Gethsemani said:
Let me look at this in another way: Game servers are expensive and all the modern day Bf servers are still running. Just like Windows handed out Win 10 like candy to anyone with a legit copy of a legacy OS, EA is probably trying to herd its' player base into one game. If you can get sufficient turn over from Hardline or BF4 to justify turning off those servers you've just saved a ton of cash and created goodwill in the target demographic. Since EA are also looking to include microtransactions in the game eventually, getting players in and invested prior to asking them to spend cash for BattleBucks (or whatever its name), is a smart move.
That's all possible, but neither of these seem likely. Regarding the MTXs first, if they plan to add them later, I reckon they're only making things worse. The game will make most of its money at and shortly after release (ie. November/December Holiday season). If they introduce them later, there won't be enough people left to monetise. Consider Shadow of War, famously undermining it's entire premise by stuffing orcs into lootcrates. A year later, once they made as much money as they were likely to, the MTX store was removed, likely alongside a blurb about "listening to the players".
As for the servers, if they wanted to save money and earn goodwill, they could always give players private servers back, like in ye olden days. I don't think that is enough of an issue to justify deeply discounting your brand new "AAA" franchise entry while it's still brand new. The reason games get discounted is that after 3 months, everyone who was going to buy it at full price has done, so they drop it 25% and another bunch of people will pick it up at the reduced price. 9-12 months later it's 50% off since everyone who wanted it at 100% and 75% already has it, and then eventually it's just priced at $15-20. Not enough people are buying this game at full price, so server lobbies are probably taking ages to pop. Most of the copies that have been sold were in bundles, not even bought specifically. In EA's case, I'm more inclined to believe the most cynical thing than a clever ploy to manipulate player bases, especially when BF5 has as many issues/controversies as it does.
I think Windows 10 was a different story. The freebies served two purposes IMO: getting everyone onto the new upgrade track, with all the patches/updates they release and which we have *no choice* in installing and secondly, to get people using the Store/UWP Apps. Apple makes more money from its App Store than from all of its other ventures *combined*, Valve's 30% cut of Steam sales means they don't need to make games anymore and Microsoft want their 30% slice of the cake. I would also suggest that it's part of MS's current strategy.
While Gates will be remembered for Windows, Office and anti-trust, and Ballmer will be remembered for Vista, Bing and chanting "developers, developers, developers, developers", this new guy's whole schtick is a) unification and b) cloud. They have been unifying all the different platforms (XBox, Desktop, Tablet/Mobile) since Windows 8 clumsily introduced "Metro" and Windows RT stuff. Windows 10 is the culmination of all that stumbling around with apps, powerpc chips, embedded OSes, Windows 8/8.1, RT, XBox, etc. One code base, all platforms, that's what UWP is meant to do. That's why XBox games can now be had in the Windows Store. As for Cloud, that's all about Azure, OneDrive/Sharepoint and Office 365, basically at the business/enterprise level they're trying to move organisations onto subscription models (like Adobe has done). Subs are the gifts that keep on giving and Office 365, like Apple's App Store, keeps people tied into a proprietary platform once a user/org is heavily invested in it.
