Opinions for new FP system?

2

Comments

  • Retro_G
    28268 posts Player of the Year
    MUFC_420 wrote: »
    I'm guessing They'll start selling coins then on the Xbox/PS marketplace and make them ridiculously expensive

    If FPs were banned due to the gambling side of things then the only way they could sell coins would be if packs weren't allowed to be bought with coins as it would theoretically be the same thing.

    Also if they were selling coins they would have to have them reasonably priced or the media would crucify them. Same goes with if they ever decided to just sell players. I've seen loads of people say on here before if they ban FPs that EA will just sell players for extortionate prices but again they would have to be very careful as it could be a PR nightmare.

    I get what you're saying, EA will already have stuff ready no doubt, they might end up just giving packs as rewards, and when/if they sell coins that would only to be to buy players, it's like GTA money, they aren't cheap, I'd assume it would be something like that, but who knows🤷🏼‍♂️

    FUT wouldn't be near as popular if they went full on pay to win. They get away with now, because there is a transfer market and you can trade your way to a stacked team. If the only way to get a stacked team was from buying coins, the majority wouldn't play the mode. Plus if that bill gets passed in America, they won't be allowed to use any pay to win mechanics.
  • Waldog94
    1487 posts Play-Off Hero
    I'm guessing They'll start selling coins then on the Xbox/PS marketplace and make them ridiculously expensive

    Plot twist: they have been the ones running the illegal coin sites for years
  • Queens11
    122 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    MUFC_420 wrote: »
    I'm guessing They'll start selling coins then on the Xbox/PS marketplace and make them ridiculously expensive

    If FPs were banned due to the gambling side of things then the only way they could sell coins would be if packs weren't allowed to be bought with coins as it would theoretically be the same thing.

    Also if they were selling coins they would have to have them reasonably priced or the media would crucify them. Same goes with if they ever decided to just sell players. I've seen loads of people say on here before if they ban FPs that EA will just sell players for extortionate prices but again they would have to be very careful as it could be a PR nightmare.

    They would absolutely be crucified indeed even the very top player in the game even charging £10-£20 there would be a major outcry as that is expensive on top of £60 for the game
    the media would be all over that and would really put the company into scrutiny from both fifa and government bodies
    Maybe this is what needs to happen to get their shady and barely legal business practices out in the open
  • Agiantfox
    40 posts Last Pick at the Park
    The sooner loot boxes sorry surprise mechanics get banned the better.

    Need to follow Belgium and get rid of them maybe then either EA will actually have to make good gameplay or sell the license to someone else who can actually make a good football game..
  • paul24878306
    4717 posts Big Money Move
    For the player - ditch FP points, ditch packs, ditch In form and special player, ditch icons and SBCs..... Pay up front for the game, have the starting database all year (with realistic pace and stamina ffs) and work towards a known goal(rather than the constantly shifting ones we have now).

    For EA - charge more, bring out more special players and SBCs, drop the pack weight even further.

    What will happen - no change at all.
  • Noob_FC
    3149 posts National Call-Up
    No fifa points... period!!!
    No one should have advantage because of money. if you don't want to grind, play casual mode...
    There are so many wrong things in fifa....One of them is FP
  • paul24878306
    4717 posts Big Money Move
    edited June 24
    In fact, the best way, would be a subscription - £10 to £15 a month or so (given £60 for the stock game now, even £10 gives EA £120 per game). No special players or SCS etc - BUT floating player stats.

    So If a player has a good week - his stats go up a bit. If he has a bad week they go down. If he doesnt play his tech stats stay the same but stamina/pace go down (as hes not match fit).

    Which players are really good will change every week - so the market will be fine, but no stupid 99 stamina, 99 pace, 99 strength bullcrap. It will make having a squad - not just a team, or even better a pool of players to bring into that squad really worthwhile.

    They wouldnt need a new game every year, just patches if gameplay changes slightly or a new feature is introduced. Young players would develop - so picking up an 18 year old and holding him for a year or 2 may pay off. Older stars drop off over time.

    It would be a completely evolving game, squads mean something, prices mean something, no "meta"players as it all depends on if they play and how they perform every week.

    Im not a an of subscription models in general - but Id go for one based on that criterea. It would have the added benefit (to us) of EA having to get online gameplay working correctly. If its laggy/full of bugs etc people will just cancel the sub.
  • BernaLeo87
    344 posts Sunday League Hero
    bberger wrote: »
    GK93 wrote: »
    Get rid of em and stop charging customers more money when they don't invest it in the game anyway. Best solution
    Ben wrote: »
    Get rid of them ..if it means the end of UT then so be it.

    Those 2 qbove

  • SomeNextGuy
    2607 posts Fans' Favourite
    Back in the day, you bought a game and progressed based on the amount of time you out into it, and your skill level.

    Those were the days.
  • CUPO
    27 posts Last Pick at the Park
    In fact, the best way, would be a subscription - £10 to £15 a month or so (given £60 for the stock game now, even £10 gives EA £120 per game). No special players or SCS etc - BUT floating player stats.

    So If a player has a good week - his stats go up a bit. If he has a bad week they go down. If he doesnt play his tech stats stay the same but stamina/pace go down (as hes not match fit).

    Which players are really good will change every week - so the market will be fine, but no stupid 99 stamina, 99 pace, 99 strength bullcrap. It will make having a squad - not just a team, or even better a pool of players to bring into that squad really worthwhile.

    They wouldnt need a new game every year, just patches if gameplay changes slightly or a new feature is introduced. Young players would develop - so picking up an 18 year old and holding him for a year or 2 may pay off. Older stars drop off over time.

    It would be a completely evolving game, squads mean something, prices mean something, no "meta"players as it all depends on if they play and how they perform every week.

    Im not a an of subscription models in general - but Id go for one based on that criterea. It would have the added benefit (to us) of EA having to get online gameplay working correctly. If its laggy/full of bugs etc people will just cancel the sub.

    Donkey of the day award
    Dumbest idea ever
  • paul24878306
    4717 posts Big Money Move
    CUPO wrote: »
    In fact, the best way, would be a subscription - £10 to £15 a month or so (given £60 for the stock game now, even £10 gives EA £120 per game). No special players or SCS etc - BUT floating player stats.

    So If a player has a good week - his stats go up a bit. If he has a bad week they go down. If he doesnt play his tech stats stay the same but stamina/pace go down (as hes not match fit).

    Which players are really good will change every week - so the market will be fine, but no stupid 99 stamina, 99 pace, 99 strength bullcrap. It will make having a squad - not just a team, or even better a pool of players to bring into that squad really worthwhile.

    They wouldnt need a new game every year, just patches if gameplay changes slightly or a new feature is introduced. Young players would develop - so picking up an 18 year old and holding him for a year or 2 may pay off. Older stars drop off over time.

    It would be a completely evolving game, squads mean something, prices mean something, no "meta"players as it all depends on if they play and how they perform every week.

    Im not a an of subscription models in general - but Id go for one based on that criterea. It would have the added benefit (to us) of EA having to get online gameplay working correctly. If its laggy/full of bugs etc people will just cancel the sub.

    Donkey of the day award
    Dumbest idea ever

    Dont make stupid remarks wothout justifying why.
Sign In or Register to comment.