ME:A Multiplayer as Free to Play? [ Edited ]

[gngmelcalaniye]

First of all, let's get out the obvious... We were all shocked to notice that the multiplayer mode on a game we PAYED to get still had a cash shop for micro transactions.

But that also gave birth to the idea that the Multiplayer mode could be a free-to-play standalone title. 

First of all, the Multiplayer Mode is GREAT! I loved the co-op aspect of the game. There is no PvP where you have to compete against pro players on an unwinnable battle. Even a casual can co-op with a good player and help complete missions. Sure, sometimes it's a burden to "carry newbies" but that could be easily fixed.

Secondly, there is already an established cash shop, so there is nothing really to make changes to. 

Thirdly, the servers are already running, so the running cost is already somehow covered. So opening up the game as free-to-play won't bring any further costs. 

Lastly, if the game has moderate success (even 1/10th of the success APEX had), it could bring back life into the Mass Effect franchise. 

So, is there an actual drawback to releasing the Multiplayer mode as a Free-to-Play title? 

[SolCreed]

If they released it seperately, I'm guessig they'd need dedicated servers for that version. So the cost will probably be higher. 

That'll mean they'll keep the loot boxes anyway. As it covers those costs. 

[gngmelcalaniye]

@SolCreed I don't mind keeping the lootboxes, I don't even mind if they tweak their prices to cover server costs. Making the game f2p will introduce more people to the ME:A gameplay and many people can play with their friends without having them spend money to buy the actual game. There will also be an influx of players to populate the servers so you won't have to wait too long for Gold or higher difficulty missions to start.

Also, as it is, Mass Effect is considered by most as a "dead franchise". Releasing an already complete game mode as a free-to-play title will give back a spark on Mass Effect.

I seriously think Bioware/EA should consider this option.

[SolCreed]

@gngmelcalaniye It's pretty much considered "dead" because of Andromeda to be honest. Six years of devopment and out pops Andromeda. The only game to spend that much time in development and come out worse was Assassin's Creed Unity.

[gngmelcalaniye]

@SolCreed Agreed. But it's the story mode that had the most issues that "killed" the game, the multiplayer was pretty much fine from the start. The only issue it had was population, since more and more people were spreading how "bad" the game was, many took a step back and didn't buy the game.

One more argument can be what Epic did with Fortnite. They released the Battle Royale mode to promote their Core "Save the World" game and the game became famous. Not only Epic created a studio to develop and market their stand alone BR title but a LOT of players purchaced their "Save the World" title just because they liked the BR one (I'm one of them!). I really don't see any drawbacks for EA/BW to make such a move.

[SolCreed]

@gngmelcalaniye Aye, the SP bugs did sort of kill the MP with it, I'll agree with you there (at least none of them were horrifying like AC Unity).

I'd prefer they focus on getting anorher good SP entry out of the series. I think the inexperience of the team involved with massive game worlds kind of didn't help that much and given a bit of experience to help them. They could save this trilogy and perhaps a MP can be reintroduced later on, but the foundation of the franchise needs to be repaired first.