criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
Felucia Transmission
No Match for a Good Blaster

If Battlefront 3 ever becomes a reality, would you want them to do season passes?

Prev1
I've been thinking about the differences between Battlefront 2 and Battlefront 2015. This game has a lot more features and better gameplay; however, I can't help but feel that BF2015's execution and season pass idea was just better. Personally, I would buy the season pass if it meant we could avoid what we're getting now. [Although/b] I'd rather EA step away from star wars fps in general and diversify star wars games (more mmos, rpgs etc), but Battlefront 3 wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen.
th1t3mn151el.gif


"Never doubt what you have done, All your decisions brought you to that point."
-Kreia / KOTOR 2

Euaaagh
-Lego Yoda

Replies

  • Absolutely.
  • lowell
    1315 posts Member
    edited August 18
    If they have a bigger team that includes permanent commitment from both Criterion and DICE LA to churn out free DLC at a faster pace but bigger quantity and created with quality, then they don't need a season pass.

    If the team for that game in 2022 will just be this small team post-launch lacking resources, they might as well make a Season Pass to pay borrowed devs from Battlefield and other current DICE games for overtime work on DLC content for Battlefront III.
  • I'm all for it because the content is much better and it seemed like most Season Pass games had their act together at launch. 2015 Battlefront had content issues at launch which really hurt that game.

    TitanFall 2 did free DLC, but their game was completed with plenty of content at launch. They were able to move right into adding maps and modes. They added nearly a Season Pass worth of content for free within less than a year. They had their act together, and I've never seen that since.

    Rainbow Six Siege, Battlefront 2, Battlefield V, Anthem, the list goes on. These live service games launching in what amounts to an early access state. Players have sit through six months to a year of little content and a buggy game while the devs fix it.

    So yeah, if it means Battlefront 3 will be a completed game at launch ready to dive right into DLC, give me a Season Pass of content.
  • killerzf7 wrote: »
    If it means that they’ll drop more content faster, then sure.

    This is likely to be a popular sentiment for both Battlefront and Battlefield fans. We will see how COD does with Modern Warfare, but it could be their fans say the same.
  • Zirius
    319 posts Member
    edited August 18
    Battlefront 3 can become reality when EA will lose the star wars ip. Made by a different company, which is caring, at least a bit.
  • Heck yeah
  • Purchase a season pass requires them to make additional content so I would be all for it.
  • Locking content like maps behind season passes is the worst thing an online shiiter can do. It splits up the community into separate groups. Essentially killing the game quicker. In BF2015 you could hardly find games on some of the maps because of the dreadful playlist they had.

    As someone said, DICE completely messed this up themselves with not releasing things for us to buy. I have probably spent 50 bucks the last month on skins in Battlefield V, skins that don’t even look too good or that I have a connection to any of the characters. In BFII there are so many skins I’d buy, but since I’ve had a gazillion credits, there hasn’t been any need to. Brilliant business move from DICE as usual.
  • Purchase a season pass requires them to make additional content so I would be all for it.

    Make additional content across multiple modes hopefully.

    #MSAMP

    #MEMP
  • I kinda wanna think of it this way.

    If getting a season pass means supporting a bigger dev. team, which means more content (that isn’t drip fed) across multiple modes, then sure.

    I would gladly pay $50 for a season pass if it means that it would help get a bigger dev team and more content.
  • Zyder
    403 posts Member
    NEVER!! Season pass splits the community. Maps should be free for everyone. Season passes must die.
  • Zyder wrote: »
    NEVER!! Season pass splits the community. Maps should be free for everyone. Season passes must die.

    If we get free content, it’ll most likely be drip fed to us.

    When the Clone Wars Season started for BF2, we mainly got 2 clone Trooper skins every month for a bit, with 4 heroes and only one new map brought out months apart from each other.
  • Smattonellus
    730 posts Member
    edited August 18
    No, that divides the player base, paid season passes don't work, instead they would likely aim for surprise mechanics™, but the best thing in my opinion is a cosmetic cash shop, less shady, kinda how it is now, but where people would feel more compelled to pour money, so great choice and affordable prices.
  • Lyc4n
    1164 posts Member
    Ide like to put forward something that no one considers. It will be the beginning of the next console generation. Lets have a battlefront that lasts. The problem with this game and content is that there has been no focus. Theres been focus for cw and cs lately and the game mode feels great content wise. My solution: an expansion pack approach.

    Instead of making a battlefront 4 and a battlefront 5 just release expansion which will really increase the game content by a full games worth.

    So the first game could be all clone wars. All heroes all units all skins all weapons and have a few game modes. 2 years later they release an expansion for the ot, all the aliens and skins, all the weapons heores and at least one new big gamemode, one new heroes mode, one new starfighter mode and one new trooper mode. This would then repeat itself with st and maybe even old republic by that point.

    Between this time they could have a very small team with small drip feed content just to keep it exciting for to years and could keep the live service model of skins. Maybe a new hero and reinforcement.

    To start with we woukdnt have all eras, but we would have a very well represented and playable era. We would also know this same representation would be coming in a couple of years for another era so after a few years instead of pick and choosing between what battlefront game was your favourite, you will just have one definitive huge battlefront.

  • Unless they finish BF2 it’s irrelevant for me because I just won’t buy it.
  • bfloo
    15720 posts Member
    We don't need a 3rd battlefront. EA needs to explore other types of games.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • Zyder wrote: »
    NEVER!! Season pass splits the community. Maps should be free for everyone. Season passes must die.

    Nope. Live Service Games and Microtransactions have to die.
  • Lyc4n
    1164 posts Member
    Yes. I enjoyed it in the last game. So much more direction and locked in'ness given it's paid for.

    Maybe there could be a mixture of the two, things like maps and skins and game modes would be live service as it will either not greatly affect gameplay or split up the player base. Then have paid for dlc in the form of weapons heroes reinforcements vehicles, things that offer a wider variety of gameplay and can be played alongside those who dont have the paid for dlc
  • No season pass. It splits the community into small chunks and once player numbers start going a bit down it becomes impossible to play.

    All these CW maps would be dead within a week if they were delivered by a season pass.
  • Yes i would.
  • Axone
    408 posts Member
    Don't mind paying extra money if it mean the game make more content, hero, weapon, map, mode, etc...….
  • See what happend to swbf 2015 !!!
  • Lyc4n
    1164 posts Member
    They can learn from the problems of the dlc in bf15 and the main issue was separating the player base because of access to maps. Things that dont separate player base but offer more gameplay weapons heroes reinforcements skins etc can all be paid for and then the maps and game modes just come for free.
  • I’d be okay with it, but I’d need to see at least a rough projection beforehand for when substantial content releases, i.e. maps, modes, weapons, heroes, vehicles, and classes.
  • If it means more and better content, yes
  • Yes I would definitely take a season pass over their live service model.
  • ZephanUnbound
    3012 posts Member
    edited August 18
    See what happend to swbf 2015 !!!

    Yep, the DLC playlists are all dead now, it is impossible to find a match on them. That is the main problem with season passes, they split the community and make it harder to find matches. It’s why the industry is moving away from them, CoD was one of the last series still using season passes and even CoD is dropping them this year. Don’t expect them to come back anytime soon, the future is free maps/characters/weapons/etc. supported by cosmetics that can be bought with real money.

    That model can work, EA just didn’t do it right in Battlefront 2. You need a large DLC team to have a steady stream of content, instead of a small DLC team releasing a drip feed of content. We’re talking several new cosmetics releasing every month, with larger content drops of maps/heroes/weapons/etc every few months.
  • bfloo
    15720 posts Member
    See what happend to swbf 2015 !!!

    That season pass was poorly done. The Battlefield 1 season pass was handled a lot better.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • JediPacoElFlaco
    1317 posts Member
    edited August 18
    The correct mode is a mixed system, with a payment premium pass for good DLCs but with maps and modes free for all players in this way they don't break community.

    1bfioawlu399.png
  • Take my money, give me content.
  • Lyc4n wrote: »
    Yes. I enjoyed it in the last game. So much more direction and locked in'ness given it's paid for.

    Maybe there could be a mixture of the two, things like maps and skins and game modes would be live service as it will either not greatly affect gameplay or split up the player base. Then have paid for dlc in the form of weapons heroes reinforcements vehicles, things that offer a wider variety of gameplay and can be played alongside those who dont have the paid for dlc

    Did you completely miss the outrage of the «pay to win» lootbox controversy? What on earth do you think locking weapons behind a paywall will do?
  • if it means better content i wouldnt mind paying fora season pass
  • Lyc4n
    1164 posts Member
    vVrathh wrote: »
    Lyc4n wrote: »
    Yes. I enjoyed it in the last game. So much more direction and locked in'ness given it's paid for.

    Maybe there could be a mixture of the two, things like maps and skins and game modes would be live service as it will either not greatly affect gameplay or split up the player base. Then have paid for dlc in the form of weapons heroes reinforcements vehicles, things that offer a wider variety of gameplay and can be played alongside those who dont have the paid for dlc

    Did you completely miss the outrage of the «pay to win» lootbox controversy? What on earth do you think locking weapons behind a paywall will do?

    Theres a difference between paying for improvements and paying for a wider variety of gameplay. If the weapons are right they will be balanced and therefore not pay to win. Better to have this than people only being able to play with others that have the same dlc.
  • My opinion is if the base game releases with enough content then a season pass that adds good content on top of the base game is fine. If it doesn't split the player base up.

    2015 released with barely any content. I think it was just 6 heroes, 4 maps, and only 1 era. To charge us extra to add what the game should have released with is ridiculous. And personally I didn't really care for most of the heros they added to bf15 and am much happier with the content that they have added to bf2. I'd much rather obi wan and dooku than greedo and nien nunb, 3 eras vs 1 0etc.

    Dlc can work and games like horizon zero dawn, and dark souls 3 prove that. The difference obviously is adding dlc to those games doesn't split the player base where as it does for an online multiplayer. And also those games released with enough content in the first place.

    I think the fact there was more content in one go seemed to excite people more with 2015. I think some are being a bit unappreciative of just how much we've actually had added to this game.

    So my is veiw is that season passes and dlc are probably not the best idea for battlefront as it splits the players up and we have had just as much content (which in my opinion is better) added to this game for free as we did with 2015. And there is still more to come.

    That said... I don't see a battle front 3 ever being made... They're probably just going to keep this game going for as long as they can and then do something different
  • Alex64
    7662 posts Member
    tumblr_mvy9fwc6AE1sjs1fmo2_250.gif
    5chars
    The kind mixed with the wicked, the will to fight until the end, I'm not your enemy or friend.
  • vVrathh wrote: »
    Locking content like maps behind season passes is the worst thing an online shiiter can do. It splits up the community into separate groups. Essentially killing the game quicker. In BF2015 you could hardly find games on some of the maps because of the dreadful playlist they had.

    As someone said, DICE completely messed this up themselves with not releasing things for us to buy. I have probably spent 50 bucks the last month on skins in Battlefield V, skins that don’t even look too good or that I have a connection to any of the characters. In BFII there are so many skins I’d buy, but since I’ve had a gazillion credits, there hasn’t been any need to. Brilliant business move from DICE as usual.

    BF2015 screwed it up themselves in ways other games don't...the matchmaking system for starters. Battlefield games historically use a server browser, so servers can run DLC mixed with launch maps. You join the server with maps you have or want to play. COD had matchmaking and was still able to mix the DLC. I don't know what BF2015's problem was they couldn't do it too.

    Even worse really was BF2015 had a serious map design issue. They tried to have completely separate map sets for large and small game modes. So they had to choose small maps or large maps when making DLC, meaning they were never going to satisfy the community as a whole even if it was free. Usually smaller game modes get maps that are cut-outs of larger maps, like how DICE did Geonosis for this game. That way all game modes get a new map.

    I will concede that this game is not maximizing it's money making opportunities with skins. Whether EA gives them a bigger team as a result is another story. Rushing BFV out the door took many of the devs off Battlefront 2.
  • As I suspected, more people want Season Passes back.

    The "paywall" idea is not a real concept imo. Your $60 is going towards a launch game that in itself is a complete game. That's what you pay for. Developers don't have to add anything more, but if they do, it's content above what your initial purchase covers. Therefore, they can charge for it since there was extra labor involved. There is nothing wrong with that. Before Season Passes and DLC capabilities, game companies would release paid expansions to complete games. Examples are StarCraft: Brood Wars, Battlefield 2: Special Forces, Diablo II: Lord of Destruction, etc.

    It doesn't really create a "paywall", not in a popular shooter. People will buy that season pass the same as they buy up skins. They will even buy the pass AND skins. The reality is the Season Pass becomes a far cheaper alternative for the consumer.

    Less popular shooters do need to consider alternatives. For instance, Killzone Shadow Fall's Season Pass was for an optional online co-op mode with it's own set of maps + cosmetics. Standard multiplayer maps were free, although they didn't release near as many as Battlefield 4 did with their Season Pass.

    And that to me is the issue. For 15 years we've seen the level of content a paid expansion and season pass can provide. We got used to it. So far free DLC hasn't been able to remotely come close to that, and people willing to pay for passes are not happy.
  • If there were to be a Battlefront III, I think they should make it one of these two ways. One very large game released all at once like video games used to be, an example being the older Battlefronts I and II. You payed for them; you got them; and that was it. No paying for outfits or anything else. The other way would be the Expansion pack version. Make three that are playable by themselves (one for each era), but are connected if you buy more than one. It would basically be three Battlefronts under one name. Have tons of content for each. Make each feel like its own game in the sense that the buyer doesn't feel like there isn't enough content. Another idea for either would be to allow people to modify the game. This would create free fan created content.
  • If there were to be a Battlefront III, I think they should make it one of these two ways. One very large game released all at once like video games used to be, an example being the older Battlefronts I and II. You payed for them; you got them; and that was it. No paying for outfits or anything else. The other way would be the Expansion pack version. Make three that are playable by themselves (one for each era), but are connected if you buy more than one. It would basically be three Battlefronts under one name. Have tons of content for each. Make each feel like its own game in the sense that the buyer doesn't feel like there isn't enough content. Another idea for either would be to allow people to modify the game. This would create free fan created content.

    So sort of like what StarCraft 2 did? yeah that might work.

    It's a good point too about the old games. I don't recall any paid expansions for either of them, or any expansion at all. They released before DLC models became a reality. But then those games were Conquest games, and with plenty of maps and content. Vehicles were on the maps. They even had NPC factions like Ewoks firing at Imperials, Sandpeople fighting everyone, a Sarlaac pit on Tatooine that would grab you, etc.

    They had features the current games don't have. Why is that? If DICE would just give us the Conquest gameplay everyone assumed would happen when DICE Star Wars Battlefront was announced, then the DLC would be a moot point. Give a launch product that meets fans expectations.

    Same with Battlefield. Battlefield 2 had map sets and features superior to any Battlefield since, especially BFV. Same with Battlefield 2142 and it's Titan mode. The launch games alone kept fans engaged.
  • Lyc4n wrote: »
    They can learn from the problems of the dlc in bf15 and the main issue was separating the player base because of access to maps. Things that dont separate player base but offer more gameplay weapons heroes reinforcements skins etc can all be paid for and then the maps and game modes just come for free.

    Giving people new guns for money without giving it to everyone else is like text book pay to win.
  • Lyc4n
    1164 posts Member
    CeymalRen wrote: »
    Lyc4n wrote: »
    They can learn from the problems of the dlc in bf15 and the main issue was separating the player base because of access to maps. Things that dont separate player base but offer more gameplay weapons heroes reinforcements skins etc can all be paid for and then the maps and game modes just come for free.

    Giving people new guns for money without giving it to everyone else is like text book pay to win.

    No its not. Thats like saying making heroes dlc is pay to win. If they are balanced its just a more gameplay variety not pay to win.
  • Jbstiner
    2708 posts Member
    I would like to see a new development team because this one has pretty much proven it can’t handle a AAA game...
    My Wookie went to Scarif and all I got was this lousy t-shirt...
  • Jbstiner wrote: »
    I would like to see a new development team because this one has pretty much proven it can’t handle a AAA game...

    Yeah, I agree.

    BF 2015 was fun but the gameplay and ideas were lackluster, it got boring fast, but it at least had a solid post-launch gameplan.

    BF 2017 improved on the gameplay aspects but they somehow managed to create an international controversy around their post-launch gameplay; ergo, they did an AWFUL job at it.

    so their track record is 1 okay game and 1 extremely controversial game, I'd really like to see a new studio do BF3.
    th1t3mn151el.gif


    "Never doubt what you have done, All your decisions brought you to that point."
    -Kreia / KOTOR 2

    Euaaagh
    -Lego Yoda
  • OcDoc
    1864 posts Member
    I was cool with the season pass. I just felt like the base game for 2015 wasn’t enough.
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!