EA UFC 4 survey

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by HypeRNT

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.

I've had the same discussion with Zombie and others offline and here is a question no one has been able to answer.

Can someone provide me with an example of this kind of release schedule being "successful" in a sports game?

Look, I would love to have regular updates. I would buy every fighter or venue or piece of clothing EA offered if it was reasonably priced. With that said, I'm the hardest of the hardcore when it comes to wanting the game to be accurate. So I would pay $1.99 for Ben Askren. I would also spend the same for someone like Dwight Grant. Now would everyone here do the same? I dont know. I doubt that anyone but the hardest of the hardcore even know who Grant is.

One other thing is I'm also old. I remember a time when there wasnt an MMA game. I'm super cautious about EA taking huge chances in what appears to be the last game under their current license. If they take this chance by changing the release structure and it fails, there is a chance that we wont see a new UFC game from them and there arent a ton of other companies that are dying to make MMA games.

****, Boxing fans are going through it now. They havent had a game in 8 yrs. Now this is being overly cautious but I would rather EA take a chance on a game like Madden that is more secure than EA UFC.

[johnmangala]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

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.

Could be but this only distracts from the actual point...

EA UFC is nearing or is at the stage where it can benefit as f2p. Offline can even grow if career mode includes playing as a GM/promoter (Universe mode). All the cosmetics apply plus all the p2w mechanics that cannot be included in online modes can go crazy here- offline and online games both can benefit from f2p.

[HypeRNT]

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 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?

Well to your first point about adding different modes, i am very familiar with apex legends and those games overall as i play them actively and participate in Esports. But i think adding game modes can always be done, i think that is the easier part of that model.

The second point about the potential new grappling system being hard to overhaul, yeah 100% correct, that would probably be the main issue, but i think they would have to go the route with tweaking it instead of overhauling it if we did not like it when the game came out.

As to revenue, the free2play mode seems to be by far the most popular and successful mode for games. The never ending content "ideas" always fetch a price(look at call of duty franchise, tons of DLC/MT) Overall, a good game usually never suffers from lack of funds with this kind of model because you can always make a couple skins that sell well and there you go, you got more funds. I think having the word "free" in front of something even though it will push you towards buying skins is the way to go these days.

The bigger problem that i havent seen anyone talk about is the cheaters. On a $60 if you ban an account for cheating, its going to cost him on the black market $30+ for another account, on a free game, the accounts are free, so usually you see an influx of cheaters in free2play games because of the lack of consequences. Now its a console game, so its a bit different from PC cheaters which are rampant, but nonetheless they will be more present.

Overall, i think if there was a f2p model for this game, i think it can be huge if properly promoted, much bigger player bases, things to do, and just overall if you are an mma fan its nothing but good for the sport/culture to see it grow.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by johnmangala

Could be but this only distracts from the actual point... EA UFC is nearing or is at the stage where it can benefit as f2p. Offline can even grow if career mode includes playing as a GM/promoter (Universe mode). All the cosmetics apply plus all the p2w mechanics that cannot be included in online modes can go crazy here- offline and online games both can benefit from f2p.

In theory, yes. In practice.....I dont know. Creatively, sure it could benefit. GPD could continue to build upon this foundation. Now the only issue I have with your earlier post is it assumes 1) that a new grappling system will be better than the current one we have and 2) that the current striking system is loved by the majority of fans who buy this game.

Regarding 1, the survey indicates that there will be a new or revised grappling system but that could be good or bad. They could decide to make it extremely easy in order to appeal to new and casual fans and you guys could hate that. In a F2P system, GPD would then start adding on top of a system that people dislike. In a annual or biannual system, EA could recognize that the system was bad and focus solely on creating a new one for UFC 5 (instead of having to update the previous game.)

Regarding 2, I love the current striking system but I've talked to a few who dislike it. They want significant changes to it and building on top of the mechanics of that current system isnt what they want.

I also still cant get past the financial aspect of it. In order to create more content, you need to hire more people. In order to hire more people, you need generate more revenue. I dont see how you generate more revenue under a F2P system for a game like this.

Right now, we all pay $60 bucks to get the game. I would pay probably $50 more for constant art updates. For simplicity sake, lets say EA structured it where its free to play but in order to play career mode its $20, an additional $20 to play ranked online and an additional $20 to get every other mode like KO mode.

Now, I dont give a **** about online. So I'm not going to pay $20 bucks for modes I dont use. So instead of the $60 (and additional money if they start selling DLC)....they are making $20 less from me. The same would be for a guy like Zombie who doesnt play offline at all. ****, Zombie would likely just pay the $20 for online and be done with it.

What I'm looking for is for someone to explain how this works in reality with this game. We want more content and more content means a bigger budget and more resources. Now EA is a corporation and they arent going to give a game a bigger budget unless they can see how it would help their bottom line. So I'm just wondering how you see this working where EA doesnt lose money.

[aholbert32]

Quote: Originally Posted by HypeRNT

Well to your first point about adding different modes, i am very familiar with apex legends and those games overall as i play them actively and participate in Esports. But i think adding game modes can always be done, i think that is the easier part of that model. The second point about the potential new grappling system being hard to overhaul, yeah 100% correct, that would probably be the main issue, but i think they would have to go the route with tweaking it instead of overhauling it if we did not like it when the game came out. As to revenue, the free2play mode seems to be by far the most popular and successful mode for games. The never ending content "ideas" always fetch a price(look at call of duty franchise, tons of DLC/MT) Overall, a good game usually never suffers from lack of funds with this kind of model because you can always make a couple skins that sell well and there you go, you got more funds. I think having the word "free" in front of something even though it will push you towards buying skins is the way to go these days. The bigger problem that i havent seen anyone talk about is the cheaters. On a $60 if you ban an account for cheating, its going to cost him on the black market $30+ for another account, on a free game, the accounts are free, so usually you see an influx of cheaters in free2play games because of the lack of consequences. Now its a console game, so its a bit different from PC cheaters which are rampant, but nonetheless they will be more present. Overall, i think if there was a f2p model for this game, i think it can be huge if properly promoted, much bigger player bases, things to do, and just overall if you are an mma fan its nothing but good for the sport/culture to see it grow.

This is true but none of those games have the overhead like a sports league licensed game has. The only thing that costs EA with Apex is production costs and marketing costs (which it appears they farmed out to Youtubers and game influencers, right. I didnt see alot of commercials). With Madden or FIFA or UFC, EA is paying a guaranteed license and then budgeting for production and marketing costs. The overhead is likely part of the reason why EA UFC has a smaller production team than other games.

That is why I have a hard time comparing it to Apex or Fortnite because those games have no licensing costs and no real overhead associated with it.

[HypeRNT]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

This is true but none of those games have the overhead like a sports league licensed game has. The only thing that costs EA with Apex is production costs and marketing costs (which it appears they farmed out to Youtubers and game influencers, right. I didnt see alot of commercials). With Madden or FIFA or UFC, EA is paying a guaranteed license and then budgeting for production and marketing costs. The overhead is likely part of the reason why EA UFC has a smaller production team than other games. That is why I have a hard time comparing it to Apex or Fortnite because those games have no licensing costs and no real overhead associated with it.

Oh for sure they are different games and face different challenges, but ufc is a known genre/game at this point, and it helps when you get your sport all over ESPN so the marketing itself should not be too hard. And yeah, ufc has more skin in the game so to speak and a smaller budget, but the overall outcome should be the same, once the game launches if its a successful launch money should flow pretty easily especially if there is added content.

We can also argue the same way for the b2p $60 version of the game, if people simply dont buy enough of them because its $60 then their production/license costs are still a problem, but then they face adding additional content for free or at least discounted.

At the end of the day, a company would not do a f2p if they did not think there was money to be made, especially a giant company like EA who does their research how to squeeze every penny from its consumers.

Our worry should not be about the financial side, it should be about the content/integrity of the game, how competition will be provided and balanced around the f2p idea.

[1212headkick]

**** any mode but universe and pride mode and most of the time this my opinion I hear holbert only talking about how something cant be done because it will hurt eas shareholders. Do the gamechangers represent us or ea? Most of the time were just told to **** off. I dont think pride mode or dlc funds would do anything but benefit the next game. I do not feel bad for corporations who will go to extreme lengths to milk money from their consumers. Ufc 3 isnt even complete. Several serious bugs still exist.the double lunge is game breaking. Hit detection and responsiveness is the worst ive probably played in any video game. If im able to see combos literally 3 seconds after i pushed the button the game is inherently broken

[johnmangala]

Quote: Originally Posted by aholbert32

In theory, yes. In practice.....I dont know. Creatively, sure it could benefit. GPD could continue to build upon this foundation. Now the only issue I have with your earlier post is it assumes 1) that a new grappling system will be better than the current one we have and 2) that the current striking system is loved by the majority of fans who buy this game. Regarding 1, the survey indicates that there will be a new or revised grappling system but that could be good or bad. They could decide to make it extremely easy in order to appeal to new and casual fans and you guys could hate that. In a F2P system, GPD would then start adding on top of a system that people dislike. In a annual or biannual system, EA could recognize that the system was bad and focus solely on creating a new one for UFC 5 (instead of having to update the previous game.) Regarding 2, I love the current striking system but I've talked to a few who dislike it. They want significant changes to it and building on top of the mechanics of that current system isnt what they want. I also still cant get past the financial aspect of it. In order to create more content, you need to hire more people. In order to hire more people, you need generate more revenue. I dont see how you generate more revenue under a F2P system for a game like this. Right now, we all pay $60 bucks to get the game. I would pay probably $50 more for constant art updates. For simplicity sake, lets say EA structured it where its free to play but in order to play career mode its $20, an additional $20 to play ranked online and an additional $20 to get every other mode like KO mode. Now, I dont give a **** about online. So I'm not going to pay $20 bucks for modes I dont use. So instead of the $60 (and additional money if they start selling DLC)....they are making $20 less from me. The same would be for a guy like Zombie who doesnt play offline at all. ****, Zombie would likely just pay the $20 for online and be done with it. What I'm looking for is for someone to explain how this works in reality with this game. We want more content and more content means a bigger budget and more resources. Now EA is a corporation and they arent going to give a game a bigger budget unless they can see how it would help their bottom line. So I'm just wondering how you see this working where EA doesnt lose money.

It all depends on execution and reception.

You will absolutely increase the player base going f2p, and things like an anonymity toggle would definitely ease more casuals in. The question is how well is the game mode to retain the player base.

Most casuals (and most people in general) want a fun not cumbersome experience. Grappling has been just that so far- lacks many features that stand up has, even tho they would fit right in (ie. stun states, mobility, grapple strike feints, etc). Striking was that, but has come a long way. Some may criticize it still but it does not require an overhaul like grappling, just refinements and functionality expansion.

TBS is exactly what would benefit casual and others alike. It would be more user-friendly as it's streamlined. Submissions and positions both would be fought over transitions. TBS wouldn't have to rely on gimmicky denials and transition feints, those being some of the primary complaints... sadly this hasn't been addressed by GCs or the devs much.

I assume the new grappling will be something like TBS- as other GCs like Zhunter, Zombie, and Solid Altair have confirmed they discussed incorporating something like TBS. That doesn't mean TBS will happen but I'd imagine something along those lines is how they would revamp it. Practically there is no other better concepts and it is something that people have been asking for.

This would all work in reality if the foundation is in place. Grappling needs that upgrade and then f2p is on the table- as f2p would increase the demand and scope in availability would widen too (especially if it comes onto gaming streaming services like Google Stadia) because the game would become more accessible to a wider audience as f2p.