Save BRINK or leave it die

(phoen1x) #1

Is it possible to save BRINK? I guess YES, but zenimax/bethesda or whoever owns BRINK publishing rights must release it as free to play game. I know it’s cheap now (not that cheap on steam, wonder why), but people don’t buy dead games anyway. So here is the deal (few people already stated it, but whatever).

  1. Release BRINK as f2p. (free weekends worked ok for BRINK, but u know not everybody wants to download game for 2 days)
  2. Some hype about it being free.
  3. Bigger fan base. SD would now be known to COD generation as BRINK creator (yeah they know that BRINK technical side sucked), they don’t know ET anyway.
  4. Release map pack for like 5 euro. PROFIT? I mean come on guys, like there are no alpha or beta maps which are not included in retail game and which u could finish very quickly without much effort and money?

Let’s be realistic if u ever gonna create BRINK 2 u better make it perfect. People learned lesson from BRINK 1 so basically u have no BRINK fan base. Would be nice if someone from SD could talk to bethesda/zenimax guys about this if they hadn’t before.

(tangoliber) #2

I don’t think f2p will help it anymore since the free weekends and 5 dollar sales only marginally helped it in the long run. And we’ve likely seen the final patch for Brink. (Developers rarely announce that they are ending support for a game…they usually just stop announcing new updates.)

Personally, I think the only thing we can do to help Brink at this point is to get people playing on stopwatch/no bot servers. I think the only longterm future Brink can possibly have…even in pubs…is in 3v3 or 2v2… with occasional 8v8s whenever lightning strikes.

(zenstar) #3

The game can’t suddenly go f2p… well, it can but there’d be no microtransaction sales and so the publishers / devs wouldn’t be making money from it. To make it properly f2p there’d need to be a lot of work done on the game to work in some sort of microtransaction: both the systems for it and the things they plan to sell too since I’m betting simple clothing would get old quickly, they’d need to add weapons and models… maybe a rental system instead of a sales system (rent XXX ubergun for 1 week).
And since the game is unlikely preforming at the level where it warrants spending large amounts of money on it, there isn’t going to be any more work done on it. Logical conclusion: enjoy what you have because that’s all you’re getting. Maybe their next game.

(tokamak) #4

Brink WAS frree then practically free to play and still nobody took the bait.

Brink is structurally flawed, it already has a large base of people that own it, it’s just that the game fails in keeping them around, no price stunts will change that.

(zenstar) #5

[QUOTE=tokamak;390331]Brink WAS frree then practically free to play and still nobody took the bait.

Brink is structurally flawed, it already has a large base of people that own it, it’s just that the game fails in keeping them around, no price stunts will change that.[/QUOTE]

I’d agree with this.
Free to play may see some more transient players coming through, but it’s already pretty damn cheap everywhere and very few people stick around very long with the game. It’s jsut not worth putting much more work into Brink. It’s worth gathering information for the next SD game, but it’s time to stick a fork into Brink: it’s done.

(tangoliber) #6

I think you could make a good f2p game in the Splash Damage style.

You would cut out loadout customization (I hate it anyway), and instead sell classes. Noncustomizable classes are better anyway, in my opinion, since they allow for more interesting balancing.
(Basically, it allows you to balance using weapons, abilities and bodytypes… not just by abilities. If the operative is too weak, you could buff his weapon instead of his abilities. If the engineer is too powerful, you could force him to only use the shotgun instead of nerfing his turrets or something. I feel that loadout customization sort of ends with everyone choosing the same weapons and bodytypes…and there isn’t a play between strengths and weaknesses…instead there are only strengths.)

You would have your 4 basic classes (in the Brink model) that everyone gets for free. Medic, Soldier, Engineer, Operative. The free classes would probably have the most ideal loadouts for general situations. For example, the standard medic might have a Kross, Adrenaline, Lazarus, Self-Ressurection, Double-health buff.

Then you sell alternative versions of those classes. They have different skins, weapons, abilities. You might have a heavy medic who comes with Field Regen Unit (which I believe is a reference to Shadowrun’s Tree)… Poison medic… whatever.
Something like the UAV is a perfect example of an ability for a premium class. Its fun to play with, and provides variety, and is not completely useless…(people would want to buy it)…but it is not necessary for competition.

The reason why I would approve of a f2p Splash Damage game, would be because it would probably have a very solid, but not too ambitious core… and it would receive balance updates and patches for as long as it is still generating revenue.

(zenstar) #7

They could definitely make a f2p game if they came into it with that mindset. And they could probably make a fairly engaging f2p game.

I’m not sure what you’d sell or how. The class idea sounds interesting, but i’m not sure that’d fly. I’d probably go more along the TF2 lines where the classes play differently based on special gear they’re equiped with. And the gear is wildly different and not simply a few points different in a coupe of fields when there are 100s making up each weapon.

But converting Brink into a free to play now is not going to happen (imo. I could be wrong).

(tokamak) #8

What’s more, it already exists!1

(zenstar) #9

hehe :slight_smile: yes. I think we were talking more about a f2p with microtransactions. You know, so they can make some money (or get some funding).

(tokamak) #10

Quakelive doesn’t need microtransactions does it?

But sure, I’d be paying a yearly or monthly fee for extra flexibilities and stats and an improved browser for W:ET. And from my experiences on Reddit I know that there’s many people who would be waiting for this. Everyone is familiar with W:ET and for most the obstacle is the rampant wild server modifications.

(BioSnark) #11

While it doesn’t have them, it may need them to make money.

(tangoliber) #12

Quake Live probably didn’t have anywhere near the development costs of Quake 4… since it was based on Quake 3. With a completely new game, you would probably need a lot more money to break even.

I feel like you could sell premium classes as I described above, because I believe it is possible to make them cool enough that people would want them. With each class having a different weapon, different ability variations and gadgets… I think people would pay…but only if the classes are cool and unique enough. And I suppose you could sell access to playlists with new maps or something.

Also, if you built the game around a clan system, there could be revenue potential there. Not just ladders and an invite/challenge system…but integrate recruiting, gameplanning, and scrimmaging into the system as well. Imagine that you can go into the clan tab, then into a tryout tab, and see a list of servers where different clans are trying out new members. Or an option to randomly get setup with other people who are looking for a clan. Imagine being able to schedule scrimmages inside the game, and allocate which players are on which team, and designate what classes they run for each objective. Imagine being able to set up various practice modes…such as one that allows you to run a specific objective over and over, or allows you to practice just the initial push over and over. A random scrimmage finder, a system to create your own tournaments with custom rules, a demo history of all clan matches that can be accessed and commented on by all members, etc. Obviously, professional teams don’t need this functionality, but what this does is encourage the casual players, from a very early stage, to team up with their friends and play other beginners. They might win a few matches and then get hooked. Then they might want to buy VIP status or whatever to get advanced clan management options.

I really think that the next big thing for fps games is going to be about enabling casuals from their very first hour to form clans, manage them, and get matches at their skill level…all within the game’s own menus. And I think that if a game does it right, that it can completely replace matchmaking/server browsing for most players. And when you get players sucked into a clan system, then they will often play the game for a very long time…and as a result will be more willing to put money into it.

(Ruben0s) #13

After they released the game they already let it die. They released a dlc that was supposed to be free , but after a month they said that it would be free for the people who played it within 2 weeks. The timing was perfect, they released it months to late during summer holidays, I missed it because I was on vacation. Not to mention how bad they kept us informed on what they were working on.

(Cynix) #14

I guess YES, but zenimax/bethesda or whoever owns BRINK publishing rights must release it as free to play game.

If they release it as a free game now they will effectively be sending the message “if you don’t buy our games we’ll give them to you for free” to a lot of people who passed on Brink originally because of negative reviews. In the end they don’t care how many people are playing their games, they care about how many people buy their games; and Brink actually sold respectably even though nobody plays it now.

like there are no alpha or beta maps which are not included in retail game and which u could finish very quickly without much effort and money?

Labs and Founders’ Tower; they’ve already exhausted that option.

(.Chris.) #15

Well yeah and no, if nobody is playing their games after such a short time who’s going to buy the next one? However in the grand scheme of things they have Elder Scrolls and Fallout so Brink not being popular isn’t going to harm them much.

(zenstar) #16

An established franchise is worth more than an individual title. If a lot of people bought Brink but the franchise name is negatively affected then noone is going to buy Brink 2.
If something sells well but gets bad publicity then it is a once-off. Something that drums up enough interest to warrant a sequel is worth more because it’ll sell 2 copies: the original and the sequel.
Bad publicity also sticks to the developer’s name and the publisher’s. A lot of people see a big name on a game and trust it’s good because “XXX wouldn’t publish something bad” or “YYY developed great game AAA. This will probably also be good”.

Of course if they plan on never dealing with the Dev team again then the publisher just cares about milking the one title and moving on.

(-XVX-) #17

Let it die.

None of you know, but some old W:ET friends and I were playing Civilizations V the other day ripping on SD for being stupid and not having a W:ET V. Why is it that Civilizations V is the 5th installment in basically the same game, but better and still sells well?

Why? Why SD did you think it was smart to deviate from what made your name?

Some of us remember New Coke.

Brink is New Coke.

Let it die.

(tokamak) #18

Yeah Enemy Territory is a solid name but I don’t think they own it.

(wolfnemesis75) #19

[QUOTE=>< V ><;390409]Let it die.

None of you know, but some old W:ET friends and I were playing Civilizations V the other day ripping on SD for being stupid and not having a W:ET V. Why is it that Civilizations V is the 5th installment in basically the same game, but better and still sells well?

Why? Why SD did you think it was smart to deviate from what made your name?

Some of us remember New Coke.

Brink is New Coke.

Let it die.[/QUOTE]Nah. Brink is NOT New Coke. That’s a stretch. None of the new IP titles released in 2011 fared well compared to Brand Titles. This is a given, imo. It is just a shock how quickly the rug was pulled out from any support for Brink by Bethesda.

(zenstar) #20

Yeah. I think Brink could have done really well if there were no bugs at launch and if there was more support. Launch bugs killed it for many people. It’d be a fun, casual pub game if it had the community for it, but not enough people stuck around to see through the bugs.

as for Civ V: Civ started off long before any of the enemy territory games and is only on the fith incarnation. Brink is (technically) the 3rd incarnation of the ET gameplay. I’d say they’re about even in the sequels for the time spent. The first Civ was 1991. The first ET was 2003
So Civs per year = 5/20 = 0.25 civilisation games per year since release.
ETs per year = 3/8 = 0.375 ET games per year since release.
if you don’t count Brink: ETs per year = 2/8 = 0.25 ET games per year since release.

So yeah, Civ isn’t really doing better than ET in the sequel stakes. It just has the advantage of an extra 12 years.