(BF2) Paying for booster packs is a bad idea, and i'll tell you y

v6maro

v6maro

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Messages
1,552
Why you ask?

Sure, you get 3 maps, some weapons, some vehicles, and it only costs you like $10us ($5.99uk), no big deal. Wrong.

The whole gaming industry is looking at this right now.

If they see this as a possible huge money making trend, we as consumers are so to say 'screwed'. Every game company in the world is going to adapt to this style of 'updates' if we buy EA's crap.

Personally, I would really love to have the new content, but I don't think I should pay for it. I play plenty of games that offer free mods (like sf), new weapons, new maps, new models, etc for FREE.

Now I did buy SF, and to me, that WAS a good expansion pack, lots of maps, lots of weapons, lots of classes, etc. That was worth my $. These booster packs are a bunch of BS. We should not have to pay for content updates.

Edit: And another thought, how can I rightly give a company more money when they can't even get this game right. True I love it, play it all the time, but there are huge BUGS that need to be fixed before I shell out any more money. IMHO BF2 should never have been released when it was, this release that they are doing now SHOULD have been the first one. But thats another story for another day....
 
The only expansion I ever bought for any game was Raven Shield: Athena Sword. It was well worth the money. But aside from that, I don't ever and probably never will buy "updates" or expansion packs. I'll leave the add-ons to the talent in the modding community, as their stuff tends to be better anyway.
 
Do you play bf2? They are marketing these content updates as 'booster packs' which enhance the game, it's so dumb. And I can't believe how many people are buying it....
 
I used to play it. But I got tired of getting my ass handed to me every time I spawned in the game and the complete lack of teamplay really turned me off since that's what the games really about. It seemed that only the people that knew each other on there played in teams, the rest were ignored.
I don't have a lot of time to play games as it is, so I don't get much "practice". So to me, a game isn't very fun if all I do is die 30 times to 10 kills because the other people that are playing seem to devote every spare minute of their life to it.

Raven Shield is still my favorite. It may be dated, but it has some dynamite content from the modding community and to me is actually more fun than any of these new games I've played.
 
v6maro said:
Personally, I would really love to have the new content, but I don't think I should pay for it.
Click to expand...

So you think software developers should work for free for your enjoyment?

v6maro said:
I play plenty of games that offer free mods (like sf), new weapons, new maps, new models, etc for FREE.
Click to expand...

Those developers are willing to work for free (or their enjoyment). EA is a for-profit company, not a charity. Just be grateful for the bonuses they include in every major patch.

v6maro said:
We should not have to pay for content updates.
Click to expand...

They are not forcing you to pay for it.You don't need it to play what you have already paid for.

I for one enjoy BF2. Yes it has some glitches, but to me, it is a perfect game. I'm willing pay for any packs that comes out. My livelihood is developing software and I don't work for free. I don't expect other developers to work for free also.
 
Its just like Valve and Steam how they make some new thing pr chnage something really minor and sell it.
 
GlimmerMan said:
So you think software developers should work for free for your enjoyment?



Those developers are willing to work for free (or their enjoyment). EA is a for-profit company, not a charity. Just be grateful for the bonuses they include in every major patch.



They are not forcing you to pay for it.You don't need it to play what you have already paid for.

I for one enjoy BF2. Yes it has some glitches, but to me, it is a perfect game. I'm willing pay for any packs that comes out. My livelihood is developing software and I don't work for free. I don't expect other developers to work for free also.
Click to expand...

No, no, no. He doesnt like paying for crap from EA when they haven't even fixed the core content yet. It's fine if you think battlefield 2 is "perfect" but there are a lot of bugs in it still and any way you dice it it's far from perfect; EA is notorious for releasing crap expansions that offer next to nothing when it's a standard in the game industry to release multiplayer content for free. There's a difference between working for money and being a greedy corporate pos.

EA definately isn't starving and it's not like the majority of their development teams care if ea gets $10 dollars, they'll still get fired after the project is wrapped up. You are not feeding some starving developers kid here. Gd, EA sucks. Seriously, it didnt piss you off when EA announced the first expansion days after their buggy pos was released? It made me sick.
 
0810 said:
Its just like Valve and Steam how they make some new thing pr chnage something really minor and sell it.
Click to expand...

Could you please give examples?
 
Attean said:
Seriously, it didnt piss you off when EA announced the first expansion days after their buggy pos was released?
Click to expand...

Actually, I was a little excited, it means more games to play. Believe me, I'm no EA lover, and I could care less what happens to them. I just wanna play the game and have fun. Yes, there are bugs, but considering the complexity of the game, it is far from the POS many people suggest it to be. And EA is continually working to bring out patches to improve the game.
 
GlimmerMan said:
So you think software developers should work for free for your enjoyment?
Click to expand...

QFT. It costs money to develop these sort of things. If you don't like it, don't buy it.
 
So here's how it works in America.

These big companes spend thousands and thousands of dollars to find out what their customers want and what they'll buy.

They find out....develop the product....release the product.... tons of people go out and spend their money on it.

Repeat over and over and over and over. You're not getting screwed... The gaming community will prove they want this when they show up to buy it in droves.
 
v6maro said:
Why you ask?

Sure, you get 3 maps, some weapons, some vehicles, and it only costs you like $10us ($5.99uk), no big deal. Wrong.

The whole gaming industry is looking at this right now.

If they see this as a possible huge money making trend, we as consumers are so to say 'screwed'. Every game company in the world is going to adapt to this style of 'updates' if we buy EA's crap.

Personally, I would really love to have the new content, but I don't think I should pay for it. I play plenty of games that offer free mods (like sf), new weapons, new maps, new models, etc for FREE.

Now I did buy SF, and to me, that WAS a good expansion pack, lots of maps, lots of weapons, lots of classes, etc. That was worth my $. These booster packs are a bunch of BS. We should not have to pay for content updates.

Edit: And another thought, how can I rightly give a company more money when they can't even get this game right. True I love it, play it all the time, but there are huge BUGS that need to be fixed before I shell out any more money. IMHO BF2 should never have been released when it was, this release that they are doing now SHOULD have been the first one. But thats another story for another day....
Click to expand...

Cool. Don't buy it. I will.
 
0810 said:
Its just like Valve and Steam how they make some new thing pr chnage something really minor and sell it.
Click to expand...

I believe Lost Coast was free.......
CS:Source came bundled with HL2 if Im not mistaken......
So far you've lost me about Valve.
I agree with the above......if you dont want the new content, dont buy it.
It would only be a shame if a completely developed game was released in pieces rather than in total so that the sum of the parts was more expensive than the "complete game". It seems that this concept is gaining momentum however and I can see both sides of the argument. SIN episodes and Aftermath will be good barometers of how well the concept catches on.
 
Thank the mmorpg. And everquest and the sims more specifically i guess, which had ~20 expansions between the two of them (not an exaggeration).
 
magoo said:
I believe Lost Coast was free.......
CS:Source came bundled with HL2 if Im not mistaken......
So far you've lost me about Valve.
I agree with the above......if you dont want the new content, dont buy it.
It would only be a shame if a completely developed game was released in pieces rather than in total so that the sum of the parts was more expensive than the "complete game". It seems that this concept is gaining momentum however and I can see both sides of the argument. SIN episodes and Aftermath will be good barometers of how well the concept catches on.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. But there's a difference in releasing 8-10 hours of single player content in a COMPLETED package and not releasing a full product as EA is doing. Personally I bought bf2 and I'm still feeling more than a little ripped off. Hopefully this new patch will remedy that.
 
I think it could lead to a trend, if successful, of stripping down content in the initial release of a game, so that they can sell you more content for the game later. That way the game is really just a content delivery platform. I hope things don't go that way, gameplay is getting shallow enough as it is in some games and the prices only keep going up.
 
While I hate EA, I also hate when someone in a community tries to tell or force others to do what they want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't try to exterminate my rights as a consumer (or a citizen for that matter) because you don't like something.

On a side note, I still don't know what the big deal with BF2 is about. maybe it is because I can't get it to connect to servers without PB kicking me off instantly but in my opinion, CS:S owns the shit outta BF2 in a major way.
 
Firewall said:
While I hate EA, I also hate when someone in a community tries to tell or force others to do what they want. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't try to exterminate my rights as a consumer (or a citizen for that matter) because you don't like something.

On a side note, I still don't know what the big deal with BF2 is about. maybe it is because I can't get it to connect to servers without PB kicking me off instantly but in my opinion, CS:S owns the shit outta BF2 in a major way.
Click to expand...

I also hate it when someone in a community tries to tell or force others to like what they like. Don't like it? Don't play it. Don't try to exterminate my rights as a player (or a citizen for that matter) because you don't like something.

I like BF2 more than CS:S.

*sigh* :rolleyes:
 
I'm more or less worried about the future of games.

Company: "Here is our new awesome FPS game, it's $50, buy it"
Me: "Ok....plays it, last 15min, man that sucks. Go online, play it, wow fun, 3 maps and some weapons"
Company: (3 weeks later) "Buy this expansion pack, it's $15 and adds 3 more maps"

repeat for 6months: total cost of game 6mo: $170 , 12 mo: $290

in the past it was

Company: "Here is our new awesome FPS game, it's $50, buy it"
Me: "ok...plays it, last 23hrs, man that was awesome! Go online, play it, wow super fun, 20 maps and tons of stuff to do"
Company: (6mo later) "Buy this expansion pack, it's $15 and it adds 10 new maps, tons mroe weapons etc."

Repeat every 6mo: total cost of game after 6mo: $65, 12 mo: $80

------------
summary
------------
Future:
-less single player length of game/content
-less multiplayer experience
-cost is high

Past:
-more single player length of game/content
-more multiplayer experience
-cost is much lower

What this means to me is, future, cost/hr of gaming fun = more <> good.

--------------------

As for development of this crap posted by "GlimmerMan"

Yes i think they should work for 'free'! They already made their money! And WHY should they work for free you ask? So that I buy battlefield fucking 3 and keep dinner on their table.

Sure, EA is a for-profit company, but they are also Nazi's, but that's ok because they are for-profit? They shove out the crapware, and expect us to pay for 'booster packs' which were more than likely included in the original bf2 before execs decided to cut some content out and make us pay 2x as much in the future.

I also develop software for a lively hood, at a very nice firm. Do we make the kind of PROFITS that EA does? No. Do we have to charge everything to survive in this industry? Yes. Do we ever need to cut out content from our customers so they can buy them later: HELL NO, because then we wouldn't HAVE CUSTOMERS

I guess my big gripe is just F EA.
 
v6maro said:
I'm more or less worried about the future of games.

Company: "Here is our new awesome FPS game, it's $50, buy it"
Me: "Ok....plays it, last 15min, man that sucks. Go online, play it, wow fun, 3 maps and some weapons"
Company: (3 weeks later) "Buy this expansion pack, it's $15 and adds 3 more maps"

repeat for 6months: total cost of game 6mo: $170 , 12 mo: $290

in the past it was

Company: "Here is our new awesome FPS game, it's $50, buy it"
Me: "ok...plays it, last 23hrs, man that was awesome! Go online, play it, wow super fun, 20 maps and tons of stuff to do"
Company: (6mo later) "Buy this expansion pack, it's $15 and it adds 10 new maps, tons mroe weapons etc."

Repeat every 6mo: total cost of game after 6mo: $65, 12 mo: $80

------------
summary
------------
Future:
-less single player length of game/content
-less multiplayer experience
-cost is high

Past:
-more single player length of game/content
-more multiplayer experience
-cost is much lower

What this means to me is, future, cost/hr of gaming fun = more <> good.

--------------------

As for development of this crap posted by "GlimmerMan"

Yes i think they should work for 'free'! They already made their money! And WHY should they work for free you ask? So that I buy battlefield fucking 3 and keep dinner on their table.

Sure, EA is a for-profit company, but they are also Nazi's, but that's ok because they are for-profit? They shove out the crapware, and expect us to pay for 'booster packs' which were more than likely included in the original bf2 before execs decided to cut some content out and make us pay 2x as much in the future.

I also develop software for a lively hood, at a very nice firm. Do we make the kind of PROFITS that EA does? No. Do we have to charge everything to survive in this industry? Yes. Do we ever need to cut out content from our customers so they can buy them later: HELL NO, because then we wouldn't HAVE CUSTOMERS

I guess my big gripe is just F EA.
Click to expand...

I know it sucks, but welcome to the new America (world). Coorps own everything and only want you money, period. Anyone who tells you differently is kidding themselves or dilusional.

They pump out shittier and shittier products, give shittier support and people buy more and more. It is amazing how much people are controlled through the media by hype and material wants. Still, you can't go around forcing people what to buy and what not to. Turst me, sooner or later this will all collapse and the stupid people won't have anyone to protect them.
 
v6maro... It's like you're FORCED to buy/play BF2. DO NOT PLAY IT THEN! Did you play the demo before you bought it? Did you read reviews before you bought it? Did you talk to other BF2 gamers before you bought it? Imagine what your gaming life would be like if you had a little patience and did some research. My guess would be that you wouldn't be so doom 'n gloom. Bottom line is you contributed to the VERY thing you detest. :)

Now where's that mod to lock this thread...
 
I think it's great, and plan to buy it. The value you get from a game you play a ton is quite high on a dollar basis. I'm currently only playing Special Forces because it made BF2 fresh for me again--which I had already got my money's worth on many times over.

Extending a game that is already great is a genius idea to me. I salute them.
 
I'm the Dude said:
I think it's great, and plan to buy it. The value you get from a game you play a ton is quite high on a dollar basis. I'm currently only playing Special Forces because it made BF2 fresh for me again--which I had already got my money's worth on many times over.

Extending a game that is already great is a genius idea to me. I salute them.
Click to expand...

QFT
 
WhyYouLoveMe said:
v6maro... It's like you're FORCED to buy/play BF2. DO NOT PLAY IT THEN! Did you play the demo before you bought it? Did you read reviews before you bought it? Did you talk to other BF2 gamers before you bought it? Imagine what your gaming life would be like if you had a little patience and did some research. My guess would be that you wouldn't be so doom 'n gloom. Bottom line is you contributed to the VERY thing you detest. :)

Now where's that mod to lock this thread...
Click to expand...

I bought bf2 because i liked 1942, i saw screenies, i liked, i saw reviews, i liked, i saw vids, i liked, so i bought.

Now, if you dont buy the exp packs there are less 'Ranked' servers for you to play on. Notice how EA only lets their maps be Ranked? Yeah, it's called control so they can charge for new maps.

And why lock the thread? Because you don't agree? Pft QFT and get out if you don't like it.
 
v6maro said:
I bought bf2 because i liked 1942, i saw screenies, i liked, i saw reviews, i liked, i saw vids, i liked, so i bought.

Now, if you dont buy the exp packs there are less 'Ranked' servers for you to play on. Notice how EA only lets their maps be Ranked? Yeah, it's called control so they can charge for new maps.

And why lock the thread? Because you don't agree? Pft QFT and get out if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "less ranked servers" if you don't buy the exp pack? You think EA takes away servers 'cause you didn't buy the pack?

Of course they only let their maps be ranked. If some modder released a map and magically "ranked" it, don't you think the creator of the map would have a HUGE advantage over other people? i.e.: hiding spots, spots where art will not damage, places to camp flags, spots to cap flags while not being seen, etc, etc...

I think it'll get locked 'cause yer so emotional about this and dangerously getting close to the "flaming" line. :)
 
I had heard that EA/Dice was going to allow unranked servers to run ranked. I dunno how true it is.

At any rate, I don't particularly care for the ranked servers anyway, they are too unstructured and too disorganized. But if they let some of theorganized unranked be ranked and they still hold ot their rules of being structured, having to join squads and follow the order of the SL's and CO's then it might be worth it to check out.

I plan on buying SF and most if not allt he "booster" packs.

Remember, VALVe does pretty much the same thing. Only they charge $50 a pop for games that were released back in 1998, DoD:S, CS:S come to mind. At least EA/Dice isn't saying you have to purchase all of the BF2 booster packs upgrades otherwise they are going shut your account down like VALVe has done to it's fans and to the people who own the original releases of thier games which have now become Coasters for my sodas and beers while I play BF2.
 
Question: Do you pay for online pay for BF2?

No? Then you deserve no frre content.

If yes, then (depending on price) you shouldn't be getting charged for booster packs.

I know I put in $80 + $77 + $77 to play WoW for a year. Did I whine about it? No, because I knew that I was getting what I paid for. If you're not getting what you payed for, stop paying.
 
Going back to the core of the matter: "booster packs" vs. "expansion pack" is that it does start a dangerous trend to online play. It's no secret that booster packs would more quickly inflate the bottom line for the publisher. It has a higher rate of return over an expansion pack.

The drawback is that a booster pack can quickly segment your player base into the haves and havenots. This is seen in many card trading games where those that can afford the booster packs have an advantage over those with limited resources. Another example of a created booster pack are gold and item farmers in MMORPG games. For real world money, you can purchase a character with all the gold and items that you want.

Expansion packs do take longer to produce and create, but they have more content and a longer QA cycle and more gamers take advantage of purchasing them. The large segmentation that occurs doesn't happen there is parity among the players.

From a design standpoint, booster packs are not a sound idea. It's mostly a money generating tool for the publisher and the developer. It's just a revenue model being tried out in the gaming arena. In the long run, patches that includes small boosts of content go a lot further from a marketing standpoint in encouraging more sales and maintaining your community.
 
Let me ask this, will a booster pack stop me from joining a server because I don't have it? Probably. Sucks for me, right?

Well what happens when a large amounts of people run different packs? Segmentation. Segmentation on servers is anoyying at best.
 
If your time in the game/$ you spent playing it are not worth it, then I agree. However, with BF2, I have played ~220 hours online, some offline too.

Link.

Shows I have paid ~22.8299 cents/hour @$50 for the game. I payed a little more than that with Special Forces, but I think you see where I'm going here.

You show me what I can do for less than $.25/hour.
 
DudeItsMe said:
Question: Do you pay for online pay for BF2?

No? Then you deserve no frre content.
Click to expand...
Let's make one important distinction. I have no problem with paying for extra *content*...hopefully most of us here do not. New maps, new levels, areas, new features, thats fine.

But a "booster pack" that is designed to "boost" your avatar's strength, sets a very dangerous trend. It creates an unlevel playing field by providing more powerful weapons, armor, vehicles, whatever...items designed to be used against people who did not purchase that booster, along with people who did. That means the booster pack isn't simply adding enjoyment to those who purchase it--- its REMOVING enjoyment of the game from people who didn't.

It's a definite cash cow, I agree. But it will eventually harm the industry.
 
Attean said:
No, no, no. He doesnt like paying for crap from EA when they haven't even fixed the core content yet. .
Click to expand...

What a tired tired tired argument. Why would this guy be worried about having to pay for content if he wasnt playing the game religiously? If the core product is crap he wouldnt be playing.
 
Its not tired. I'll agree with him here.

For a company to release a game that is obviously in a beta stage (at best) is borderline criminal. Let the consumer test it out??!! Screw EA for even thinking that.

Its not like they are a start up either. You can bet your ass they could have made that game a LOT better before release.
 
If you don't want to pay for booster packs - don't. No ones says you have to.
 
Then why would you ever think of buying an expansion from a company that is criminal? You must love BF2. If not, it is a moot point, you hate the game, the company is criminal, you wont be buying an expansion. You need help figuring this out?

I probibly wont be buying a mini expansion, but for more simpler reasons.
 
Json23 said:
If you don't want to pay for booster packs - don't. No ones says you have to.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the free market is a wonderful idea. However, do you really think booster packs that reduce the playability of the game for those who don't buy is a good idea?

Let me give you an analogy. EA and you make a deal...you give them $40 and they give you a game, and a promise you can play it online for free for the indefinite future. Then, a few months later you get an email from EA saying "give us another $20 or we're going to take away half your Toon's starting health and items." That's verging on extortion isn't it?

A "booster pack" isn't weaking your toon directly. They're just increasing everyone else's. Pay more..keep playing. Don't pay...and you can no longer compete. The net result is the same.
 
Json23 said:
If you don't want to pay for booster packs - don't. No ones says you have to.
Click to expand...
Depending on the nature of the booster pack, choosing NOT to pay for one can hamper your gaming experience. Suppose that you have a group of friends that regularly play some MMORPG. Some of your group may be willing to purchase a booster pack, some others not. Those that do purchase the pack will have an advantage over those that do not have it. "Hey want to go venture over and kill the wombat?" "Gee, sorry. I'd love to but I can't go since I didn't purchase that option."

In PvP play, the player that has purchased the most boosts will usually win. It's akin to being stuck with $100 in Counter-strike, while the opposing player always has $50,000 to purchase armor, helmets and a mini-gun.

For me personally, it's the nickel and diming of the player that gets me. It's like buying a cell phone. Yeah, the phone is free with the two-year committment, but then I have to pay extra for text messaging, extra for more minutes, extra for no long-distance charges, extra for MS Office syncing and so forth. I don't mind getting all that as long as I can possibly purchase all at once in a package deal (ie an expansion pack).

I personally don't see why small items like weapons and maps can't be given away with additional patches. The cost of development goes back to maintenance or marketing and it encourages people to patch their systems.
 
masher said:
Let me give you an analogy.
Click to expand...
Flawed. No game takes away from a player, instead they give. A better example is having steroids in baseball. It gives an unfair advantage to those are on steroids. A true "booster pack" indeed... So you could make it available to everyone or to none.

Booster packs, can really screw with play balance and gameplay. There's no question that it can.

FYI, Buying maps may seem innocuous, but if that map just happens to be one that gives you an advantage for advancing higher, gaining more resources or special items then it could have a negative effect in the game later on. Is the goal more entertainment or just to make more money? I'm not saying that all booster packs are bad, it's just more difficult to make a fair and good pack than it would seem.
 
Torgo said:
Flawed. No game takes away from a player, instead they give.
Click to expand...
A fact I pointed out. However, in competition, giving to one players equates to taking away from another. There is no innate difference between boosting the "haves" versus diminishing the "have nots".

New content should never reduce the playability of the old. I say again, this sets a dangerous precedent.
 
masher said:
?

A "booster pack" isn't weaking your toon directly. They're just increasing everyone else's. Pay more..keep playing. Don't pay...and you can no longer compete. The net result is the same.
Click to expand...


You mis-read the press release. They are called booster packs but they are really mini expansions. Small map expansions which within them contain special weps/vehics. Atleast that is how I took it. You will not be playing shoulder to shoulder with someone who is had 'bought' extra capability.


READ

These are mini expansions. I have no problem with it. The players who own everything will still want to play the original fav maps. There will always be basic content servers. Mashturr City? What ever comes out, that will be a fav of a lot o folks. Once I have played my 400 hours and played 10cents an hour for that fun I might pick up one of these to give me another 100 hours of fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top