after edit was sent to review.
    Post edited by ArchAngeL_777 on
  • The investors are financing the game. Not the players. Where just profit. It's not how the business works. If the money made in a game by the consumer is re-used for content, it's the exact same amount of money as you would of made not making content in the first place. A zero sum game. It's a bad business model that makes zero sense for a large company that relies on large profit margins to get investors to pay for financing the next game. Investors are not consumers. It doesn't matter how much people spend on dlc or mtx, that money is not put back into the game at all . It's a lie that keeps you spending money. You at best would be boosting investor confidence for the next game.

    I'm not sure I follow this logic in regards to DLC. Most DLC packs are not developed at launch right? Maybe the first pack or two, but season passes usually cover 4 or 5 packs spread out over a year or so. Whether it comes from investor money or season pass money, there's DLC development cost that still has to be paid for. Clearly the season pass money is important to DLC development.

    In the case of this game, the microtransactions were supposed to fund DLC packs. Since there is no MTX revenue, we haven't got any. Now they are concentrating on skins to sell to show a profit so EA will start to green light bigger content drops. They have some content already developed by the launch team in reserve, but if they start doing DLC packs again, most of that will be new development costs.
  • Hopefully, all these posts about people willing to spend money makes EA increase the budget so more and better content gets made faster and the community "pays" for this content by buying crystals.
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
  • ArchAngeL_777
    1720 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    Duplicate post after edit was sent to review...again. What is it with that stuff anyway?
    Post edited by ArchAngeL_777 on
  • LOTR2013
    277 posts Member
    hsf_ wrote: »
    Nope, they made their bed, now they can lay in it.
    They've already had my money, the content was promised to be free, I expect them to fully honour that.

    Yep, I agree. Whilst I would really like the content the OP suggested, I think it should be in the game anyway. We shouldn't have to pay even more money for such important/popular places and heroes of the Star Wars universe.
  • Shinjuku wrote: »
    Would you be willing to pay for DLC packs at this point?

    Awh heck nawl.

    I would pay for my wife me and you!
  • Yes I would
  • Yeah, I’d definitely pay.
  • It was fine that way with the season pass but thats just me, I know a lot of people didn't even bother with the packs in BF2015.
  • Versatti
    2025 posts Member
    They should continue with the free DLC in terms of Seasons, as that’s what was promised. However they should develop and sell ‘expansion packs’. The core game would then grow and grow with no need to release future Battle Fronts.
  • Assassino37
    1104 posts Member
    My issue with the DLC packs last game (aside from the maps and modes) the new heroes, cards and weapons added created an imbalance. They had to justify and make the people who spent money happy which the answer seemed to be more pay to win than anything. You want to compete against these amazing locked items? Then buy the DLC!

    It was all about using fire against fire. It was a huge deal to me when they said DLC will be included. The content added really isn't any slower at this point in this game so it is what is expected. But if anything, I hope they never do a BF3 and just update this game over time. Would be faster to get content probably anyway...
    Valid Token Confirmed.

    fyq20437essy.png
  • If DICE announced a $50 season pass I'd buy it today, but under the condition of getting a road map saying the content we'd be getting, when it will be released, and that we get 4 DLC drops excluding what we already have.
  • My issue with the DLC packs last game (aside from the maps and modes) the new heroes, cards and weapons added created an imbalance. They had to justify and make the people who spent money happy which the answer seemed to be more pay to win than anything. You want to compete against these amazing locked items? Then buy the DLC!

    It was all about using fire against fire. It was a huge deal to me when they said DLC will be included. The content added really isn't any slower at this point in this game so it is what is expected. But if anything, I hope they never do a BF3 and just update this game over time. Would be faster to get content probably anyway...

    Yeah the DLC packs for the 2015 Battlefront are NOT what I'm suggesting. You are absolutely right. Every time they added a pack, it included some Star Card or weapon that would send what passed for game balance into chaos. It definitely felt like a subtle pay to win mechanic. Bare minimum it was equipment that you can't really balance, so it probably shouldn't have been in the game.

    Of course the other issue with those DLC packs was the fact they were mostly small maps, so the large map game modes got nothing. That can't be the case anymore. Add to that the fact they were tossed in their own playlist, and you have the very model of a split community.

    No I'm suggesting something along the lines of Battlefield 4's DLC packs. I keep referring to that game because IMO that was DICE's best DLC/Season pass results. 3 or 4 new planets per pack with maps for each game mode (both large and small game modes). Maybe add some new weapons here and there, but nothing of note. This would be more about the maps and added heroes than anything else.
  • Phyrebrat
    823 posts Member
    YES!

    And I wish they'd kept the same business practice re DLCs as BF2015. if they did,I might still be playing the game more than 2 times a week

    pH
  • creativepup
    276 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    I absolutely would pay for DLC content just like I did for BF1 2015. I think I paid $100 to $120 for the entire thing (not really sure) on pre-order. When I checked the amount of hours I played it in the Origin app, I played Battlefront I for 9245 hours. I played BFII for 3517 hours already. I don't see my BFII time getting anywhere near the previous game's time.

    I would rather pay for the DLC and get what I want to play and enjoy than deal with this mess that BFII became. Now don't get me wrong, I understand that not everyone has the money to put down on a game like I do but I don't really buy a lot of games so I see it as all relative anyway. When I think about the money I spent for BFI and the amount of time I got to enjoy it, I think it was a worthwhile cost.

    EA screwed up this whole thing by just being stupid and greedy. If they had just made the current progression system initially, released timely seasons (6-8 weeks), new heroes/vills, and really rare stuff to look forward to and just created a cosmetic store from the beginning where everything (cosmetics/skins) could be bought with cash or credits, then I think this would've been good for both sides.

    For example, if a cosmetics store was available on day one and it offered the Bespin Luke skin for $8 or (40,000 credits) and basic Luke was immediately available after grinding for 5000 credits at the game's start, I would have probably just paid that $8 for it. With the daily crate being 500 credits, the daily timed challenge being 1000 credits and the max credits daily in Arcade is 1500 credits (15 rounds of killing 10 enemies per which takes about 8 minutes), that's 3000 credits available daily outside of what is gained in-match.

    You can easily tell this game was produced by different factions and that overall management of the game's development was scattered.
  • I would be willing to pay for more content as long as the devs agree to continue the offline content as well.
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
  • only for online multiplayer content. I do not play offline.
  • Dezert
    206 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    Absolutely, but at this point someone is going to have to open a Go Fund Me for SWBF2 to achieve this. Do they have the staff to pump out DLC packs with more than one map? Free DLC is free - we will take what we can get. (or start that go fund me)

    I'd pay $100 for 4 DLC packs containing:
    4 maps each, 1 SA map each
    2 heroes each
    1 new weapon and attachment(s) per class per DLC pack
    1 new star card/ability per class per DLC pack
    1 new vehicle (either artillery, armor, speeder or star fighter) per DLC pack
    and __________ fill in the blank

    Every new maps or portion of the map would be playable in ALL modes PLUS the large scale game mode they talked about (like Conquest), Extraction, Drop Zone and Cargo.

    All new content would also need to be playable in arcade.

    A DLC pack would be released every 6 months for 2 years.

    This is a pipe dream, it could have happened though if Battlefront 2 took the same approach as Battlefield 3,4 and 1. I do not blame DICE for this. Also, DLC never split the Battlefield community.
    XBox/Steam/Origin >> M1chaelSavage
    1UcxMVz.gif
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>>>> Player Stats we will have <<<<<<<
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  • univurshul
    1667 posts Member
    edited May 2018
    One would think with the desire & demand for all these DLCs, it would most definitely need to come in the form of isolated downloadable packs. The game already is sitting heavy at ~70gb. I hope they re-use campaign maps for multiplayer, or just make campaign a de-boltable/delete-able segment of the game. Only rookies play campaign 1x and then it collects dust on your HD. If I want the canon vibes from the campaign story, I'll go to the youtube edits, not back into the game. It's hell'a arduous to play, no rolling, etc...

    Oh: yea, I'd probably pay for any DLCs, if I had my wish it would be 40gb of Rogue One maps & heroes. Because we're so starved for content right now, it's an easy YES
    Let's all remember that Luke's hand didn't clank to the stone when he vanished....Everything organic disappears as a force ghost. The in-organic stays...


  • Dezert wrote: »
    Absolutely, but at this point someone is going to have to open a Go Fund Me for SWBF2 to achieve this. Do they have the staff to pump out DLC packs with more than one map? Free DLC is free - we will take what we can get. (or start that go fund me)

    I'd pay $100 for 4 DLC packs containing:
    4 maps each, 1 SA map each
    2 heroes each
    1 new weapon and attachment(s) per class per DLC pack
    1 new star card/ability per class per DLC pack
    1 new vehicle (either artillery, armor, speeder or star fighter) per DLC pack
    and __________ fill in the blank

    Every new maps or portion of the map would be playable in ALL modes PLUS the large scale game mode they talked about (like Conquest), Extraction, Drop Zone and Cargo.

    All new content would also need to be playable in arcade.

    A DLC pack would be released every 6 months for 2 years.

    This is a pipe dream, it could have happened though if Battlefront 2 took the same approach as Battlefield 3,4 and 1. I do not blame DICE for this. Also, DLC never split the Battlefield community.

    I'd happily pay for that since it supports Arcade. I just hope they add hero AI to that.
    I am the same user as Elimelech401, that account was not tied to the game. I am hoping for more Skirmish with split screen and hero AI.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!