EA Flip-Flops On Battlefield: Heroes Pricing, Fans Angry 221
An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield: Heroes, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to levels that even hardcore players cannot afford, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money). Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive. This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers. Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing. We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy. Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game."
EA (Score:2, Insightful)
Showing it's true colors, once again.
Getting "hooked" into a free game by EA is just asking for it. Without lube.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, isn't that the purpose of demos? Getting people like the game so they will buy it? Or are you implying that the game developers should work without income from it?
This model is actually even better than demos; you get the full game to try out.
Re: (Score:2)
This was never supposed to be a demo, not if you believe all the press releases, previews, etc. They claimed this would be a completely free game, where you could use real money to customize your character's appearance, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Not demo per se, but still a commercial game where you've supposed to spend some money. Just look at how the games are in Korea, they follow this exact route with everything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which Korean games promised that paying customers would get no advantages over the freeloaders, and then went back on that promise?
Entitlement psychology (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah those bastards. getting to work on something as fun as writing games AND expecting to get paid for it too!!!
Seriously.
They made a mistake. I'll give the game designers the benefit of the doubt. They tried a business model, saw that it cannot sustain their company, and are trying to change the strategy, for better or worse.
I bet the same people who want to get all the content for free, are the same people who whine about prescription drug prices. "Why charge me $20 for a pill that costs $0.0002 to make?". They don't care how much money and effort went into making the product, or about all the people who have mortg
Re: (Score:3)
I bet the same people who want to get all the content for free, are the same people who whine about prescription drug prices. "Why charge me $20 for a pill that costs $0.0002 to make?". They don't care how much money and effort went into making the product, or about all the people who have mortgages to pay and children to feed who worked on it... they just want everything to be delivered to them for FREE, because they're the only people in the world who matter.
People aren't whining about prescription drug prices because of the difference between the price and the cost to make. They are whining because drug companies are making exorbitant amount of money, most of which is ending up in the pocket's of CEO's. Unless the CEO has like 2 billion mouths to feed and has a mortgage on an entire Caribbean island, I'm pretty sure these whiny people are justified.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"People aren't whining about prescription drug prices because of the difference between the price and the cost to make. They are whining because drug companies are making exorbitant amount of money, most of which is ending up in the pocket's of CEO's. Unless the CEO has like 2 billion mouths to feed and has a mortgage on an entire Caribbean island, I'm pretty sure these whiny people are justified."
You should add that the only reason that the drug companies are making this money is because they have their ow
Times are a changing.. (Score:3, Informative)
Well I guess that the 'stated objectives of the game' have changed then.
Reminds me a bit of 'Ultimate Team' in FIFA09 (and soon FIFA10) where you can earn points to pay the wages of a top team, but realistically you'd have to buy the card packs in order to fund having a top team, making a two tier system where you can only compete by spending real money.
It sucks, but it is the way it is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with EA/DICE right now is the dishonesty they have shown. They made this change without a warning. They did a BattleFunds sale and bundles offers in other equipment in the weeks prior to this change. Many people who spent BFs this weekend on these items have found now that they have to unexpectedly spend more money to use them.
And they completely continue to miss the point of all the complaining users. They say that the game is still free, and that you can still have fun without paying a penny.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They say that the game is still free, and that you can still have fun without paying a penny. The point is that they destroyed the very core claim of not giving combat advantage to paying customers, and backstabbed the whole user community in the process. Still, no one in the dev/mods team has actually acknowledged it.
This is actually fairly common style with Korean MMO's and multiplayer games. It seems to work good there and players like it, so it's not a surprise companies want to try it on western markets too.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is actually fairly common style with Korean MMO's and multiplayer games. It seems to work good there and players like it, so it's not a surprise companies want to try it on western markets too.
I agree. It is a game model I don't like, so I stay away from those kind of games.
When I started playing BFH, this was the main selling point for me. It was a very bold claim, but they said it everywhere. It is on the official trailer. It is on the official FAQ (now updated). They said it in several interviews [youtube.com]. Now, I feel cheated.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least if it's free you didn't need to invest any up-front money to get started. You can just walk away and they won't get any [more] money from you.
Maybe if enough people do the same the penny - or the equivalent in BattleBucks - will drop.
Re: (Score:2)
And why should everything involving computers be free? Yeah, we've got used to that by the availability of warez and so on. But it really is not good. Developers really need those sales. And hell, they're usually on prices that are equivalent to a few hours in a movie, while with game you actually get hundred hours of fun out of it.
Bad game? No problem, as this model actually is the one that lets you experience the game and lets you see it before paying anything. The only problem is that people think it's b
Re: (Score:2)
Except you can't try the whole thing, only a part. No thanks, I'll pass and let reviews and traditional demos help me choose which game (with an up-front full cost) I want to play.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe they should try an old-school marketing model then: lower the price, and more people will buy it.
Re: (Score:2)
I've bought into the game a little, and came to realize some things. The bottom line is that you would spend A LOT more money on this game than just buying one off the shelf in order to make it fun. It's not a situation where spending $20 is the end of it. The really nice stuff (like bandages and wrenches) can make you really hard to beat, but you'll be spending $50 A MONTH keeping up with that if you play regularly. I get the feeling that the people who are "the best" at the game are kids with rich parents
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of like real war then.
Re: (Score:2)
True enough. However, they should make this clear upfront and not change the model after the fact and expect everyone to be happy. Korean MMOs use this model but they tell you this upfront during development. They don't claim it's free and then do a bait and switch after release and it's now micro-payments. The
Re: (Score:2)
Well it's not like games industry is completely changing. Even DICE is still mostly making games that are sold the normal way (bad company 2 in a few months!), but I think this is a venture to see if the korean "offer free game, profit from ingame items" works in western countries too.
It's not really that bad model either, from customer point. You get to see the game without spending anything, so it's even better than just a demo. But the developers obviously have to cover costs and make income somehow, so
Re:Times are a changing.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, but the problems is the flip-flop, not the model they chose.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Times are a changing.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually that's the perfect demo, just not one that is conducive to EA/DICE making alot of money and building a player base.
To be honest though, I d/led the game over the holiday and gave up trying to play it after about two hours of trying to find a server I could play on.
Oh, I could get connected to any number of servers, but each one I'd hit had one or two other players and thus was permanently in 'pre-play' phase and would reboot the map every 30-45 seconds when one of the other players would leave and drop us back below the required player limit.
I understand how people feel, it's like getting invested in a Joss Whedon/FOX project (or really any Sci-Fi FOX show since X-Files). Do you really want to invest your time and emotion towards something that is doomed to be canceled in a year?
Similarly, people got invested into BF:H thinking it'd live up to it's promises. Now no one 'owes' them anything in the contractual sense, but a good deal of the effort and interest of the player base was only put forward into this game under the understanding that the game would not be changed to a 'pay to play' model. And without that investment, BF:H would never have gotten enough of a player base to even last this long. So pulling a switchero is a betrayal in a real sense, regardless of what's owed to whom.
However, on the other hand, EA has a similar reputation as FOX does, and anyone who went into this wide-eyed and dreaming of a bold new world where the game was never going to slide this direction either wasn't paying attention or is new enough to the gaming scene that they legitimately own the title n00b. You don't put your faith in EA. They aren't your friends.
Re: (Score:2)
but I thought D&D still held onto some version of the 'no ultimate advantage of paying, just acceleration of acquisition/advancement' model. Supposedly you can't get anything by paying that you couldn't eventually earn by playing, or did this change?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, it didn't change. The more quests you complete for factions, the more Turbine Points you get. Or you can buy them for real money. Or you can pay $15 a month for a subscription & get access to "pay" quests when they come out & an allotment of Turbine Points each month. I've been playing since the beta & haven't spent a dime of real money. You can buy items with Turbine points, but at most the are only slightly better than the items you can find. I.e. a Bull Strength potion that lasts 4x
Re: (Score:2)
And you're forgetting here that the actual game is free. So what it basically comes to is if you rather pay $60 for the game fully, or if you rather pay for it as item micro-payments after you've noticed the game actually is fun.
Re: (Score:2)
However - regardless whether there is an obligation to the players or not, it's a silly move to make the game boring. There is stuff which you can sell which does not interfere with the game itself: e.g. a nicer user interface, character outfits, access
Re:Times are a changing.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Since the player with the most money wins anyway, it would be too boring for me."
Maybe too boring for you but the Yankees have proven time and again that such a model does work in professional sports.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Since the player with the most money wins anyway, it would be too boring for me."
How is that any different from "the player with the most spare time" wins? If you don't have the free time available to do the massive grind effort needed to get the best gear to be competitive most of the existing online games, it is terribly frustrating - and franky, I dont really want to burn that much of my life playing a game, due to real world commitments, relationships etc. On the other hand, people that have lots of time to burn playing games are less likely to have the ready cash to buy expensive u
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you liked Quake, you'll probably like Nexuiz [alientrap.org].
Play that for a while, and it will make you realize we don't need those bastards like EA.
Re: (Score:2)
It works, if you are on the Yankees.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in that case, they made it more like real-world sports, didn't they?
Re: (Score:2)
I think the crucial difference there is that in real-world sports extra money only affords you better players. It's not like an underfunded baseball team has to play with a wiffle bat, while a grossly overfunded team gets to use a bazooka to pitch.
Relevant (Score:2, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGmcVUheFa0
1:09
Matchmaking? (Score:2)
In essence, players are whining because they no longer get their 1337 epix but the actual game doesn't change at all. Their ranking / points / whatever will be lower than that of people who pay, but they will not be playing against those guys.
Re: (Score:2)
This was previously true. They matched by ELO - so all the sucky players would see each other.
Now you are matched by "experience" (aka amount played), which most likely means you will have a mix of players who are using the default "lame" weapons, and the paying customers using the upgraded "uber" weapons. Guess who does better?
Not fun.
Don't like it? Don't pay them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?
As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.
Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?
As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.
Exactly. If enough gamers reuse to buy their stuff; they will either change their model or go out of business. As a side note, I wonder what their reaction would be if players in game asked others not to spend real money and to spread the word to do the same? Their own game could be the used to spread a viral protest against the game.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. If enough gamers reuse to buy their stuff; they will either change their model or go out of business.
Dont you mean kill off a once profitable and good game developer that they took over?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Don't like it? Don't pay them. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If people find value and want to spend the money, they're going to spend it. Furthermore if nobody else buys the stuff, then it becomes even more attractive for people to buy it. This happens until equilibrium.
You can't fight markets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen this countless times. Duels, OGame, Popmundo, etc., etc. Producer implements pay-for-advantage stuff, players get angry, they yell, grumble, gnash their teeth then silently go ahead and buy the stuff. It's the addiction and the fear of losing the edge that drives them to buy and buy, just like a herd.
In Ogame, hardcore players organized special alliances to hunt and destroy those who pay for advantages in game. This lasted for a couple mo
Re: (Score:2)
It's still a cleaner system than anything else I've seen, because it keeps it all within the game's normal economy. Cheap players can keep playing for essentially free, and rich dudes can get the stuff that they would have paid someone to gold farm anyway. It at least *feels* like much less of a money grab.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it makes a lot of sense to say that in a game like that, there are going to be people who exchange real money for in game money. There's obviously a huge demand for it, because there's a big industry that's sprung up to fill that demand. Once you accept that it's going to happen whether you like it or not, it makes a lot of sense to provide a somewhat controlled system for it, that allows you to monitor it as well as maybe even make a little extra money off of it.
Not to mention that it makes your "m
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon my good sense, but isn't the only real response to this for anyone who isn't satisfied to just stop paying them anything at all and go play something else?
As with any situation where a dev doesn't give the players what they want, the only way to send a message is to stop paying for a sub-par product and go support something that you enjoy.
Yes, it is. But, good sense and "real" has nothing to do with a lot of complaints in this type of situation, where a largely free service goes paid. Much of it has to do with Customer Nazi Syndrome and the notion that companies are immediately evil for vulgar displays of seeking profit. After all, if one mentions revenue and such, one must be engaged in ripping someone off.
In a situation such as this, where there is very little comment necessary other than the negative, it might seem as if they are t
Re: (Score:2)
Yes that's correct. However gamers tend to fall into the bitch but play it anyways crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't a bunch of folks buy a game, with a stated pricing and gameplay model?
And then later, EA changed the pricing and gameplay model to something that makes more money?
Sounds like classic bait and switch to me.
They probably need to be sued for this one...
So stop playing? (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to play. Ok its fun but if its not worth paying to continue that fun move on to something else. Its not like it does anything new or better than the many many other games out there. This is the one time a boycott of a game would actually make a difference, they don't have your money yet so stop playing and a more amenable pricing policy may be worked out if it isnt there are many other choices out there.
So? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since EA/DICE are the only makers of FPS, we have to buy this game...
'scuse me, I'll be in Team Fortress 2 if you need me. There I get weapon upgrades for free and they're more fluff and fun than necessary to be competing. Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price. No sale.
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price. No sale.
Battlefield Heroes is more like Quake Live; in that you can play the game for free through a web-browser interface. So you don't buy it "at full price" as such. Instead you create a character, log on, and play for free with some ads on the logon pages and such. However by playing, or paying, you get a type of points that you can use on certain types of items and gear; though these are not essential to playing as it is at the moment.
I believe that previous stated goal was to finance the game through ads and "micropayments"; so I really can't see why this change comes as any great surprise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's technically possible. Just multi-host your servers with different IP addresses going through different providers. Then make the "deadbeats" connect to the IP address that goes through Cogent.
The client would automatically know which one to connect, and the server can refuse the connection if you try to hack it otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You can increase latency on a per IP basis on Linux or *BSD. The gameserver itself could delay stuff.
I'm not sure how that will increase long term game profitability though. Not even sure if it will significantly increase short term profitability.
Re: (Score:2)
"The issue is that in the beginning we where told that nothing you could buy for "real money" would give you an advantage over non-paying players."
If it gives no competitive advantage then why in the world would it be worth real money?
Seems to me that they did an initial forecast as to the game's cashflow and profitability, potential ad revenue, and so on. They then tried it out in the real world and found out that people weren't buying enough pretty clothes and other useless items, nor was the ad revenue w
Re: (Score:2)
Many people spend money on decorative stuff in games. Stuff that doesn't give them competitive advantage in the actual game itself.
In real life lots of people spend a lot of money on decorative stuff too. They don't work better (heck some of it doesn't work at all except as a decoration).
But in the other sorts of games and metagames they might be worth it...
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but paying to be playing competitively is something I'd expect in a F2P game with an ingame store, but not in a game that I buy at full price.
That's exactly what Battlefield Heroes [battlefieldheroes.com] is - it's free to play. Apparently, the revenue wasn't enough so they are adjusting aspect of the game to get more money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I haven't played it. But it's very likely that I never will because I can pretty much predict where it's leading.
Correct me if I got this wrong please: The game rewards you with "points" for playing "well" (i.e. winning), and with these points you can rent equipment (i.e. rent gun X for Y hours) or buy consumables (like bandages or buff items). You can as well get these points for cash. What does this mean?
Now, to be worth these points, this equipment has to give you an edge over the other players. This
Honest from the start (Score:2, Flamebait)
You have to admit that he's right about needing to pay wages and such...but they should have been honest from the start. "Bait and switch" comes to mind here.
I don't play this particular game and I'm very selective about what I do play for reasons such as this. I was leery about my Steam account before all the crap with Modern Warfare 2 and was annoyed that I had to register for Steam when I bought my copy of Portal off a retail shelf a while back. I had to go online, but was able to tweak the settings s
Re:Honest from the start (Score:5, Insightful)
Again, though...they need to be honest from the start and not change things suddenly.
I don't think it's dishonesty so much as, "we thought this model would make money and we were wrong". Find me a business that continues to keep its promises even when it means pouring money down the drain and I'll show you a business with shitty management. It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.
One other note: I'm seeing a lot of people here and on the forums saying things like, "This is a terrible decision! They'll drive the players away and lose money!", which is kind of silly logic. They were already losing money. They could either stick with the plan that is unprofitable, or they can go with a new plan that might be unprofitable. Sort of a no-brainer.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sucks for the players, but if they weren't generating enough revenue, EA sort of has no choice here.
Thank you for using common sense. So many people are getting irritated about a business no longer giving freeloaders the same priority as paying customers. This is ridiculous. You know how Valve keeps all their customers on the same level? Everyone pays to get in. A company that works for free won't be working for very long.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody plays empty MMOs.
The game is not new, so it's unlikely to attract many new players.
Old players will just abandon it or continue playing free.
Also, I wonder about aftermarket for items the hardcore players already got. "Not gonna grind another 1000 hours to get X, but I have Y which suddenly costs good $50. So let's sell it to some sucker."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem here is that they continue to insist nothing has changed - while it is quite clear that the new business model is completely different. Thats what is so infuriating - the refusal to admit that anything has changed, while the core philosophy of the game is completely different.
Previously you could only buy "fluff" (emotes, costumes, skins for your weapons) - and they asked you to spend your $$$ to "help the game".
Now the in-game currency you could earn from play is worthless, no one can afford to
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to get different outfits in the game is to buy them. Nearly everyone but myself seems to do this. I guess they weren't making enough with that approach. Maybe you should need to rent your clothes?
Re: (Score:2)
"Bait and switch" comes to mind here.
"Bait and switch" [wikipedia.org] would mean that there are malicious intent behind it. I find it more likely that they tried the revenue model, found that it doesn't provide enough money and are tweaking the game to make it more attractive to send them money. The alternative, eventually, would be to shut it down - or at least put less developer effort and/or servers at it.
As users haven't invested anything in the product - just played which is supposed to be fun - I don't think "
Re: (Score:2)
Point taken.
"Bait and switch" was possibly the wrong term to use.
Again...I'm on the outside with this game. Do players have to purchase anything to get started playing it? If it's a totally free game, then paying extra for more stuff seems fair to keep the game servers alive. However, if they had to purchase the game and then pay MORE to get fancier stuff on top of the original purchase price (after being told that they wouldn't have to), then that does get close to a "bait and switch", even if they had
Re: (Score:2)
It was free to start, but players were - even last week - told that they could buy (and spend) "Battlefunds", but never to buy in game advantages. So there are many players who spent money on clothing, when they should have saved their $$$s for weaponry. Definitely a bait and switch.
From their own FAQ (with my updates):
Quote:Battlefunds can NOT be used to buy yourself a real advantage in the game. I.e. you cannot buy bigger, better weapons with Battlefunds
OUT OF DATE - weapons c
Re: (Score:2)
been playing multiplayer games for 15 years now.. I haven't had to pay the publisher anything bu the $50 or so for the game itself.. no no, the real issue is that they want MORE...and they want to retain control of the product after you buy it.
Given that the game is 'freemium' (free to play, better if you pay), that argument doesn't hold for BFH (they obviously need people to pay to make the same $50/person). It does hold true for MW2, though, at $60 with only Infinity Ward-provided matchmaking.
Er what? (Score:2)
So people have to buy stuff from you to get free content?
Run that by me again?
Re: (Score:2)
They have a development staff that needs to eat. People don't pay. They don't eat. If they don't eat, they don't develop and expand the game. If the game doesn't expand, people leave.
What is their definition of free? (Score:2)
By earning more money of some players they will be able to release "free" content?
Battlefield was a really nice game ... but with Version 2 they have screwed up. DICE released unfinished addons for half the price of a new game (1-2 new maps, 1-2 new weapons). The addon's were bug ridden (more than the origina
Re: (Score:2)
War is expensive (Score:2)
Forcing those in charge of the troops to spend massive amounts of money-- well beyond initial estimates-- in order to properly arm and care for those troops?
Sounds like they're getting the "realistic" part into the combat simulators after all.
(Except for that you can still buy armor)
Charging a monthly fee is more palatable (Score:2)
I'd be much more willing to start paying a monthly fee for game access if the company were going bankrupt than to tolerate corruption of the game by allowing externalities like paying real money for game advantage.
Losing to someone not because you play worse or you have bad luck, but rather because that guy simply outspent you, is just completely demoralizing and I'd abandon any competitive game that allowed this.
A monthly access fee seems fair and equitable, though. They're providing you a valuable entert
I can't really argue too much with this. (Score:2)
Free as in Pay (Score:2)
Once upon a time (Score:2)
robbery? (Score:2)
wish they'd learn from layoffs (Score:2, Insightful)
Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.'
You know, most businesses take a step back to figure out why they had to lay people off. If EA took a moment to figure out that customers don't like it when they get screwed and pirate their games in vengeance, then maybe they'd be doing better. I don't know about you guys, but I'm still sore about the whole DRM thing.
Sorry, I guess this is a redundant comment for "EA strikes again".
EA has a company wide directive for online revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
Electronic Arts has an internal mandate to have about 15% or more of the games revenue happen from online activities. The top management does not care too much about how this goal is acheived. For some games, this is from premium content (extra levels). Some games get more creative with it.
Multiplayer FPS games though are in a bit of a bind. The point of such games is to make sure you can play with anyone else who is online. The most popular levels will never be premium content that you had to pay to own. But powerups that anyone can use in any map? Those are something you can try to monetize.
As a player, I am not convinced that these sort of powerups are the optimal way to monetize that content. There is just too narrow a window for the power and utility of those power ups. If they are really worth paying for, then the rest of the customers become 2nd class players. If they are not very powerful, who the hell would actually buy them?
If they catch enough blowback on this, they will probably abandon this type of effort and try to come up with a better idea. But everyone knew that this particular kind of fee based content had to be tried at least once, and even 8 years ago, you would probably have guessed that EA would be the first company to actually try to do it.
I am not really annoyed that they tried this. I just hope it does not become an industry wide trend to let customers buy an advantage against the other players.
END COMMUNICATION
Re:EA has a company wide directive for online reve (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They did this model and people were buying. Lots of people actually.
This was a profitable venture. The engine was developed years ago. The paid staff for this game is less than 10 people. Possible closer to half a dozen full time people. So the question isn't about being profitable, but about being MORE profitable.
Probably planned all along. (Score:2)
(1) Attract users with free content and paid content.
(2) Develop a game culture/ecosystem.
(3) Dump the freeloaders.
(4) Profit?
From TFA, you only rent assets? What binds you to the game then? Stupid rank is no big deal once you've already made the max.
Game sucks (Score:2)
Upset users? (Score:2)
BFH Will Fail (Score:2)
EA laid off 16% of their workers alienating gamers (Score:2)
Charge for a Client or a Subscription (Score:2)
Charge for a Client or a Subscription, NEVER BOTH, and not for anything else. One or the other. The occasional expansion is OK.
i don't play any games that allow player trade or have currency. When i have, i found it to a be dick in the eye when someone would buy what i spent hours earning. i quit WoW the day i had my credit card in hand about to buy gold.
Howabout this, let's allow football teams to field as many players as they can afford. The teams that try to play honestly will find themselves outnum
What do you expect? (Score:2)
Game developers are getting away with this because the consumers let them. For every gamer outraged there are two others pouncing on him with criticism. Those others are perfectly comfortable and more than happy to part with their money. They're the sort of people who value entertainment more highly than principles.
If there were solidarity amongst the gaming public where everyone stood up against this these practices would end overnight. But what do you expect from a segment of the consumer population that
Re: (Score:2)
While I didn't like the games in between, BF: Bad Company is actually a great game. Tons of fun in multiplayer; I like hiding in bushes and snipering, and this is the only game besides the original Operation Flashpoint that has done that part good. And BF: Bad Company 2 will be released in a few months and for PC this time too, so I'm greatly waiting for that (and so are users disappointed at MW2's no-dedicated-servers thingie)
Re: (Score:2)
And I *REALLY* miss the VSS.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah i was going to say, bf heroes is more of an attempt to build on the success of tf2, using the name and ip of bf to raise it's profile amongst users. bf heroes is "free to play, $$$ to be competitive" while tf2 is $20 ($2.50-9.99 on steam sale, usually 2-3 times a year) once, with new content every 2-3 months... pick your poison. tf2 isnt nearly as popular as counter-strike source, but it's close enough, and seems to have "long term support" from valve. i can see a lot of bf heroes players jumping ship
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"... nor do I think that I should constantly pay for a game..."
They provide a continual, ongoing service, and you think that you're entitled to it forever?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what your local free papers are like, but the ones over here are very light on news - usually something about a new stopsign being erected, council member's opening of a mall or something of equal significance - and about 80% advertisements. Do you really want a game like that?
Re: (Score:2)
I highly recommend Team Fortress 2.