Page 1 of 3 123 Last
Results 1 to 25 of 53

  1. Post

    Posts in this thread appear as comments on the following Gameplanet article:

    Read article...

  2. Post
    #2
    2013 will see a new Battlefield, I betcha. EA will probably be alternating between releasing BF and MoH each year, to compete with the annual CoD.

  3. Post
    #3
    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    2013 will see a new Battlefield, I betcha. EA will probably be alternating between releasing BF and MoH each year, to compete with the annual CoD.
    This is my understanding - don't believe EA is making any attempt to disguise that.

  4. Post
    #4
    Pretty soon they'll be monetising ammo. While we never ever technically owned the games we purchased at least it didnt feel like we were renting them in addition to the purchase price.
    Hopefully we will see a bigger focus on smaller indy devs and niche products as the big publishers push to rape your wallet as often and as hard as possible. I understand the market changes, but not all change is good, and this is very very bad for gamers.

  5. Post
    #5
    cryocore wrote:
    Pretty soon they'll be monetising ammo. While we never ever technically owned the games we purchased at least it didnt feel like we were renting them in addition to the purchase price.
    Hopefully we will see a bigger focus on smaller indy devs and niche products as the big publishers push to rape your wallet as often and as hard as possible. I understand the market changes, but not all change is good, and this is very very bad for gamers.
    Problem is you've got an entire generation of kids who think this is acceptable as they have never known anything else.

  6. Post
    #6
    cryocore wrote:
    Pretty soon they'll be monetising ammo. While we never ever technically owned the games we purchased at least it didnt feel like we were renting them in addition to the purchase price.
    Hopefully we will see a bigger focus on smaller indy devs and niche products as the big publishers push to rape your wallet as often and as hard as possible. I understand the market changes, but not all change is good, and this is very very bad for gamers.
    This is what I'm thinking, maybe some pay to win elements that they've been introducing in the F2P games.

  7. Post
    #7
    This has been on the cards for at least 4 years, I'm amazed its not already implemented, the masses that buy this mainstream junk without question, is stupid enough to accept monthly payments for something that was previously free and included in the initial payment.

    I could forgive MMOs for monthly payments because of the servers required/maintenance and constant administrator work generated by the community, weekly,monthly patches and content.
    But for most other games its disgusting.

    But hey, if people are stupid enough to buy the Call of duty game year after year for the last 5 years which realistically is the same game but with a few tweeks and textures...... I bet Activision think they can get away with anything, and why would EA not cash in on that also?

  8. Post
    #8
    Now where are all the people who claimed that Day 1 DLC wasn't revenue-gathering when we have more BS like this coming from EA.

    What a horrible company. Battlefield (and COD) have always been F2P. There are almost no FPS games that have monthly subs. What a horrible direction gaming is going.... and it's mostly thanks to EA

  9. Post
    #9
    Limit0 wrote:
    Now where are all the people who claimed that Day 1 DLC wasn't revenue-gathering when we have more BS like this coming from EA.

    What a horrible company. Battlefield (and COD) have always been F2P. There are almost no FPS games that have monthly subs. What a horrible direction gaming is going.... and it's mostly thanks to EA
    I think you are jumping the gun a bit. All that was said is that they are looking at new ways of making more money. Any company with investors would be doing the same thing. Of course they would think of such subscription service options, but will they actually decide to implement it? Probably not, they will end up doing tests etc as to whether this is a good business model for a FPS and they will most likely find it isn't.

  10. Post
    #10
    aaaaaaand Im out. Goodbye EA.

    Hello CS:GO and Arma 3

  11. Post
    #11
    Except we already have this subscription-based model for MW3 so it makes perfect sense that they'll do the same for the Battlefield series, their competitor. And with EA's history of exploiting further purchases from their customers I'm expecting this to go ahead.

  12. Post
    #12
    But the MW3 subscription model doesn't take anything away from the non subscribing customers so how is there anything wrong with it?

  13. Post
    #13
    Lord_Montgomery wrote:
    But the MW3 subscription model doesn't take anything away from the non subscribing customers so how is there anything wrong with it?
    because it starts there; with an option between subs and no-subs.

    Next step is sub-only.

    A lot of people here seem to either lack the foresight to see where this is all leading, lack the self-control to go through with a protest, or just plain dont give a shit

  14. Post
    #14
    RedNZ wrote:
    because it starts there; with an option between subs and no-subs.

    Next step is sub-only
    yup..... they cant just bust out their master plan straight away as too many people would complain and notice!

    no .......you must implement it slowly, slowly taking more and more away from the non subbers,charging for more.

    This is the technique we all know as politics.

  15. Post
    #15
    Lord_Montgomery wrote:
    But the MW3 subscription model doesn't take anything away from the non subscribing customers so how is there anything wrong with it?
    Once you start splitting your player base you have problems. It doesn't make sense to do this from any aspect (excluding making extra $).

  16. Post
    #16
    RedNZ wrote:
    because it starts there; with an option between subs and no-subs.

    Next step is sub-only.

    A lot of people here seem to either lack the foresight to see where this is all leading, lack the self-control to go through with a protest, or just plain dont give a shit
    But the gaming industry has shown that sub-only clearly doesn't work. Just look at all the MMOs being made and how they are moving away from the sub model. Only one that really has succeeded with it is WOW. Most multiplayer FPS games are already struggling to keep a sufficient number of players interested without a sub model. Introducing something like a sub is only going to scare off even more gamers.

  17. Post
    #17
    I can understand paying a monthly fee for a mmoprg where you are constantly getting patches with extra content/progression, but this does not make much sense for a fps.

    Its as though developers hate their playerbases....either that or they are owned by fundamentalist religious groups who have a 'covert' agenda to wreck gaming totally... being the evil that it is.

  18. Post
    #18
    Sigh I'm getting sick of EA bs. They can eat a bag of ducks.

  19. Post
    #19
    Moooooo.
    I only have so much milk EA mangs.

    Em1 wrote:
    Sigh I'm getting sick of EA bs. They can eat a bag of ducks.
    Having seen their dicks I do not envy EA.

  20. Post
    #20
    No way would I pay a subscription given their current support. They would have to ramp it up significantly.

  21. Post
    #21
    I'd never pay a subscription to anything that didn't offer an abundance of reliable downloadable content, continued support and patching etc. Even then I think a subscription fee is ridiculous, unless the game has a long life such as WoW. IMO, there's only a handful of games out there now that can actually justify having a subscription. A first person shooter that is asking for a subscription fee, I'd just walk straight past it in the shop. What the hell are the going to offer? Cringe worthy fanboy unlocks for $9.99 a month? What a joke.

    Reptillian wrote:
    I could forgive MMOs for monthly payments because of the servers required/maintenance and constant administrator work generated by the community, weekly,monthly patches and content.
    But for most other games its disgusting
    I agree.

    However, if you've got a number of games on the go that all require a subscription fee, imagine how much you're spending on games, and that's after the initial cost of the game. **** that, one off payment and no more thanks. But as you said, games that require consistent work would be exempt.

    EA have been ****heads for as long as I can remember, and years later they're not getting any better.

  22. Post
    #22
    RIP Westwood

  23. Post
    #23

  24. Post
    #24
    RedNZ wrote:

    Hello CS:GO
    I'm going to be WHORING CS:GO.

  25. Post
    #25
    Aurora wrote:
    I'm going to be WHORING CS:GO.
    Although in saying that, Im getting flashes of the ending of the South Park Wal-mart episode, where everyone rushes to alternatives, and they in-turn become monsters...happened to BF, could happen to Arma, CS might be safe due to its publisher being valve (until Gabe is fired for not being profit-driven enough)