Sign up for a new account or log in here:
also @ TechSpot: Study suggests majority of Windows 8 users ignore Metro apps
EA has been working overtime to capture the hearts and wallets of PC gamers with its upcoming Battlefield title, and we've seen nothing but overwhelming enthusiasm for its arrival -- until now. Over the weekend, the company announced that it will offer the "Battlefield 3: Physical Warfare Pack" with an exclusive gun, an early unlockable, a weapon mod and ammunition through select retailers around the globe.
Gamers who buy the Physical Warfare Pack will receive exclusive access to the Type 88 light machine gun with a bipod, Battlefield 3's only sniper rifle flash suppressor (for the SKS rifle), as well as armor piercing flechette shells for the DAO-12 semi-automatic shotgun. Physical Warfare Pack customers will also get day-one access to the DAO-12 shotgun, whereas everyone else will have to unlock it via gameplay.
There is a lot of confusion surrounding the "Back to Karkand" expansion pack, which contains remastered versions of four Battlefield 2 maps including Strike at Karkand, Gulf of Oman and the Sharqi Peninsula. All Limited Edition pre-orders (even non-Physical Warfare Packs) will receive the "Back to Karkand" DLC. Everyone else will be able to buy the DLC separately, though pricing and availability are unknown.
After learning about the exclusive content and its limited availability, gamers besieged EA's forum -- many of them threatening to cancel their preorder. One thread has 64 pages of posts and a poll that shows 93% of visitors disapprove of the exclusive content. Even Minecraft creator "Notch" chimed in: "When I make a movie, it will have different exclusive scenes added to it depending on what cinema you go to."
EA has responded to the angry mob with a FAQ squelching concerns about unfair multiplayer action. The publisher said Battlefield 3's exclusive content has been "specifically chosen not to be overpowered or imbalanced or break the game in any way." Although company said it believes in rewarding its loyal customers with special offers, many gamers disagree with "dividing" the playerbase. Where do you stand?
User Comments: 62
Got something to say? Post a comment-
stewi0001 said:
Guest said:RUMOR MILL : Ea to charge for Multiplayer Soon.
For that to really happen that would mean that EA would host all the servers.
-
Guest said:
I think people need to get a grip to be honest. I laugh my backside off when I hear people whinge about paying $60 (+5-10 for DLC) for a multiplayer game. In Australia, the price of pc games has DECREASED over the last five years (can't speak for the rest of the world). So ripping ppl off is not a game publishers objective. Secondly, I personally have over 500 hours on BC2. My friends have at least 100 hours, but lets say for arguments sake a minimum of 50 hours over the life of the game. Someone tell me how much it would cost to get that amount of entertainment time at the movies, or with legally bought DVD's and music. Yeh sure as **** not 60 dollars. Well an average movie goes for two hours, at say 10 dollar per movie. Yep 250 dollars, for the same time and not even interactive. Not that you would go watch 25 movies in a year lol but still, get some perspective.
Even if they charge for DLC, you have the right NOT to buy it, and I can tell you now it won't break game play. You can have your shitty bipod all you want when I nade your proned ***. Or your silenced sniper when my one hit sniper defeats your two hit kill, lol. Also, I doubt this was an executive decision from DICE but rather EA, but that's just my opinion.
Anyways, nerd rage more.
Well said!
-
I think people need to get a grip to be honest. I laugh my backside off when I hear people whinge about paying $60 (+5-10 for DLC) for a multiplayer game. In Australia, the price of pc games has DECREASED over the last five years (can't speak for the rest of the world). So ripping ppl off is not a game publishers objective. Secondly, I personally have over 500 hours on BC2. My friends have at least 100 hours, but lets say for arguments sake a minimum of 50 hours over the life of the game. Someone tell me how much it would cost to get that amount of entertainment time at the movies, or with legally bought DVD's and music. Yeh sure as **** not 60 dollars. Well an average movie goes for two hours, at say 10 dollar per movie. Yep 250 dollars, for the same time and not even interactive. Not that you would go watch 25 movies in a year lol but still, get some perspective.
Even if they charge for DLC, you have the right NOT to buy it, and I can tell you now it won't break game play. You can have your shitty bipod all you want when I nade your proned ***. Or your silenced sniper when my one hit sniper defeats your two hit kill, lol. Also, I doubt this was an executive decision from DICE but rather EA, but that's just my opinion.
Anyways, nerd rage more.
I felt the same way about COD4, but look at the trends. Games costing more, more expensive DLCs, scaling down to console quality graphics, no dedicated servers, prevalence of cheating, and of course, buggy as hell games on release.
Protesting is good. It may be irrational in terms of bang for buck, as you well pointed out, but its important for consumers to take a stand against things. You think EA will stop at this if there isn't any anger at their decision?
If everyone accepts this meekly it will just get worse. I joke that they'll charge by the bullet, but don't rule that out eventually.
Game companies realized exactly what you said. That for a mere $60, people are getting hundreds of hours of game time, and more importantly, from a business perspective. If you're still playing BF2, then you're not playing other games that the company is releasing, thus costing them money. So of course eventually all FPS games will have a monthly fee associated with them, keep the long trail going.
I think that as consumers we should loudly protest genuine grievances about the problems with PC gaming, and with all other electronics. And we should not buy from companies that are following this trend, and also loudly announce that we are not buying games and spell out the reasons. Companies read these forums, as this is free marketing feedback. If enough people complain, well, they probably won't change their ways, but they may scale down their greed.
-
Guest said:
In Australia, the price of pc games has DECREASED over the last five years (can't speak for the rest of the world).
Basically, all I'm hearing from you is, "I've always paid high prices, so everyone else should deal with it!" This is the same mentally console gamers use for paying the extra $10, which is total conformist bullshit you fed yourself to convince yourself that that money isn't being wasted. (And don't start with the, "it's only $10", because that's what they want you to think. $10 here, $10 there, and suddenly you've spent an extra $30-50 for no reason other than money grubbing from companies)
And so what if something you bought brings you hundreds of hours of entertainment? Do people who maintain their cars need to pay the automotive company because they're using their vehicle longer than predicted? Should cars cost 5 times as much because if you know what you're doing you can make it last 5 times as longer than intended?
-
Darkshadoe said:
EA has gotten so lazy, They announced that Battlefield 4 would consist of the player paying them $100 and EA flies you to a third world nation armed with only a 9mm, a combat knife and flashlight. (Players may buy extra rounds and weapons from the Origins store)
-
And they wonder why people pirate games. I agree with people saying why pay $60 for the game when I get no special context like someone else did cause they bought their copy from a specific retailer. If EA/Dice really wants to go down that road and give certain retailers special content for full price ($60) and other (regular) retailers with no special content then the price needs to go to $40-$50 since people aren't getting full access to game.
This crap of buy the limited edition and get so-so items for $60, where the hell is just the game for $50? Who said we have to buy the $60 limited version, oh EA did. Y, cause the don't make a regular version anymore. Whether you get the special content the game will still be $60, that's just garbage. BF3 is going the way of the call of duty series. They say one thing then at the last minute say oh yea we won't have this or this but you can buy these items.
If they keep this up pc gaming will be dead because the game companies killed it on purpose. Consoles will survive because of ***** kids and because parents will buy their kids anything so they don't have to bother with them.
-
So you're saying it preys on completists?
-
Screw both EA and Activision.
-
My pre-order stands. Pcenthusiest or however you spell it said it well, this is trivial **** people move on.
-
What i hate about EA is that they sold us Medal of honor limited edition saying that we would get exclusive beta , but the beta came out as open beta , open to anyone! this makes me sick! this is false publicity!
-
A kill is a kill no matter how you deliver it. Stop crying over these petty disadvantages. Life isn't fair. So when you get dropped, get up and just walk it off b*tch.
-
I like how people just whine to EA and DiCE because they couldn't get a few guns for free.
Would you rather have EA and DiCE be like Activision and IW?? They don't listen to their gamer fan base and charge excessively for their DLCs.
Give EA and DiCE a ****ing break guys. Its not like they're giving a god weapon to select individuals.
Most Popular
| Trending | Featured |
Featured on Keyboards
Subscribe to TechSpot
Get free exclusive content, learn about new features and breaking tech news.