EA UFC 4 survey

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by johnmangala

^ That would be an interesting model. With new gaming streaming services like Google Stadia coming up, I think f2p would work. As long as the gameplay fundamentals are in place (ie TBS, mobile grappling, single strike stopping power, stamina etc), the game will grow from more active updates (like the near weekly updates for games like Fortnite, Apex Legends etc).

I'm not that familiar with games like Fortnite, Apex and other games with a rolling update process so maybe you can answer this question:

Are those games actively adding new modes?

As you know, I'm an offline gamer and one reason I've always been fine with the annual or bi-annual release schedule sports games currently use is because their are new modes that are introduced each release. Whether its tournament mode or a complete overhaul of career mode (which EA should do a much better job of) or hopefully adding something like Universe mode....how does that happen when the buying audience is expecting regular changes and additions to the game? Especially with a game that doesnt and wont have the resources of a game like Fortnite or Apex.

Also doesnt this sort of system prevent big overhauls? For example, the survey indicates that there will be grappling changes. Now I dont know what those changes are (honestly the GCs are really in the dark about this aspect of the new game) but what if EA is doing a complete teardown of the the mechanics of the grappling system? If thats the case, how does that work under an updates system?

An updates system seems to work perfectly if the foundation of a striking or grappling system is great and you are just tweaking or adding to the current systems depth. How does it work if thats not the case? You cant slowly add gameplay elements if you are creating a new system?

Let me be clear. I'm not trying to debate this. I'm just very interested in how you guys envision this system playing out.

I'd also be interested in your thoughts from a financial perspective. This isnt a game with low overhead like Fortnite or other games. Before EA even creates a single element of UFC4, its already in the red simply because they have to pay a license to the UFC. Under the current system, they have a pretty much guaranteed stream of revenue every 2 yrs. 300k-500k people buy this game at $60 during the first few mos after release. As the year goes on more buy it a lower price point.

Do you guys think that the sale of UFC related DLC (Skins, shorts, walkout Ts, Fighters and Venues) will generate enough revenue to make up for that loss of guaranteed $60 sales every 2 years? Will EA have to go to a season pass model ($30 a year)? Would you prefer that than a brand new game every 2 years?

[johnmangala]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

I'm not that familiar with games like Fortnite, Apex and other games with a rolling update process so maybe you can answer this question: Are those games actively adding new modes? As you know, I'm an offline gamer and one reason I've always been fine with the annual or bi-annual release schedule sports games currently use is because their are new modes that are introduced each release. Whether its tournament mode or a complete overhaul of career mode (which EA should do a much better job of) or hopefully adding something like Universe mode....how does that happen when the buying audience is expecting regular changes and additions to the game? Especially with a game that doesnt and wont have the resources of a game like Fortnite or Apex. Also doesnt this sort of system prevent big overhauls? For example, the survey indicates that there will be grappling changes. Now I dont know what those changes are (honestly the GCs are really in the dark about this aspect of the new game) but what if GC is doing a complete teardown of the the mechanics of the grappling system? If thats the case, how does that work under an updates system?

In the case of Fortnite they are. They shuffle between several new limited time modes and sometimes if they are popular enough they become standard. Granted I doubt EA Sports would pump as much resources into a f2p (unless it becomes a massive success) as Epic does for Fortnite. However, the game's foundation is set except for grappling.

The f2p model may not be in for the EA UFC 4 but after grappling/subs are revamped, the game would benefit greatly from more frequent updates. This wouldn't prevent further overhauls, over the course of time. We can see games like Star Wars Battlefront receiving new game modes and overhauls despite being far more understaffed and underfunded ATM than EA Sports.

Quote:

An updates system seems to work perfectly if the foundation of a striking or grappling system is great and you are just tweaking or adding to the current systems depth. How does it work if thats not the case? You cant slowly add gameplay elements if you are creating a new system? Let me be clear. I'm not trying to debate this. I'm just very interested in how you guys envision this system playing out. I'd also be interested in your thoughts from a financial perspective. This isnt a game with low overhead like Fortnite or other games. Before EA even creates a single element of UFC4, its already in the red simply because they have to pay a license to the UFC. Under the current system, they have a pretty much guaranteed stream of revenue every 2 yrs. 300k-500k people buy this game at $60 during the first few mos after release. As the year goes on more buy it a lower price points. Do you guys think that the sale of UFC related DLC (Skins, shorts, walkout Ts, Fighters and Venues) will generate enough revenue to make up for that loss of guaranteed $60 sales every 2 years? Will EA have to go to a season pass model ($30 a year)? Would you prefer that than a brand new game every 2 years?

I agree with your point. A f2p model would definitely work much better if the foundation is in place.

However I think all that really needs a real revamp is grappling and subs. Say that is the focus in developing EA UFC 4 now. That EA UFC 4 (hypothetically as f2p) would release with revamped grappling and subs then thereon all that is needed is more constant updates, leaving room for larger overhauls over the course of time like Battlefront did with their large updates.

On cosmetics and such, if the supply is constant and fresh like Fortnite and not Battlefront- it can be profitable. I can't reliably comment on if it'll make up for the loss of +$60 every year but I would guess that it could if it included fun things like exclusive taunts, animations(non-p2w), locations etc. A season pass probably would happen too as most f2p games do.

I don't know which I'd prefer without the relevant details. However I would imagine a f2p model would have more potential if done properly as it's be accessible to more people and possibility generate more revenue if it becomes popular like Fortnite or Apex Legends.

[UFCBlackbelt]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZombieRommel

Keep in mind I don't have any insider info, but it would seem to me that EA is trying to gauge interest in the idea of creating UFC games in the live service model currently employed by such games as Rainbow Six Siege and Apex Legends - whereby continuously playing and completing various challenges rewards XP and/or in-game currency that can be redeemed for various items and privileges. I personally think that a new UFC game with production value on par or exceeding UFC3, but also free to play, could be very successful. The game would have a large potential for growing the playerbase far beyond what it is. The other day I was on PS4 and 11k players were online. That is a pittance compared to a game like Apex which hit 2 million concurrent players during its first weekend. It sounds like a lot of you are worried about the more fantastic elements of the survey, but it sounds to me like EA noticed MMAGame's multi-million view videos where he created Obama vs Bieber grudge matches with CAFs and are thinking about running with it. For my two cents, I'd be perfectly fine with The Abominable Snowman vs The Jolly Green Giant in some mode that is cordoned off from ranked. As long as ranked is kept pure with roster fighters, I couldn't care less what sort of shenanigans the other modes feature. The big thing, for me, is that EA is actively investigating ways to grow the game and the playerbase. Imagine if instead of waiting 8-16 months for a new game GPD could continuously patch the game non-stop. That's the sort of idea EA seems to be floating here. With that would inevitably come microtransactions because you'd have to pay for the content somehow, but as long as the microtransactions do not directly affect gameplay I'd personally be cool with it, especially if it means we could get roster fighter cosmetic tweaks (like beards, hairstyles, etc). Another cool idea IMO, would be to let us earn DLC fighters with in-game currency or buy them outright with real money - in the model of a free to play game. I understand the reticence I'm seeing from a lot of you, but I personally would love for the game to average players in the hundreds of thousands or even millions instead of the 7-13k range (on PS4 at least, the playerbase is lower on Xbox).

"Live Service" , for the most part, is a failure of a concept and almost always results in incentives to spend real money to become more competitive over skill. For sports based games this means having skills, moves and fighters tied to purchases (such as common, legendary, rare Conor McGregors) or focusing on cosmetics with poor choice selection where everyone looks the same and the only way to differentiate yourself is by spending money.

Furthermore, Live Service games have almost always been released with very poor perception due to low QA testing and quality. Generally, the defense is that live service games are patched and new content is added later on, the reality is that most of these games have all their content laid out and just cut these pieces out to serve throughout the year. They will promise a 5 year life cycle but probably drop it and release a new model in a year or two as all live service games pretty much have done.

Lastly, live service games provide very little incentive to improve single player. EA has already gone on record to claim that single player is dying, unless they can add microtransactions to single player the support for that crowd will diminish as well.

Overall, I would never want ufc to become a live service or even resemble anything like madden/fifa. I think those games are absolutely terrible, even if I am a fan of the sport. However, if they do, I'd like it to be free. There is no way I'd pay $60 for a live service, it's out of the question for me especially with EA's track record, Sea level cain or not.

[RTSImperator]

While the description that introduces the survey seems to hint at things such as cosmetics being the focus. There are also key features mentioned within the survey such as a Revamped Grappling system and Online Gyms (would be nice to see this return), IMO a revamped grappling system should be among their priorities as well as ensuring the game runs at 60fps and/or anything that can be done to reduce the 'pre-emptive' nature of the game we have currently.

Having said that; I have no issue with the use of cosmetics they describe as long as they keep it as an OPTIONAL feature for use in Ultimate Team and perhaps Offline play, absolutely it shouldn't be included in Online Ranked.

The character creation suite could use some love as it received very little during the transition from UFC 2 > UFC 3.

You simply can't create some characters with the same level of authenticity that some other games allow, such as: WWE or SoulCalibur.

White Walker in UFC 3 - WWE 2K18:



SoulCalibur 6 - Eliza (Left) Adam Taurus (Right):



UFC 3 - Connor:



Trying to replicate clothing through the use of tattoos often yields pretty bad results

I shouldn't expect them to add any attire that isn't related to UFC/MMA but I guess you never know...

[johnmangala]

^ Good points.

Customizable attires would allow for simple things like Conor with different hair and a suit beyond having an authentic looking Spiderman in the cage which would be fun too. People already try to do this with the limited customizability of CAF, imagine how creative people would be with a more fleshed out CAF with attires, custom reach, better gameface etc.

Imagine having street fights in real backstage areas with celebrities or fighters in street attire and the walls function as the cage fence. The game has potential to be a true decathlon fight game beyond sport.

I think another good feature that would have a lot of utility is a toggle for anonymity in Quick Match. There are many people (especially a lot of casuals) that don't play online because they don't want their ID on the line but just want to have fun online.

Being anonymous would allow for more a casual friendly online game. Fortnite does this and their anonymous population is sizable.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by johnmangala

In the case of Fortnite they are. They shuffle between several new limited time modes and sometimes if they are popular enough they become standard. Granted I doubt EA Sports would pump as much resources into a f2p (unless it becomes a massive success) as Epic does for Fortnite. However, the game's foundation is set except for grappling. The f2p model may not be in for the EA UFC 4 but after grappling/subs are revamped, the game would benefit greatly from more frequent updates. This wouldn't prevent further overhauls, over the course of time. We can see games like Star Wars Battlefront receiving new game modes and overhauls despite being far more understaffed and underfunded ATM than EA Sports. I agree with your point. A f2p model would definitely work much better if the foundation is in place. However I think all that really needs a real revamp is grappling and subs. Say that is the focus in developing EA UFC 4 now. That EA UFC 4 (hypothetically as f2p) would release with revamped grappling and subs then thereon all that is needed is more constant updates, leaving room for larger overhauls over the course of time like Battlefront did with their large updates. On cosmetics and such, if the supply is constant and fresh like Fortnite and not Battlefront- it can be profitable. I can't reliably comment on if it'll make up for the loss of +$60 every year but I would guess that it could if it included fun things like exclusive taunts, animations(non-p2w), locations etc. A season pass probably would happen too as most f2p games do. I don't know which I'd prefer without the relevant details. However I would imagine a f2p model would have more potential if done properly as it's be accessible to more people and possibility generate more revenue if it becomes popular like Fortnite or Apex Legends.

Thanks for your response.

The sentence I bolded isnt really fair because it compares the budget of one game to the budget of a studio that produces 5 games (plus their mobile counterparts) I'd argue that the Star Wars budget is significantly higher than EA UFCs.

I remember talking to one of the devs about why they charged for DLC with FNC and not with UFC and their take was that FNCs DLC didnt sell much (it had new fighters, classic fighters and new modes) and they thought it was a better approach to give the fighters away for free.

Now paid DLC is way more popular than it was when FNC was released but I wonder if it will ever be popular enough that sports gaming studios will be confident enough that they can forgo releasing a new game every year or two. For example, currently none of the major sports games have paid DLC other than stuff associated with Ultimate Team or My Team. WWE has DLC but thats on top of the $60 you pay for the full game.

[HypeRNT]

Quote: Originally Posted by ZombieRommel

Keep in mind I don't have any insider info, but it would seem to me that EA is trying to gauge interest in the idea of creating UFC games in the live service model currently employed by such games as Rainbow Six Siege and Apex Legends - whereby continuously playing and completing various challenges rewards XP and/or in-game currency that can be redeemed for various items and privileges. I personally think that a new UFC game with production value on par or exceeding UFC3, but also free to play, could be very successful. The game would have a large potential for growing the playerbase far beyond what it is. The other day I was on PS4 and 11k players were online. That is a pittance compared to a game like Apex which hit 2 million concurrent players during its first weekend. It sounds like a lot of you are worried about the more fantastic elements of the survey, but it sounds to me like EA noticed MMAGame's multi-million view videos where he created Obama vs Bieber grudge matches with CAFs and are thinking about running with it. For my two cents, I'd be perfectly fine with The Abominable Snowman vs The Jolly Green Giant in some mode that is cordoned off from ranked. As long as ranked is kept pure with roster fighters, I couldn't care less what sort of shenanigans the other modes feature. The big thing, for me, is that EA is actively investigating ways to grow the game and the playerbase. Imagine if instead of waiting 8-16 months for a new game GPD could continuously patch the game non-stop. That's the sort of idea EA seems to be floating here. With that would inevitably come microtransactions because you'd have to pay for the content somehow, but as long as the microtransactions do not directly affect gameplay I'd personally be cool with it, especially if it means we could get roster fighter cosmetic tweaks (like beards, hairstyles, etc). Another cool idea IMO, would be to let us earn DLC fighters with in-game currency or buy them outright with real money - in the model of a free to play game. I understand the reticence I'm seeing from a lot of you, but I personally would love for the game to average players in the hundreds of thousands or even millions instead of the 7-13k range (on PS4 at least, the playerbase is lower on Xbox).

Yes no one should be surprised tbh about ideas like this because we have seen it so much now, and we have seen it successful.
Also the people who cry about microtransactions will QQ about it no matter what is being done, partially because they dont understand the difference between p2w and microtransactions but mostly because some people just love to complain.

I think it could be a homerun, and i also fall in the same boat as you that i dont care about vampire vs werewolf fighting as long as its not in ranked.

But i think what i want to see the most, is a proper UT mode, with CAF's(which i think were the new skins can flourish) be done properly, i dont like roster fighters in UT mode, i think that mode was built on caf's and it should be for CAF's as roster fighters are in every other mode.

Imagine playing a UT mode, that is built around a model that you mentioned that doesnt have a cap per say, but is built in a way that i can play for years and not be maxed out. Always have progressions.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by UFCBlackbelt

Lastly, live service games provide very little incentive to improve single player. EA has already gone on record to claim that single player is dying, unless they can add microtransactions to single player the support for that crowd will diminish as well.

This is one of my biggest concerns. The majority of people I see wanting a live service are primarily online gamers. I havent seen it benefit offline players in a significant way with any game.