EA exploring subscription model for future Battlefield titles

olivier renault said:
He makes Kotic looks good.

Public companies, hey...
Click to expand...

Endless studio acquisitions and lack of competition don't help. Then there's the effect of relentless advertising. The only major studio I know of that isn't owned by the likes of EA is Obsidian, and they appear to be in some financial difficulty (especially after earning zero royalties from the 5 million Fallout New Vegas sales).
 
ScarySquirrel said:
You are 100% correct.

I was at a presentation in January where a BF subscription model was presented. Obviously it wasn't final, but it pretty much equated to something like $X/year which gives you extra features, plus all 4 DLC packs which are coming. The $X/year actually worked out LESS than if you bought all 4 DLC packs on their own.

Don't panic.
Click to expand...

Which IIRC, is something you PC gamers laughed hardly about when Activision announced COD Elite.

I wonder how many people will bend over and take it because it's BF.
 
What we need is an original and purely outstanding indie modern war FPS, that no dirty great corperation like Achnevision or Electronic Tarts have got their claws into.

A good example is some of the stuff coming out of eastern europe like ARMA 2 and DCS Black shark to name a couple of top titles. Bit too in depth but build a FPS that is accessable and easy to pick and that looks as good as these titles then we would have a winner.

Keep paying for the same old ***** then thats what we are gonna keep getting.
 
Last edited:
anticonscience said:
Which IIRC, is something you PC gamers laughed hardly about when Activision announced COD Elite.

I wonder how many people will bend over and take it because it's BF.
Click to expand...

Agreed. :p Don't see it being a problem for people to spend money on a year sub if they spent thousands upgrading their PC's for a game :D
 
Cool Breeze said:
What we need is an original and purely outstanding indie modern war FPS, that no dirty great corperation like Achnevision or Electronic Tarts have got their claws into.
Click to expand...

Problem is, once that happens the larger companies always buy them out. Then you're back at square one.
 
Gimpymoo said:
I do not believe that will be the model they will use.

As with an MMO, all servers will be hosted by themselves.
Click to expand...

Problem is getting admin rights etc for clans, it wouldn't work if it's ran from someone else like MMO servers.
 
ScarySquirrel said:
You are 100% correct.

I was at a presentation in January where a BF subscription model was presented. Obviously it wasn't final, but it pretty much equated to something like $X/year which gives you extra features, plus all 4 DLC packs which are coming. The $X/year actually worked out LESS than if you bought all 4 DLC packs on their own.

Don't panic.
Click to expand...

My problem being you think it's okay for them to release (in example) four DLCs in a year of unknown quantity of content or quality of content/price and then making it sound like you're saving cash by paying a monthly fee.
I just, I cannot logically agree that just because I don't have to pay for a load of additional products annually it suddenly makes paying a monthly fee for a discount worth it.
They're basically saying, spend money to save money.

I've both seen and heard of many "priced" DLCs which end up being absolutely not worth the money and it's just rehashed maps, maps from a previous game, things you'd expect for free in the past, they're too short or they are blatently ripped out from the main game and made to appear like it's something extra.

I can't remember the last time I paid for DLC other then DXHR's one (Which ended up not being as fun since it took part in the middle of the game and I knew the outcome) , in fact I think it is the only DLC I've ever purchased since they started to use that term instead of "Addons" and "Expansion Packs" which generally had a lot more you'd find today.
But like I said, it depends on the quality of the extra content, I don't buy in to new textures/skins and models.

Also the whole logistics of it, when I play an MMO I play them a lot, I'm a hardcore gamer, I shouldn't need to explain what I do or why I do it, but those subscriptions have been worth it, other games don't keep me engaged enough to warrant a similar price, it might for some but this removes the entire possibility of just picking it up and playing when I want. I played the first month of BF3 none stop, haven't touched it even for a minute a day since.
If I want to play it now, I cannot agree on any monthly sub, I won't play for a month, let alone a week, maybe a handful of times a month.

The other problem is this becoming the norm, when every greedy corp wants in since everyone's doing it so it must be okay, I don't think I can afford to subscribe to the endless list of future games all having a monthly sub that will combine to silly costs. Especially when you need to buy the game AND sub. There's a battle going on with indie games, funded by the public (kickstarter), f2p and subs, there's no room for PAYG yet.
 
Last edited:
Paying a monthly sub because it's cheaper than buying DLC that I wouldn't buy anyway doesn't seem like a good deal to me.

If the sub only applies to DLC then I don't have a problem, if it's required to play the standard game though, I have no interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom