SpectralMeat wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 13:06:Oh I agree. The problem is that, while DLC will still sell, and sell well at that, it MIGHT (This is publisher thinking btw) not sell as much as it would if there was no content at all. And that's all it takes.Cpmartins wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 13:02:Doesn't always means that.Verno wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 12:43:Panickd wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 11:13:
On to 2143: given EA's new "we're going to monetize the shit out of every possible thing" business model, I don't think a Battlefield 2143 game would turn out all that great. In fact, quite the opposite.
I don't mind the map pack type stuff (the BF3 expansions were ok) that much but the lack of a map editor and the inconsistency in fixing problems with the game is really annoying. Other companies have demonstrated you can monetize users contributions to the game, EA is really behind the market in that regard and needs to shape up.
The problem is that, by choosing to allow monetization of user content, they are automatically choosing to give the liberty to those same players to distribute their content for free. And that, is not EA.
Look at Arma, they have the mod tools, players can create their own scenarios, etc., but Arma also have a bunch of game add ons and they were selling fine too.
Mod tools doesn't always means no DLC sales
For games like that however the devs and publishers better make sure the DLC is enough content and quality so that people will buy it.