EA exploring subscription model for future Battlefield titles

no_1_dave

no_1_dave

no_1_dave

Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2004
Posts
8,385
Location
Gloucester
Not sure if this has been posted yet, can't find anything.

Seems EA maybe looking to a subscription model for future battlefield titles :(

EA is considering adopting a subscription model for future Battlefield titles, according to the publisher's games chief Patrick Soderlund.
When asked by VentureBeat whether it was considering switching to a subscription-based delivery system, Soderlund replied:
"I think it's fair to say that we're looking at that. Like all other companies, we're looking at how we can maximise our investment in this and get the most out of our investment and get more people playing this product.
"That may take us to different places, but we're not really talking about where that is yet."
Soderlund gave no indication as to what form such a subscription set-up might take.
Rival shooter Call of Duty recently introduced its premium Elite service that offers paid subscribers regular DLC drops months ahead of standard users.
Elsewhere in the interview, Soderlund explained that EA views Battlefield 3 as a full-time, ongoing service for its customers.
"We look at it as a 24/7 service. We have people in Stockholm and North America and other parts of the world that are on this every single hour of every single day. 365 days a year. We have an operations team at DICE to look at telemetry data.
"How are people playing the game, how can we improve the experience? Are they having problems? Are servers down? Are they up? All that stuff."
Click to expand...
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...scription-model-for-future-battlefield-titles
 
while nobody likes it if the majority play it and pay for so will others simple as that

it will happen its happening in cod and it will happen in bf

next..
 
McBain said:
In short, they can shove it up their ring if they go subscription based.
Click to expand...

They can shove it now IMO with their current games.

They have no respect for the subscription model.

iRacing uses the subscription model to finance a better product for subscribers, this I agree with.

E.A would use it to fill their pockets the money grabbing, good for nothing ***** sters.
 
If they made the client free and gave the DLC free, then something like £8 a month wouldn't be bad at all really.
 
If the new DLC packs sell really well I wouldn't be surprised if they did something with a sub model, as much as I dislike it things like call of dutys dlc packs (even at high prices) sell really well and quite a large portion of players would probably try a sub model.

I'd imagine it would be more of a case of micro-transactions for cosmetic gears, tags etc rather than seeing a full blown subscription title first.
 
Nymins said:
If they made the client free and gave the DLC free, then something like £8 a month wouldn't be bad at all really.
Click to expand...

What?!? BF3 is currently £20 on Origin, and £6 for the expansion. So you'd be loosing money after three months!

Paying monthly for an MMO makes sense because you have to pay for the servers which need to cope with all the players connecting to them. What ongoing costs do they have in BF3? People are already paying for their own servers, the continuing development costs are met by the costs of the expansion packs.

Go play Planetside 2 when that's released. You get the full MMO experience with hundreds of players, and its even going to be F2P, but you can spend your £8 a month there instead.
 
If it is:

Client is free
Subs per month
All game content included

Then you can live with that as over the year, if you like the game, it would not cost a large amount and the game should have more development compared to the traditional E.A approach of "patch as little as possible to save money".

HOWEVER, it will likely be:

PAY for the client.
Pay a Sub
Pay for DLC
Pay to get butt **** by E.A

A word of warning, I am a Tiger Woods online player which uses a F2P/Subscription model and E.A have done nothing but **** over the subscribers since launch with minimal game progress, they are happy to take the cash but not much else. A terrible company.
 
i don't understand how this works unless they pay for the servers we play on as well??

you just end up paying much much more over time.

i agree if they pay for the servers then there is an on going cost that needs to be covered, but why should I host a server at my own expense for people to play on while lining EA pockets on a monthly basis.

:confused::confused:
 
iviv said:
What?!? BF3 is currently £20 on Origin, and £6 for the expansion. So you'd be loosing money after three months!

Paying monthly for an MMO makes sense because you have to pay for the servers which need to cope with all the players connecting to them. What ongoing costs do they have in BF3? People are already paying for their own servers, the continuing development costs are met by the costs of the expansion packs.

Go play Planetside 2 when that's released. You get the full MMO experience with hundreds of players, and its even going to be F2P, but you can spend your £8 a month there instead.
Click to expand...

Yea the server thing is a good point.

I'm more of a casual gamer, so paying something like £8 and only play for a month, then taking a break and then going back would be something that would appeal to me. But I can see the issues with the model though :)
 
Nymins said:
Yea the server thing is a good point.

I'm more of a casual gamer, so paying something like £8 and only play for a month, then taking a break and then going back would be something that would appeal to me. But I can see the issues with the model though :)
Click to expand...

Equally, I have BC2 and I just pop onto it for the odd blast now and then. There's so many FPS games out there, I would just not play BC2 at all if I could only pay it for a monthly sub, since I'm not going to pay for a whole month just because I feel like popping into the game for an hour or two. It simply discourages people from playing.
 
I only play the majority of games for about a month before I get bored, so paying £8 or so for a new game and playing it solid for a month would suit me pretty well.

If I liked it and wanted to keep playing, I pay another £8 and another. So at about £24 over 3 months I'd have paid less than I probably would have for the game if it were released at full retail price.

I understand it doesn't work for everyone. But if (big if as mentioned above, because I doubt EA would do the client and DLC included) it were like that, it would suit me pretty well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom