EA thinking about a subscription model for Battlefield 4

[garyopa]

The next game of the saga would require payment for playing

http://www.maxconsole.com/maxconsole/contents/RKLS0000004683/icon_xl.jpg

Future entries in the Battlefield series could feature a subscription model, according to an EA executive.

It seems that EA is thinking about the possibility of charging for playing online the next Battlefield game adopting a subscription model similar to World of Warcraft and many more MMORPG.

According to MCV:



Future entries in the Battlefield series could feature a subscription model, according to an EA exec.

Speaking in an interview with VentureBeat, head of the EA Games label Patrick Soderlund said the publisher was considering using regular fees to increase the revenue generated by its blockbuster shooters.

"I think it's fair to say that we're looking at that," he said. "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 went on to add that EA is treating latest outing Battlefield 3 as a service, rather than a standard game.

"We look at it as a 24/7 service," he said. "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?"


Personally, i think they are going too far. A subscription model is a restrictive measure for people not even buying the game if they have to pay a monthly fee, plus Xbox Live, plus Internet access and so on. Only, hardcore gamers who like the game very much will adopt the measure leaving out a lot of new interested gamers. I agree that there is a cost in servers maitenance but this could be easily resolved displaying ads, for example...

NEWS SOURCE: EA Ponders Subscriptions for Battlefield 4 (via) MCV UK (http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/ea-ponders-subscriptions-for-battlefield-4/092830)

Our thanks to 'Kaos2K' for another news story!

[billysastard]

sounds fair to be honest, sell people a complete single player game then let those who want to play online pay for the service BUT only if the single player game is complete and has enough longevity and playability.

[Battlefield]

Devs lose money on som games, and wins on others. Dev costs for quality games is high these days, and its hard to get a #1 seller because too many games is released each month.

I prefer single player games myself, so i dont care about paying since its mostly for online players.

As for Multiplayer, i prefer Hotseat.

[max1421]

if its similar to Elite then I would be angry but not that mad since I do plan on buying every piece of Battlefield DLC, however if its Pay to Play that means no buy from me

[Battlefield]

I think Free to play games is a good idea, and many companies is earning shitloads of money on these games.

The ingame content is usually way too expensive, but you are most likely bored of the game before you pay anything at all anyway. Still alot of people use alot of money on these games. Its okay if you only play one game, but i wanna play new/backlog games all the time so i cant stick to one game. If i buy ingame content or pay monthly fee, it forced me to play THAT game. This is why i never ever played games like WOW etc..

[Anil8tr]

sounds fair to be honest, sell people a complete single player game then let those who want to play online pay for the service BUT only if the single player game is complete and has enough longevity and playability.

That's the problem billy. Most SP shooter games can be finished in a day. That is not longevity nor is it actually worth a $60 price tag. When this happens, the SP aspect of the game will suffer even more than it does now. The excuse will be MP makes EA more money. So, that is where the emphasis will be is how their PR will spin it. The writing is on the wall. The days of the SP shooter are slowly drawing to a close. I almost never play shooters online and typically wait for a reduced price before I buy them. I usually never feel I get my money's worth on them unfortunately unless they are bought bargain bin because they end before they seem to start. As long as this only affects MP, it is irrelevant to me. But, if they try to transfer that sh1t to the SP arena, they can polish pole if they think I'm going to pay to play a SP game like that.

[billysastard]

That's the problem billy. Most SP shooter games can be finished in a day. That is not longevity nor is it actually worth a $60 price tag. When this happens, the SP aspect of the game will suffer even more than it does now. The excuse will be MP makes EA more money. So, that is where the emphasis will be is how their PR will spin it. The writing is on the wall. The days of the SP shooter are slowly drawing to a close. I almost never play shooters online and typically wait for a reduced price before I buy them. I usually never feel I get my money's worth on them unfortunately unless they are bought bargain bin because they end before they seem to start. As long as this only affects MP, it is irrelevant to me. But, if they try to transfer that sh1t to the SP arena, they can polish pole if they think I'm going to pay to play a SP game like that.

oh, i know, mostly well under a day but its only because so many are prepared to accept that however i'd love to see a good single / social multiplayer game get released at $60 then have the online crap available to buy separately as long as cunts like thq and ea didnt hide offline content behind an online pass (and even make it worse by having the so called "free" codes expire so those of us who choose not to go along with their download crap still get our purchases devalued even if we dont use their codes)

[Battlefield]

oh, i know, mostly well under a day but its only because so many are prepared to accept that however i'd love to see a good single / social multiplayer game get released at $60 then have the online crap available to buy separately as long as cunts like thq and ea didnt hide offline content behind an online pass (and even make it worse by having the so called "free" codes expire so those of us who choose not to go along with their download crap still get our purchases devalued even if we dont use their codes)

I agree.

If you want FPS SP value for the money, you cant buy the game on day 1. Wait until its on sale, or in a bargain bin.

I have finished all COD games, but never play them online. I still havent got MW2, because the campaign is damn short and the greedy Activision keeps its price high for 3-4 years until it end up in bargain bin. When i get MW3 for max 15$, i will buy it. Thats ok for 3-5 hours of SP.

[MadonnaProject]

Again, with so many fps games out there who really needs this? do you guys?

[billysastard]

I agree.

If you want FPS SP value for the money, you cant buy the game on day 1. Wait until its on sale, or in a bargain bin.

I have finished all COD games, but never play them online. I still havent got MW2, because the campaign is damn short and the greedy Activision keeps its price high for 3-4 years until it end up in bargain bin. When i get MW3 for max 15$, i will buy it. Thats ok for 3-5 hours of SP.

well i saw a mw2 hardened edition (with valid cod classic code) go through ebay with zero bids for £16 yesterday so it must be getting closer (i got the prestige edition for the nvg that came with it) as for mw3 as there was no prestige edition i skipped it at launch but managed to pick up a brand new hardened edition (steelbook, some diary thing and a load of digital crap) for the price of a standard copy, obviously the big selling point of it was the digital crap (founder status + cod elite) which i wasnt prepared to pay for as i'd no intention of using it so getting it at normal retail was good enough for me, the codes are of course still unused.

[billysastard]

Again, with so many fps games out there who really needs this? do you guys?

nope, no need for subs on a single player game. (or social multiplayer)

[Xenogears V]

Is a big bullsh*t pay a pass online for a second hand game, but subscription is too much. :mad:

[Battlefield]

Is a big bullsh*t pay a pass online for a second hand game, but subscription is too much. :mad:

Yes, especially when too many games gets subscription. Most people cant afford/or wont pay monthly fee for all games they wanna play, so in the end several devs will lose bigtime on this.
Think of much money it will cost to play 10 new games each month. Games you dont even own.