What do BF fans get this year? $50 for 16 maps, 30+ new weapons and some new vehicles.
What do COD fans get this year? $50 for a new SP campaign, new zombies mode and a new (albeit old) multiplayer with as many or more maps and weapons as added in premium. Not to mention they are doing all this double XP stuff for premium users only, as well as allowing servers to ban non premium players, even if you have the map packs.
You can't give DICE a free pass because it's not COD, BF is being milked worse than COD at this stage. Don't blame EA either, DICE accepted it as IW and Treyarch did.
Battlefield Premium is worse than COD
This topic is locked from further discussion.
New SP campaign? Nope.
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
According to this, there are no new weapons in any of the MW3 DLC and only 6 new multiplayer maps with some of them being quick remakes of MW2 maps. A lot of the maps are the spec-ops.
Being BF3 premium also gives you double EXP pretty much every weekend, access to premium exclusive servers, and a bunch of other crap. So they are pretty much identical except for the amount of content, of which BF3 is getting a lot more content for the money with 16 new maps since launch, a bunch of new vehicles, and 20 new weapons so far. They haven't even released the details of the last 2 DLCs either.
Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it.New SP campaign? That's news to me. Can I get some information on this?
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
Wasdie
So double XP for premium is a good thing? It's basically like, 'yeah if you don't pay, you suffer'. Soon they'll be giving weapon upgrades for cash. And yes, if I buy just the close quarters DLC I get excluded from numerous servers that for some reason are premium only.New SP campaign? Nope.
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
According to this, there are no new weapons in any of the MW3 DLC and only 6 new multiplayer maps with some of them being quick remakes of MW2 maps. A lot of the maps are the spec-ops.
Being BF3 premium also gives you double EXP pretty much every weekend, access to premium exclusive servers, and a bunch of other crap. So they are pretty much identical except for the amount of content, of which BF3 is getting a lot more content for the money with 16 new maps since launch, a bunch of new vehicles, and 20 new weapons so far. They haven't even released the details of the last 2 DLCs either.
Wasdie
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it. Black Ops 2 is a completely new game, and COD also has the whole "Elite" thing going on. And the Premium thing is fine compared to what was going on 5-10 years ago. The expansions and boosters for Battlefield 2 came to $60 combined and had less content than what comes with Premium.New SP campaign? That's news to me. Can I get some information on this?
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
JC_Spot
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it.New SP campaign? That's news to me. Can I get some information on this?
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
JC_Spot
10 years ago games were developed for about 1/100th of the cost they are now, modding was a necessary part of the game to get longevity out of the game, and game developers were fractions of the size they are now. Back then, games and maps were a tiny fraction of the complexity they are now. You could pump out new maps for Unreal or Counter Strike without much problem.
Developers learned that they cannot just keep working for free. They started releasing expansion packs, which were pretty much what DLC is today only less frequent, had a bit more content, and were more expensive. If you add up the BF3 premium, it's about the same amount of content as the 3 expansions for BF2 for $10 less.
It's all context and PC gamers are the worst at seeing this. They believe just becuase it used to be free means it should be today. With a map taking thousands of hours longer to make to the standards of the rest of the game, and mod tools costing millions of licensing fees to produce, it's just not viable to be putting out free content and mod tools all of the time.
Our own demand for higher quality graphics and games has put developers in a position they cannot support the industry like they used to be able to. Ever notice that all of the most moddable games today are always running on some pretty old engines and that indie game developers have even stopped giving out free content? There is a reason for this. Costs are to damn high to let your employees make more content for a game for free. You don't see any revenue from it and you waste your employees time they could be spent on making content for new games.
People "accept" it now because they feel that $15 for 3-5 well made multiplayer maps is still worth it, especially when they are playing a game for 200 hours. If people didn't feel that this content was worth their money, they wouldn't buy it. There are plenty of examples of DLC completely failing because it wasn't nearly worth the money.
In the case of BF3, I get more maps than launched with the game over the course of an entire year for $50. That's a damn good deal if you ask me. These aren't crappy maps that I have to play the alpha of for 6 months and redownload every time I go into a server, these are fully supported, well made maps by the developer.
In the case of Mount and Blade, I happily paid $10 (or was it $15) for that Napoleonic DLC. That was an indie game it was once a mod I could play for free, but it was loaded with good content and was a ton of fun.
I'm not playing PC games to uphold a status quo. I understand that developing games is damn expensive and as long as the content is worth the money, I'll pay for it. Everybody remembers all of the free crap we used to have back 10-15 years ago, but everybody forgets the hassle it was to get it all working and all of the hundreds of revisions it would take for something to be finished. It was annoying. People would spend more time messing with mods than they would playing. That's why expansion packs, even when the game was moddable, were able to sell no problem. Professionally made content is almost always worth the charge.
[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it. Black Ops 2 is a completely new game, and COD also has the whole "Elite" thing going on. And the Premium thing is fine compared to what was going on 5-10 years ago. The expansions and boosters for Battlefield 2 came to $60 combined and had less content than what comes with Premium. I just feel shafted that they are releasing bonus content for a game at the same price as the game when the bonus content in no way represents the same value as the game itself. The thing with Elite is that it's a bonus, DICE/EA are actively trying to force players to go platinum by giving them advantages, both in and out of game.New SP campaign? That's news to me. Can I get some information on this?
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
ferret-gamer
[QUOTE="Wasdie"]So double XP for premium is a good thing? It's basically like, 'yeah if you don't pay, you suffer'. Soon they'll be giving weapon upgrades for cash. And yes, if I buy just the close quarters DLC I get excluded from numerous servers that for some reason are premium only.New SP campaign? Nope.
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
According to this, there are no new weapons in any of the MW3 DLC and only 6 new multiplayer maps with some of them being quick remakes of MW2 maps. A lot of the maps are the spec-ops.
Being BF3 premium also gives you double EXP pretty much every weekend, access to premium exclusive servers, and a bunch of other crap. So they are pretty much identical except for the amount of content, of which BF3 is getting a lot more content for the money with 16 new maps since launch, a bunch of new vehicles, and 20 new weapons so far. They haven't even released the details of the last 2 DLCs either.
JC_Spot
Slippery slope argument. You're really stretching here. Just because they are giving people double EXP weekends (every weekend for premium, one or twice a month for everybody else), doesn't mean the game will start charging for weapons. That's a baseless assumption that you've made and are now using as a platform to argue on.
I also never said it was a good thing, I just said it exists. It doesn't really change the game at all. If you don't pay, you level up the same speed as everybody else who doesn't which is still pretty fast.
Context. Your entire perspective lacks context and logic. People aren't just going to cave to your opinions like they do on the Battlelog forums because people here like to use a little more logic and look at the bigger picture rather than just making rash conclusions based upon assumptions.
[QUOTE="ferret-gamer"][QUOTE="JC_Spot"] Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it.JC_SpotBlack Ops 2 is a completely new game, and COD also has the whole "Elite" thing going on. And the Premium thing is fine compared to what was going on 5-10 years ago. The expansions and boosters for Battlefield 2 came to $60 combined and had less content than what comes with Premium. I just feel shafted that they are releasing bonus content for a game at the same price as the game when the bonus content in no way represents the same value as the game itself. The thing with Elite is that it's a bonus, DICE/EA are actively trying to force players to go platinum by giving them advantages, both in and out of game.
There is no advantages in the game with premium. You get the weapons and maps 2 weeks early, that's not an advantage. A tiny bit of patients and you have all of the ability to have those weapons too.
The double exp weekends aren't an advantage either. Rank is meaningless once you unlock the weapons you want, which isn't difficult under normal circumstances either.
The only real advantage is the whole queue thing. That is irrelevant as well considering there is a server browser and you can just go join a half-full server instead of trying to get onto a server with 64 players. You know, just like we've done for the past 20 years. Apparently people like to think that method doesn't exist anymore.
Your arguments aren't only thin, you like to make a lot of assumptions that aren't true at all.
Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it.[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
New SP campaign? That's news to me. Can I get some information on this?
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
Wasdie
10 years ago games were developed for about 1/100th of the cost they are now, modding was a necessary part of the game to get longevity out of the game, and game developers were fractions of the size they are now. Back then, games and maps were a tiny fraction of the complexity they are now. You could pump out new maps for Unreal or Counter Strike without much problem.
Developers learned that they cannot just keep working for free. They started releasing expansion packs, which were pretty much what DLC is today only less frequent, had a bit more content, and were more expensive. If you add up the BF3 premium, it's about the same amount of content as the 3 expansions for BF2 for $10 less.
It's all context and PC gamers are the worst at seeing this. They believe just becuase it used to be free means it should be today. With a map taking thousands of hours longer to make to the standards of the rest of the game, and mod tools costing millions of licensing fees to produce, it's just not viable to be putting out free content and mod tools all of the time.
Our own demand for higher quality graphics and games has put developers in a position they cannot support the industry like they used to be able to. Ever notice that all of the most moddable games today are always running on some pretty old engines and that indie game developers have even stopped giving out free content? There is a reason for this. Costs are to damn high to let your employees make more content for a game for free. You don't see any revenue from it and you waste your employees time they could be spent on making content for new games.
People "accept" it now because they feel that $15 for 3-5 well made multiplayer maps is still worth it, especially when they are playing a game for 200 hours. If people didn't feel that this content was worth their money, they wouldn't buy it. There are plenty of examples of DLC completely failing because it wasn't nearly worth the money.
In the case of BF3, I get more maps than launched with the game over the course of an entire year for $50. That's a damn good deal if you ask me. These aren't crappy maps that I have to play the alpha of for 6 months and redownload every time I go into a server, these are fully supported, well made maps by the developer.
In the case of Mount and Blade, I happily paid $10 (or was it $15) for that Napoleonic DLC. That was an indie game it was once a mod I could play for free, but it was loaded with good content and was a ton of fun.
I'm not playing PC games to uphold a status quo. I understand that developing games is damn expensive and as long as the content is worth the money, I'll pay for it. Everybody remembers all of the free crap we used to have back 10-15 years ago, but everybody forgets the hassle it was to get it all working and all of the hundreds of revisions it would take for something to be finished. It was annoying. People would spend more time messing with mods than they would playing. That's why expansion packs, even when the game was moddable, were able to sell no problem. Professionally made content is almost always worth the charge.
Your entire argument revolves around the assumption that DICE and EA absolutely NEED to charge $50 for this content to turn a profit. This is obviously absurd and not the case. You really believe that the cost of these maps is the same or similar as an AAA full release game expected to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions of copies? What they should really do, is reward the people that bought their game by using their hundreds of millions of dollars of profits from the original game to give content. If they actually operated on the edge of cost and profit then I would have no issue with charging the necessary price for the content, but this is just greed. I mean Activision could probably charge $20 for COD and still make a crazy amount of money.
Let me ask you a question, you run EA. Now cod elite did crazy well, and made like 100 million dollars. Now your EA and say hmm we are going to release all this dlc hmm, should we be nice and give them all this content for free, nah cod elite made so much money so people are willing to spend money on something like this. Neither are better than the other. Perhaps you have no clue how business works, honestly they don't give two craps about there cosunmers as long as they buy their crap. EA goal is to make as much profit as possible.
I just feel shafted that they are releasing bonus content for a game at the same price as the game when the bonus content in no way represents the same value as the game itself. The thing with Elite is that it's a bonus, DICE/EA are actively trying to force players to go platinum by giving them advantages, both in and out of game.[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="ferret-gamer"] Black Ops 2 is a completely new game, and COD also has the whole "Elite" thing going on. And the Premium thing is fine compared to what was going on 5-10 years ago. The expansions and boosters for Battlefield 2 came to $60 combined and had less content than what comes with Premium.Wasdie
There is no advantages in the game with premium. You get the weapons and maps 2 weeks early, that's not an advantage. A tiny bit of patients and you have all of the ability to have those weapons too.
The double exp weekends aren't an advantage either. Rank is meaningless once you unlock the weapons you want, which isn't difficult under normal circumstances either.
The only real advantage is the whole queue thing. That is irrelevant as well considering there is a server browser and you can just go join a half-full server instead of trying to get onto a server with 64 players. You know, just like we've done for the past 20 years. Apparently people like to think that method doesn't exist anymore.
Your arguments aren't only thin, you like to make a lot of assumptions that aren't true at all.
Firstly, the premium knife is superior to the original one so....Secondly the queue thing DOES matter if you are in AUS where there are MUCH less servers, and the majority of Close Quarters servers are Premium only, which means my choice of maps/game types/player count is much more limited than a premium player.
I'm not supporting COD, I'm saying both are bad.Let me ask you a question, you run EA. Now cod elite did crazy well, and made like 100 million dollars. Now your EA and say hmm we are going to release all this dlc hmm, should we be nice and give them all this content for free, nah cod elite made so much money so people are willing to spend money on something like this. Neither are better than the other
James161324
[QUOTE="James161324"]I'm not supporting COD, I'm saying both are bad.Let me ask you a question, you run EA. Now cod elite did crazy well, and made like 100 million dollars. Now your EA and say hmm we are going to release all this dlc hmm, should we be nice and give them all this content for free, nah cod elite made so much money so people are willing to spend money on something like this. Neither are better than the other
JC_Spot
Then why are you trying to make BF3 Premium worse. Atleast bf3 is actually adding content to the game. Maps, Weapons, gamemodes and vechiles. Cod Elite you get some tiny maps.
But as i said this is business so neither of them is bad. They want to make money and people buy it. DLC WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN. Its just the state of games. There is no reason to come cry about it on a fourm
[QUOTE="Wasdie"][QUOTE="JC_Spot"] Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it.JC_Spot
10 years ago games were developed for about 1/100th of the cost they are now, modding was a necessary part of the game to get longevity out of the game, and game developers were fractions of the size they are now. Back then, games and maps were a tiny fraction of the complexity they are now. You could pump out new maps for Unreal or Counter Strike without much problem.
Developers learned that they cannot just keep working for free. They started releasing expansion packs, which were pretty much what DLC is today only less frequent, had a bit more content, and were more expensive. If you add up the BF3 premium, it's about the same amount of content as the 3 expansions for BF2 for $10 less.
It's all context and PC gamers are the worst at seeing this. They believe just becuase it used to be free means it should be today. With a map taking thousands of hours longer to make to the standards of the rest of the game, and mod tools costing millions of licensing fees to produce, it's just not viable to be putting out free content and mod tools all of the time.
Our own demand for higher quality graphics and games has put developers in a position they cannot support the industry like they used to be able to. Ever notice that all of the most moddable games today are always running on some pretty old engines and that indie game developers have even stopped giving out free content? There is a reason for this. Costs are to damn high to let your employees make more content for a game for free. You don't see any revenue from it and you waste your employees time they could be spent on making content for new games.
People "accept" it now because they feel that $15 for 3-5 well made multiplayer maps is still worth it, especially when they are playing a game for 200 hours. If people didn't feel that this content was worth their money, they wouldn't buy it. There are plenty of examples of DLC completely failing because it wasn't nearly worth the money.
In the case of BF3, I get more maps than launched with the game over the course of an entire year for $50. That's a damn good deal if you ask me. These aren't crappy maps that I have to play the alpha of for 6 months and redownload every time I go into a server, these are fully supported, well made maps by the developer.
In the case of Mount and Blade, I happily paid $10 (or was it $15) for that Napoleonic DLC. That was an indie game it was once a mod I could play for free, but it was loaded with good content and was a ton of fun.
I'm not playing PC games to uphold a status quo. I understand that developing games is damn expensive and as long as the content is worth the money, I'll pay for it. Everybody remembers all of the free crap we used to have back 10-15 years ago, but everybody forgets the hassle it was to get it all working and all of the hundreds of revisions it would take for something to be finished. It was annoying. People would spend more time messing with mods than they would playing. That's why expansion packs, even when the game was moddable, were able to sell no problem. Professionally made content is almost always worth the charge.
Your entire argument revolves around the assumption that DICE and EA absolutely NEED to charge $50 for this content to turn a profit. This is obviously absurd and not the case. You really believe that the cost of these maps is the same or similar as an AAA full release game expected to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions of copies? What they should really do, is reward the people that bought their game by using their hundreds of millions of dollars of profits from the original game to give content. If they actually operated on the edge of cost and profit then I would have no issue with charging the necessary price for the content, but this is just greed. I mean Activision could probably charge $20 for COD and still make a crazy amount of money.So you're counter to my argument is yet an assumption that they are overcharging to make a proift, of which you have absolutely no evidence at all to back that claim. You have no idea what their operating costs are. I know they dumped 50 million into advertising alone, that doesn't include all of the licensed tech, development rights for the 2 consoles, manpower for 3 years of development, a creation of a new engine, overhead for distribution...
You also don't understand basic market economics either. As I said before, if people don't find value in the price, they don't buy it. Obviously people don't think that $50 for 16 maps, 20 weapons, and a bunch more crap is worth the money. You are not one of them but you completely fail to see the obvious that is right in front of you. Instead you make these terrible posts laiden with assumptions and misinformation.
If Elite wouldn't have sold the 2+ million copies it did, no way DICE and EA would have put out Premium for the same price. The DLC was still coming for $15 a peice. In the end, a person would have ended up buying $60 worth of DLC if they already owned the Back to Karkand expansion. They weren't going to just drop the price of the DLC as $15 is pretty standard for a map pack and some extras in todays world. People who buy these things obviously find the value in them or the wouldn't buy them.
Please, learn how the market works. Just because YOU would decide to operate on a no-profit margin (good luck growing a company that way), doesn't mean others will. You can label it greed all you want, you're just proving your ignorance to the entire business.
Also, if you don't like it, just don't freaken buy it. You can still play hundreds of vanilla servers. Those servers are't going anywhere. When BF1942's Rome expansion came out, we didn't see all of the servers dropping vanilla maps. We won't see that here. You're fretting and making an idiot of yourself over absolutly nothing. It's only a problem if you cannot actually play the game due to required post-release content. That hasn't happened and it will not happnen. You can try to make a streatch and say that it will happen, but you're yet again arguing on a slippery slope and making assumptions.
I'm just saying what I've seen since BF has been on the market for the last 10 years.
I'm not supporting COD, I'm saying both are bad.[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="James161324"]
Let me ask you a question, you run EA. Now cod elite did crazy well, and made like 100 million dollars. Now your EA and say hmm we are going to release all this dlc hmm, should we be nice and give them all this content for free, nah cod elite made so much money so people are willing to spend money on something like this. Neither are better than the other
James161324
Then why are you trying to make BF3 Premium worse. Atleast bf3 is actually adding content to the game. Maps, Weapons, gamemodes and vechiles. Cod Elite you get some tiny maps.
But as i said this is business so neither of them is bad. They want to make money and people buy it. DLC WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN. Its just the state of games. There is no reason to come cry about it on a fourm
Exploiting workers is business, duping people about investments you know are destined to fail is business, giving mortgages to people with a 0% chance of failure is business. But business is business right, and we should never question it. The point you're making is people will buy it anyway, so they do it. So I should never speak up about Apple's ridiculous overcharging because it's business? People have the right to complain about things.[QUOTE="James161324"][QUOTE="JC_Spot"] I'm not supporting COD, I'm saying both are bad.JC_Spot
Then why are you trying to make BF3 Premium worse. Atleast bf3 is actually adding content to the game. Maps, Weapons, gamemodes and vechiles. Cod Elite you get some tiny maps.
But as i said this is business so neither of them is bad. They want to make money and people buy it. DLC WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN. Its just the state of games. There is no reason to come cry about it on a fourm
Exploiting workers is business, duping people about investments you know are destined to fail is business, giving mortgages to people with a 0% chance of failure is business. But business is business right, and we should never question it. The point you're making is people will buy it anyway, so they do it. So I should never speak up about Apple's ridiculous overcharging because it's business? People have the right to complain about things.You can complain all you want, but you only look like an idiot complaing about something you have no control over and over something that has no effect on you at all. Nobody is forcing you to buy any of it. That's the whole point of a free market system.
Firstly, the premium knife is superior to the original one so....
Secondly the queue thing DOES matter if you are in AUS where there are MUCH less servers, and the majority of Close Quarters servers are Premium only, which means my choice of maps/game types/player count is much more limited than a premium player.
JC_Spot
The knife isn't superior at all... I have no idea where the hell you get yourinformation.
As for the queue, it doesn't really matter. If you really care so much about it, go rent your own server. Just because the server owners in your area want you to have the CQ pack doesn't mean you're forced to play on those servers.
What if 10 years ago I required you to own Opposing Forces content to play on my Half-Life server? Or, in the case of Battlefield, what if I ran a server with the Rome maps and you didn't own them. Not my fault. I'm just renting a server for my own use. You, again, don't have any control over what the people do around you.
If you can't find servers to play in, then maybe you need to check your filters (you can filter out servers based on the DLC), or you can just buy the DLC because apparently everybody else around you finds value in it and you're the only one that doesn't. That's not EA's fault anymore. You can still play the game without hte DLC no problem.
Your entire argument revolves around the assumption that DICE and EA absolutely NEED to charge $50 for this content to turn a profit. This is obviously absurd and not the case. You really believe that the cost of these maps is the same or similar as an AAA full release game expected to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions of copies? What they should really do, is reward the people that bought their game by using their hundreds of millions of dollars of profits from the original game to give content. If they actually operated on the edge of cost and profit then I would have no issue with charging the necessary price for the content, but this is just greed. I mean Activision could probably charge $20 for COD and still make a crazy amount of money.[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
10 years ago games were developed for about 1/100th of the cost they are now, modding was a necessary part of the game to get longevity out of the game, and game developers were fractions of the size they are now. Back then, games and maps were a tiny fraction of the complexity they are now. You could pump out new maps for Unreal or Counter Strike without much problem.
Developers learned that they cannot just keep working for free. They started releasing expansion packs, which were pretty much what DLC is today only less frequent, had a bit more content, and were more expensive. If you add up the BF3 premium, it's about the same amount of content as the 3 expansions for BF2 for $10 less.
It's all context and PC gamers are the worst at seeing this. They believe just becuase it used to be free means it should be today. With a map taking thousands of hours longer to make to the standards of the rest of the game, and mod tools costing millions of licensing fees to produce, it's just not viable to be putting out free content and mod tools all of the time.
Our own demand for higher quality graphics and games has put developers in a position they cannot support the industry like they used to be able to. Ever notice that all of the most moddable games today are always running on some pretty old engines and that indie game developers have even stopped giving out free content? There is a reason for this. Costs are to damn high to let your employees make more content for a game for free. You don't see any revenue from it and you waste your employees time they could be spent on making content for new games.
People "accept" it now because they feel that $15 for 3-5 well made multiplayer maps is still worth it, especially when they are playing a game for 200 hours. If people didn't feel that this content was worth their money, they wouldn't buy it. There are plenty of examples of DLC completely failing because it wasn't nearly worth the money.
In the case of BF3, I get more maps than launched with the game over the course of an entire year for $50. That's a damn good deal if you ask me. These aren't crappy maps that I have to play the alpha of for 6 months and redownload every time I go into a server, these are fully supported, well made maps by the developer.
In the case of Mount and Blade, I happily paid $10 (or was it $15) for that Napoleonic DLC. That was an indie game it was once a mod I could play for free, but it was loaded with good content and was a ton of fun.
I'm not playing PC games to uphold a status quo. I understand that developing games is damn expensive and as long as the content is worth the money, I'll pay for it. Everybody remembers all of the free crap we used to have back 10-15 years ago, but everybody forgets the hassle it was to get it all working and all of the hundreds of revisions it would take for something to be finished. It was annoying. People would spend more time messing with mods than they would playing. That's why expansion packs, even when the game was moddable, were able to sell no problem. Professionally made content is almost always worth the charge.
Wasdie
So you're counter to my argument is yet an assumption that they are overcharging to make a proift, of which you have absolutely no evidence at all to back that claim. You have no idea what their operating costs are. I know they dumped 50 million into advertising alone, that doesn't include all of the licensed tech, development rights for the 2 consoles, manpower for 3 years of development, a creation of a new engine, overhead for distribution...
You also don't understand basic market economics either. As I said before, if people don't find value in the price, they don't buy it. Obviously people don't think that $50 for 16 maps, 20 weapons, and a bunch more crap is worth the money. You are not one of them but you completely fail to see the obvious that is right in front of you. Instead you make these terrible posts laiden with assumptions and misinformation.
If Elite wouldn't have sold the 2+ million copies it did, no way DICE and EA would have put out Premium for the same price. The DLC was still coming for $15 a peice. In the end, a person would have ended up buying $60 worth of DLC if they already owned the Back to Karkand expansion. They weren't going to just drop the price of the DLC as $15 is pretty standard for a map pack and some extras in todays world. People who buy these things obviously find the value in them or the wouldn't buy them.
Please, learn how the market works. Just because YOU would decide to operate on a no-profit margin (good luck growning a company that way), doesn't mean others will.You can label it greed all you want, you're just proving your ignorance to the entire business.
I understand market economics, but you're saying I shouldn't complain or speak out against products being expensive because it's just the market? People complain about Apple's overcharging, but we shouldn't because it's just the market? Also, there is no market equilibrium being formed here, it's just a set price. Anyway, this is a partial monopoly, since DICE are the only people in the market for BF3 maps. If others were allowed to make maps and market them, DICE would have to be competitive and I think the prices would be much lower. Some devs make games that sell 1/10th or less than what BF3 sold and still turn a profit, and they have to pay for engine cost, development costs etc. If you're suggesting DICE/EA aren't raking in the cash at a ridiculous rate then you're wrong.[QUOTE="JC_Spot"]
Firstly, the premium knife is superior to the original one so....
Secondly the queue thing DOES matter if you are in AUS where there are MUCH less servers, and the majority of Close Quarters servers are Premium only, which means my choice of maps/game types/player count is much more limited than a premium player.
Wasdie
The knife isn't superior at all... I have no idea where the hell you get yourinformation.
As for the queue, it doesn't really matter. If you really care so much about it, go rent your own server. Just because the server owners in your area want you to have the CQ pack doesn't mean you're forced to play on those servers.
What if 10 years ago I required you to own Opposing Forces content to play on my Half-Life server? Or, in the case of Battlefield, what if I ran a server with the Rome maps and you didn't own them. Not my fault. I'm just renting a server for my own use. You, again, don't have any control over what the people do around you.
If you can't find servers to play in, then maybe you need to check your filters (you can filter out servers based on the DLC), or you can just buy the DLC because apparently everybody else around you finds value in it and you're the only one that doesn't. That's not EA's fault anymore. You can still play the game without hte DLC no problem.
I'm not an idiot, I know how to use filters, what I was saying was that if I BUY close quarters but not premium, I find it very hard to find a CQ server that I can play without being premium, since non premiums are blocked, so I have to buy the whole thing if I want to actually use my CQ map pack. And I can't find any official stats on the ACB-90 but a lot of people in forums are saying it swings faster and kills faster than the previous knife.[QUOTE="James161324"][QUOTE="JC_Spot"] I'm not supporting COD, I'm saying both are bad.JC_Spot
Then why are you trying to make BF3 Premium worse. Atleast bf3 is actually adding content to the game. Maps, Weapons, gamemodes and vechiles. Cod Elite you get some tiny maps.
But as i said this is business so neither of them is bad. They want to make money and people buy it. DLC WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN. Its just the state of games. There is no reason to come cry about it on a fourm
Exploiting workers is business, duping people about investments you know are destined to fail is business, giving mortgages to people with a 0% chance of failure is business. But business is business right, and we should never question it. The point you're making is people will buy it anyway, so they do it. So I should never speak up about Apple's ridiculous overcharging because it's business? People have the right to complain about things.Its pointless and annoying complaining. Apple will never reduce pricing, and EA will charge for DLC. You can whine on fourms are you want but if millions buy it, they charge that price.
Exploiting workers is business, duping people about investments you know are destined to fail is business, giving mortgages to people with a 0% chance of failure is business. But business is business right, and we should never question it. The point you're making is people will buy it anyway, so they do it. So I should never speak up about Apple's ridiculous overcharging because it's business? People have the right to complain about things.[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="James161324"]
Then why are you trying to make BF3 Premium worse. Atleast bf3 is actually adding content to the game. Maps, Weapons, gamemodes and vechiles. Cod Elite you get some tiny maps.
But as i said this is business so neither of them is bad. They want to make money and people buy it. DLC WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN. Its just the state of games. There is no reason to come cry about it on a fourm
Wasdie
You can complain all you want, but you only look like an idiot complaing about something you have no control over and over something that has no effect on you at all. Nobody is forcing you to buy any of it. That's the whole point of a free market system.
Uhm.... Let's say I have family in Syria that is being killed by the government (I don't) and I have no control over it, so I shouldn't complain? Okay.... It does have an effect anyway, as mentioned, the server issues, XP etc. So you've NEVER complained about the pricing of something? If your boss lowered your pay by 10% and said, "It's the market" you would shake his hand and agree? There are barriers to entry and exit from the labour market so you would probably have to accept it. Just because the market is responsible doesn't mean I shouldn't complain. The market dictated (or seemed to) Dark Souls for the PC was not viable, then people complained and they brought it. Example of complaining working.Exploiting workers is business, duping people about investments you know are destined to fail is business, giving mortgages to people with a 0% chance of failure is business. But business is business right, and we should never question it. The point you're making is people will buy it anyway, so they do it. So I should never speak up about Apple's ridiculous overcharging because it's business? People have the right to complain about things.[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="James161324"]
Then why are you trying to make BF3 Premium worse. Atleast bf3 is actually adding content to the game. Maps, Weapons, gamemodes and vechiles. Cod Elite you get some tiny maps.
But as i said this is business so neither of them is bad. They want to make money and people buy it. DLC WILL NEVER BE FREE AGAIN. Its just the state of games. There is no reason to come cry about it on a fourm
James161324
Its pointless and annoying complaining. Apple will never reduce pricing, and EA will charge for DLC. You can whine on fourms are you want but if millions buy it, they charge that price.
That's such backwards thinking, let's never complain about anything we can't control! Anyway, my original point was COD is better value in 2012 than BF3, which is still correct. We got horribly off topic.
Premium is only a "deal" if you are going to like all the map packs, and considering that some of them are polar opposites in design focus, it's kind of a stupid argument to make.
Either way I normally wouldn't care, but its getting annoying as sh!@ having "premium, buy premium, this guy that killed you has premium, double xp premium weekend, premium server, hey hey, did you hear? Premium" shoved in my damn face every 2 seconds.
Eh? People can complain as much as they like as consumers, what will make them an idiot or not is how reasonable and rational their complaints are. The sentiment I'm gathering is that they don't like how the DLC is having a negative bleed off effect in a pay to win sense, and splitting player bases. I can sympathise with that, even if I think EA can charge all they like.You can complain all you want, but you only look like an idiot complaing about something you have no control over and over something that has no effect on you at all. Nobody is forcing you to buy any of it. That's the whole point of a free market system.
Wasdie
[ COD is better value in 2012 than BF3JC_SpotWe can't really quantify 'value' as the game isn't released yet. Considering their respective RRPs BF3 premium is half the price of CODBLOPS2 here, and naturally anyone who cares for Battlefield over COD is going to find more value in BF content; but I see the point at the heart of your argument.
Exactly what I was complaining about to start with. The polar opposites point is very important too, because I want to play close quarters because all my friends prefer the COD style gameplay and want CQ where as they don't want the others, and I prefer to play with them, so I just want CQ instead of buying the whole thing, but I'm at a disadvantage if I do so.Premium is only a "deal" if you are going to like all the map packs, and considering that some of them are polar opposites in design focus, it's kind of a stupid argument to make.
Either way I normally wouldn't care, but its getting annoying as sh!@ having "premium, buy premium, this guy that killed you has premium, double xp premium weekend, premium server, hey hey, did you hear? Premium" shoved in my damn face every 2 seconds.
topgunmv
COD release games annually which forces you to buy a new game if you want to play the same old stuff, because it kills off older generations fast (MW2 I believe has had its servers shut down). BF3 does not release a new game annually, and it has a 2011 engine instead of the 2007 engine IW is using. Noone is forcing you to buy premium in order to enjoy BF3, I'm doing fine without it..
[QUOTE="topgunmv"]Exactly what I was complaining about to start with. The polar opposites point is very important too, because I want to play close quarters because all my friends prefer the COD style gameplay and want CQ where as they don't want the others, and I prefer to play with them, so I just want CQ instead of buying the whole thing, but I'm at a disadvantage if I do so. It's true that a lot of people buying premium have different reasons for doing so but what most have in common is far more hours played on BF3 than just about any game they've played within the past 2 years. Premium servers aren't an issue as it's maybe 1 in 10 servers that are premium so if you just want CQ there is nothing stopping you. There are only two FPS franchise that are financially as successful as BF and they are BF and COD(in fact BF3 sales are about the same as COD 4 sales) but this business model doesn't just start with MWF3 and end with BF3, Saints Row: The Third and Max Payne 3 already have something like this with their season passes and at the very least almost every major multiplatform game will either have season passes or premium packages, personally I had no problem with buying season passes for SR3 and MP3 even though they offer far less hours of content than BF3 or MWF3 and those that don't feel it's worth it can go spend the money on a fastfood dinner or something of that nature :lol:Premium is only a "deal" if you are going to like all the map packs, and considering that some of them are polar opposites in design focus, it's kind of a stupid argument to make.
Either way I normally wouldn't care, but its getting annoying as sh!@ having "premium, buy premium, this guy that killed you has premium, double xp premium weekend, premium server, hey hey, did you hear? Premium" shoved in my damn face every 2 seconds.
JC_Spot
After weeks of sticking to retro games, I finally gave BF3 another go the other night and wasn't exactly impressed with all this Premium thing. So you pay $50 extra for a handful of extra maps and weapon skins and the ability to reset your stats? Not worth it.
The moment EA provides its Premium users with better weapons and other goodies which would give them an advantage over regular players, I am done with BF3 and EA completely.
EA and DICE are crooks, and their fans mindless lemmings... I don't see how anyone can deny that, lol.
MW2's servers have not been shut down, at least I hope not because that would mean they would have shut down COD4 servers (please no!!). But I recall playing COD4 on PS3 about 4 months ago so I doubt they've taken down MW2 by now that was 2 years older. EA and DICE are trying to force you to buy Premium though.COD release games annually which forces you to buy a new game if you want to play the same old stuff, because it kills off older generations fast (MW2 I believe has had its servers shut down). BF3 does not release a new game annually, and it has a 2011 engine instead of the 2007 engine IW is using. Noone is forcing you to buy premium in order to enjoy BF3, I'm doing fine without it..
True_Sounds
Black Ops 2 isnt even freaking out. Why are we talking about in context of Premium? Wtf is this? Its been established for a while that Premium is better than Elite in most every way. GamesterpheonixBecause Premium is the same price as Black Ops 2, therefore we can compare value.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment