Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by CardJoe, 5 Nov 2010.
lol, that's funny. hardcore BF game with microtransaction?
i don't know about other people, i will never spend a penny with any microtransaction games. and i consider myself to be pretty dedicated BF player. (except Heros)
I'll give it a whirl, nothing to lose.
My thoughts on this are, how on earth can you aim a game at hardcore gamers when you have to buy items to gain advantages over another player... That’s not hardcore it’s just a lesser way of making people pay for cheats, which in simplistic terms is what EA is doing here! If you ask me it seems that EA are just trying to change the thought processes of the many so that in there next iteration of Battle Field they will not only make you buy the game, but also dull you distain to paying for upgrades too. After all who will need experience points to gain weapons when you can have penny points.
Never played hero’s I most likely won’t be playing this. More so because of the shameful state of Bad Company 2 these days after not getting a patch for 3 months now...
"they feel they can get advantage over other players by buying stuff"
Lol...so EA admit its just a placebo effect wasting money on DLC...?
Considering the fact that in BF:H you HAD to pay to get any kind of competitive advantage or even the ability to be even with the others... Oh and 5% of all players paying is bull. When I played BF:H for short time around 95% of players had something custom be it a weapon or a costume.
If only 5% of people actually buy stuff, then why would any company think this was a good model??
I'd be more happy if they spent more time/money making their current games better, than wasting time on more of the same.
BC2 isn't exactly expensive for what you get, I've got 99 hours racked up on it, and I don't play that often, I think I paid £17.99, so thats 18p an hour, and I've still got plenty of game time left to spend on it.
5% probably includes all the player who went on for 10 minutes.
remember, those who paid usually keep playing the game for longer. those who just jump on to try usually just spend 30 minutes. put it together, and you get 90% of active online player having competitive advantage, while statistics say only 5% out of the whole player base.
EA is playing with numbers, just like any cooperation.
Funny old thing this.
If you look at what they were charging to "make your character look cool" its no surprise that 5% are (gullible) dedicated enough to pay.
IIRC, the upgrades you bought had a shelf life too. Buy it once (Â£5 for a hat, no thanks) and a month later, it expires and you have to buy it again.
I assume they have marketing guys that are more knowledgable about these things than me, but I would've thought that a more sensible way of charging is far more likely to get people interested.
Plus, lets be honest, when you play these games and see someone running around with some stupid costume on, you don't think "oh lucky him, he is soo cool with his pirate outfit on", you think "look at the gullible nit-wit who bought the stupid pirate outfit, lets gang up on him"
When you can buy an addictive little game from whichever app store your phone uses for less than Â£1, why would you want to pay stupid sums for a jaunty little hat?
I will try this out, but like heroes (which I enjoyed as a beta), it will lose its appeal very quickly.
They should just copy the TF2 model for it. Valve has said that could be free to play at this stage but the cost of a copy is the only deterrent to cheaters.
I am glad I am not the only one who though this when I read the article.
If only 5% of your prospective 'buyers' spend any money why make the game free to play?
Why not make a decent game, charge a reasonable sum for it and then charge again for proper expansion packs..... oh wait this is what PC developers used to do....
I readthose stats as 95% of players are cannon fodder for the other 5%
Probably cheaper than coding a good AI
I also suspect this to mean...of the 95% that installed, 5% spend money.
Those 5% would then represent WAY MORE than 5% of regular players though.
What's the problem with the ad placements to fund the games? it never bothered me that there were loads of intel placements in the Tampa Bay DLC for BF2, & if funded brand placement (which is rife in cinema anyway) helps deliver free or at least cheaper games then surely that's a model worth using? in an internet-connected game, that could easily enough be made dynamic as well - charging the advertiser for a limited period so creating a more steady income stream?
I don't think that payable DLC should offer a competitive advantage, perhaps just open up other dimensions of the offering, perhaps larger maps, exclusive elements or subgames that only those paying can get to.
I thought that was EA's plan after 2012; I remember it was a big to-do in the news about how the ads would be presented, etc. It turned out to be pretty subtle and made sense in the game environment.
However, I think the main reason it didn't take off is that EA is a brute of a corporation, so we (the gamers) never saw the promised benefits from the ad placement--like lower game prices.
Worth a go I guess!
Just thinking, you cant be a hardcore gamer in Bad Company 2 because of the complete lack of clan and match support. Could EA be throwing the hardcore name about again?
thats dumb.... its pretty much BF2 with a few new weps and vehicles (and maybe im wrong, we'll see next year) and BF2 still have a dedicated players and its pretty much free.... no monthly fee, you can pick up a copy in walmart for $5, and it has lotsa patches in already, and its fun and its balanced with no microtransactions....
i really honestly dont see the point with this. its going to fail.
ah yeah, its just my 2c, just sayin if it doesnt fail, great for them if it works, hopefully they use the income to fund BF3 development....
IMO, the best micro-transactions method is the one used by League of Legends.
The game itself can be played for free, you gain ingame currency Influence Points by playing, which is then used to unlock more stuff. Riot Points (real money) can also be used to unlock stuff if u dont have the time to do it via playing, and its also the only way to buy skins (purely cosmetical with no advantage to gameplay but looks cool)
So the developers are getting money from the impatient (and the skinners), while the rest enjoy the game with no advantages to the payers. Win-Win in my book...
I care so little about this. BF:Heroes was a huge bore. Just bring us BF3 with "ALL" the pc features that were in BF1942 and I'll be happy.
I don't care for microtransactions or DLC. Has there been any comparison on whether a game made more money from good old expansion packs or DLC? I can't think they'd make more money off DLC. All my PC gaming buds used to buy expansion packs and none buy DLC.
Separate names with a comma.