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

[masher]

You mis-read the press release.

Actually, I didn't read it at all. I was speaking more about this practice within the general industry, than any specific release.

You will not be playing shoulder to shoulder with someone who is had 'bought' extra capability.

Then I have no problem with this particular pack. What are the rest of you whining about?

 

[urbsnspices]

I knew you would see the light. I do agree, paying money to uberize your toon is not a good for the game or the industry. EA might be evil but they are not stupid.

 

[Rich Tate]

I don't see any reason to lock the thread.

Personally I don't see what all the upset is about. Its 10 bucks, if it sounds fun, go for it, if not then don't.

Will some servers move over to support the new mini expansions? Yes they will, which does hurt the amount of servers available, but once again is it your choice.

20 bucks, which is usually going rate nowadays will get you an expansion pack. I would think adding content frequently would be a good thing, isn't it?

 

[v6maro]

You will not be playing shoulder to shoulder with someone who is had 'bought' extra capability.

Wrong. Why is it that I can use my SF weapons, and FLASHBANGS in vanilla bf2? Oh thats right, I now have an advantage over those players who didnt put the time or money into sf to get a sf unlock. Flashbangs are very powerful, they even work against tankers, thank god not everyone has one, it would be CS:S spam fest of them.

These new 'booster' pack weapons WILL be in vanilla bf2, you'll see. I mean just look at the F2000, that weapon is awesome, everyone unlocks it and owns with it. Is it fair to the vanilla bf2 players to get owned by that gun becuase they didnt buy sf? no.

 

[Attean]

Wrong. Why is it that I can use my SF weapons, and FLASHBANGS in vanilla bf2? Oh thats right, I now have an advantage over those players who didnt put the time or money into sf to get a sf unlock. Flashbangs are very powerful, they even work against tankers, thank god not everyone has one, it would be CS:S spam fest of them.

These new 'booster' pack weapons WILL be in vanilla bf2, you'll see. I mean just look at the F2000, that weapon is awesome, everyone unlocks it and owns with it. Is it fair to the vanilla bf2 players to get owned by that gun becuase they didnt buy sf? no.

 

[DudeItsMe]

So stop crying, put down $10, and get on with your life.

Honestly I'm surprsied so many people still expect everything for free or dirt cheap these days. You honestly expect them to host servers, provide new content, and fight cheating/hacking just to make you happy? I don't, and that's why I pay to play the games I think are worth the money.

So it's going to ruin your online gaming experience. Why? Because you're competitive. Obviously you won't have fun if you don't win to some extent. I don't know about you, but I learned early on that in order to win in competition, you need two things. Time, and money. I play paintball. I spend over a thousand dollars a year to splatter people in the face, and I'll spend even more if I think I have to do it to keep winning.

Don't want to pay money? Don't want to be competitive? Then... why are you whining? If you don't care, then you should be having fun no matter what. If you care, go work two extra hours and buy the damn booster pack.

 

[GlimmerMan]

I would think adding content frequently would be a good thing, isn't it?

Yea. But some people think that just because they paid their measly $50 for a game, they are entitled to get all new upgrades/contents for free. That the game publisher somehow owes them.

 

[Firewall]

I don't see any reason to lock the thread.

Personally I don't see what all the upset is about. Its 10 bucks, if it sounds fun, go for it, if not then don't.

Will some servers move over to support the new mini expansions? Yes they will, which does hurt the amount of servers available, but once again is it your choice.

20 bucks, which is usually going rate nowadays will get you an expansion pack. I would think adding content frequently would be a good thing, isn't it?

Agreed. This, in my opinion, is the way to go. You beat a game and whala, more maps! Sounds like a win win to me.

The game should be bug free for the most part though to begin with....

 

[Phoenix86]

Wrong. Why is it that I can use my SF weapons, and FLASHBANGS in vanilla bf2? Oh thats right, I now have an advantage over those players who didnt put the time or money into sf to get a sf unlock. Flashbangs are very powerful, they even work against tankers, thank god not everyone has one, it would be CS:S spam fest of them.

These new 'booster' pack weapons WILL be in vanilla bf2, you'll see. I mean just look at the F2000, that weapon is awesome, everyone unlocks it and owns with it. Is it fair to the vanilla bf2 players to get owned by that gun becuase they didnt buy sf? no.

BS, the F2000 is not as powerfull as say the AK101+GL, of course that's not available to US forces. It's different, but not better. It's better in some cases. It's like saying the assault class is overpowered when fighting 1-1 close up w/o vehicles. Of course they are going to kill you more, the class is meant for that.

Is it "unfair" that a sniper can pick you off at 400m? No.

If anything the bootser pack argument applies only SF because the haves can play side-by-side with the have-nots. Owning SF and having most of the unlock, I firmly disagree that there are advantages to the new guns.

Want the new gun? Pick it up off the guy you just killed who had it.

 

[Major_A]

I bought SF, don't care for it, so no more $ from me. But all these little packs take away from the main community. This means there will be less and less people playing the same pack of the game and harder to find a good server.

Just release the full SDK and let the mod community take over. I guess they won't do that if they are still making money though.

 

[Phoenix86]

I bought SF, don't care for it, so no more $ from me. But all these little packs take away from the main community. This means there will be less and less people playing the same pack of the game and harder to find a good server.

If they at least integrated the UIs it'd be much nicer. As is, you really need to decide if you want to play SF maps or not when you launch the game. That divides the community much more.

 

[WhyYouLoveMe]

Now let's go the other way...

If you haven't bought SF and you pick up an F2000 from the guy you just killed, didn't you just get that gun for free and I (being the one you just killed) had to pay $30 to unlock it? Hmm? lol We could go on and on...

I'll buy the booster packs and I'll like it. I'll play the new maps and guns and vehicles and I'll like it. I'll download the new patch and I'll like it. I'll buy BF3 if it comes out and I'll like it. I will not buy FEAR because I didn't like the demo. Blah, blah, blah, blah...

 

[WhyYouLoveMe]

If they at least integrated the UIs it'd be much nicer. As is, you really need to decide if you want to play SF maps or not when you launch the game. That divides the community much more.

Good point. It's annoying to do that. Every game/exp pack/booster pack should be visible from the main browser. If ya ain't got the pack, ya can't play. EA shouldn't make you launch a seperate program for each pack you want to play. I REALLY hope they don't make the booster packs like they did SF.

(I'll still buy 'em, though 'cause I frickin' like the game)

 

[Phoenix86]

Good point. It's annoying to do that. Every game/exp pack/booster pack should be visible from the main browser. If ya ain't got the pack, ya can't play. EA shouldn't make you launch a seperate program for each pack you want to play. I REALLY hope they don't make the booster packs like they did SF.

(I'll still buy 'em, though 'cause I frickin' like the game)

I doubt it would, as is, I paid for SF for the unlocks... Which is sad, but again, look at my time spent in the game, it's not like it's "expensive" at less than a quarter/hour.

I could barely that kind of cost/hour of fun out of an 80's arcade. Even then only on certian games.

 

[Attean]

Now let's go the other way...

If you haven't bought SF and you pick up an F2000 from the guy you just killed, didn't you just get that gun for free and I (being the one you just killed) had to pay $30 to unlock it? Hmm? lol We could go on and on...

I'll buy the booster packs and I'll like it. I'll play the new maps and guns and vehicles and I'll like it. I'll download the new patch and I'll like it. I'll buy BF3 if it comes out and I'll like it. I will not buy FEAR because I didn't like the demo. Blah, blah, blah, blah...

Whaat? So because I can kill them and then use their gun that makes the game balanced and Im ripping ea off? That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard. Allowing SF weapons into battlefield 2 is the most money-whoring design decision I've ever seen.

 

[Phoenix86]

Allowing SF weapons into battlefield 2 is the most money-whoring design decision I've ever seen.

So you think SF weapons are unbalanced? 'Splain please.

 

[Firewall]

actually, if this is true, and you can rip off sp guns and not pay for them it's cool as hell!

 

[Attean]

So you think SF weapons are unbalanced? 'Splain please.

Look, if player A has more options than player B the game is inately inbalanced - even if that imbalance is only at spawn, heaven forbid. Then you make it something as powerful as the F2000 and you get a pretty big gap in those that paid $30 for EA to fill the coffers and those that didn't.

Let me break it down into probabilities for you. I'm in a clan match with 100% really good people. My chance of surviving my first close quarters encounter with all base BF2 people is 50/50. That number shrinks drastically against an SF clan.

 

[Phoenix86]

Heh, you really wanted to post that.

OK, you say the F2000 is overpowered, why? It's extremely similar to the AK101-GL.

I'll buy the "more options" argument a bit, really the options are in the class, not the weapon of that class. There are some exceptions where the unlock is very different from the main weapon, but that's more in the base unlocks (pp-notgoingtouseit vs DAO).

 

[Om1kron]

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....

For one to expand on the bland gameplay that there is now and to open new possibilities, eventually they will be able to code this stupid ass game right and can integrate all packs into one so we dont have to reboot our server to change it from vanilla to sf, if it requires a reboot at all for either of these expansions or "booster" packs they can shove them up their ass.

The problem with EA is that they're THEE Microsoft of videogames!!!

Ask the Command and Conquer people how many updates have they recently received for that game. Oh thats right EA stopped supporting it. Eventually BF2 will fall down that line once too much money is dumped into supporting the game. Unlike HL2 which helped mostly everyone at Valve software become millionares or thousandares they support the game freely because they can float off of the money they've made on HL1 and HL2 is still selling STRONG!!!

and HL2 on the xbox... its everywhere.

WoW on the other hand is like monitored 24/7 and you have to pay monthly just to play that game on top of your internet bill. Guess how those nerds feel about that?

 

[schapman]

My only question is How many booster packs == 1 expansion pack. If I'm getting the same content for 3 booster packs @ $10 each as I would for 1 expansion @$30 then all this does is give me more choice in what I want to play. If there's a new gametype/map/team I don't wanna bother with, I don't have to pay for it.

 

[P3N1X0R]

I'll buy the booster packs and I'll like it. I'll play the new maps and guns and vehicles and I'll like it. I'll download the new patch and I'll like it. I'll buy BF3 if it comes out and I'll like it. I will not buy FEAR because I didn't like the demo. Blah, blah, blah, blah...

u said it there, thats the same thinking im with.....i dont care about the haters...the day SF came out...well id had it preloaded on my pc since they had the eadownloader out...

im a bf junkie, i loved bf42, then DC, the mods, and expansions, and yes i was duped into BF:Vietnam, it was OK, not great but still enjoyable...but i mostly stuck to the Desert Combat series, and loved it....now with bf2 im still in love, and SF its just awesome(can we say warlord, and surge, and ghost town they ROCK) and ill most definatly be buyin these booster packs/mini expansions

besides, all the ones complaining, are the kids in school with no jobs who ask mommy to buy it for them, or go without lunch a week at school saving their lunch money to buy the game(i know i did that too in HS..now i have a real job in the real world here) and then theres the general adults who feel screwed by this tactic ea is using to push out games...

agreed ea may be the MS of the gaming biz.....but i do enjoy their stuff

 

[Firewall]

My only problme with the pack is the method of delivery. Who knows what EA's "downloader" puts on your pc. Yes yes I am a tin hat wearing conspirorist, guilty as charged.

 

[Rich Tate]

My only problme with the pack is the method of delivery. Who knows what EA's "downloader" puts on your pc. Yes yes I am a tin hat wearing conspirorist, guilty as charged.

Hey I think its a valid point. Nowadays you don't know. Look at Sony, Symantec and WoW. Some people are turned off by steamesque type of delivery.

 

[Vagamus]

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

They're always paid. period.

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.

See last response. No one is doing any work for no money.

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

nope, but those without the money sure at a disadvantage, huh?If you have enough money to buy the game and the xp, then you get online only to find that you have to pay another sum to get ahead of everyone else... wouldn't you be pissed? They're hitting ya 3 times for 1 original product and 1 expansion (read: add-on, component) of the original product. Potentially 4 or 5 times if they expand the system. Just what the world needs; a gaming equivalent of American politics.

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.

Thats because no one at EA is working for free, and despite your livelihood, you still work for free... i assume you code in private. Most coders do.

QFT. It costs money to develop these sort of things. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Non sequitor.

It costs money for them to make the game to release. Anything else they do for the community is to make the game fresh and provide more draw for other people to buy the game. This is whats called a game rep. You add stuff to the game to increase game rep. You patch any bugs the game has to increase game rep.

Releasing an expansion without fixing the first game, is a stop gap measure, not a rep increase. Buggy software = bad for business, thus those developers are essentially still working on the development of their game, and they are still being paid to do so. (I assure you, this is exactly how EA looks at it.)

Everything that comes out of EA is paid for. If DICE wasn't getting paid to release new stuff and patches, you simply wouldn't see them.

So this "OMFG, YUO WANT TO BE A COMMIE AND HAVE THEM GIVE YOU STUFF!" thinking is completely out of line.

 

[DudeItsMe]

Ask the Command and Conquer people how many updates have they recently received for that game. Oh thats right EA stopped supporting it.

I'm an avid Command and Conquer gamer, I guess this is my question...

OK here goes... but, before I start... please tell me what the hell you're talking about?

Last I checked, my Generals ran great. I think it's balanced wonderfully. I can't remember the last time I experienced a bug. I got what I paid for, and now I can play it online whenever I want. Just pop in the CD and go.

So... where's the problem?

Please, tell me what EA should support. A game that doesn't make a whole lot of money anymore? Or perhaps games that have huge online followings, are farely new, and require a lot more new content/bug fixes than Command and Conquer?

 

[Phoenix86]

Hey I think its a valid point. Nowadays you don't know. Look at Sony, Symantec and WoW. Some people are turned off by steamesque type of delivery.

Sure it's valid, but it comes down to trust.

You have no idea what's in any code you run, on the CD, via a manually downloaded patch, or via auto-download.

That being said, I don't trust Sony.

 

[Phoenix86]

Vagamus, You paid for you last tank of gas, it's out now, do you buy another?

I know you are going to say this analogy doesn't work, because you don't "run out of BF:2" they change it.

However, that's not the point. You got what you paid for, now you want more, so you need to pay more. Asking for more content after the original isn't something the devs are going to do without, you got it, more $. Of course no one works for free, that's why you have to pay more to get more. What's not to get?

WoW releases new content in their patches, can you guess why? People are constantly paying them. End result, don't like the system, don't be a part of it.

 

[Torgo]

I would think adding content frequently would be a good thing, isn't it?

Sure, it's a great thing as long as it is distributed equally (in other words, free) amongst players. Frequent additional content fragments your userbase. That's probably the main concern amongst players and designers that actually know what they're doing. Expansion packs work because they are infrequent which allows large groups of players to move along while guaranteeing a certain level of stability.

Let's take the example of BF2 offering a new map pack for sale every month. Let's say it's sold for $5 each time and it's permanent. By the end of the 6th month, you've fractured your user base to the point where everyone has the base package, a majority might have the the first two packs and then smaller groups having various combinations. Some might have all 6, some might have three or four. Then there are those who don't buy any and are happy where they are.

This has become an administration nightmare for servers. Which maps do you offer? Pick the wrong packs and you limit your user base. You've got from a pool of several hundred thousand users to a sliver that must match your server configuration. You've also lost the casual gamer, which is where the majority of the money is coming from. For the player, you're limiting the players you can play against. If you just love that new map you forked $5 bucks over, you'd better hope that a lot of other people love it as well or you're going to be lonely.

Set yourself up with a expansion pack where all twelve packs are put together and you've solved the segmentation problem. You just have two groups of people, those that have the expansion and those that don't. It's much simpler to manage and administrate. Pretty much everyone wins.

The mini-expansions looks great on paper economically. It doesn't play to all gaming formats. Can there be a compromise of some type? I could see a model where you can pay to play certain expansion levels first that will later be in an expansion pack, but it doesn't really address the segmentation issue. Mini-expansions or boosters would absolutely kill a MMORPG playbalance. It's just a legalized form of gold farming in my opinion.

 

[Phoenix86]

The only real problem for the community I see is fragmentation and game-play balance. The latter is managable depending on what's in the pack/booster.

However, open up any game for modding, and you'll see real fracturing.

edit: the question is: Is fracturing bad? It worked OK for BF ala DC.

 

[Torgo]

Well, game mods are a different story. It's really a completely different game and remember that almost all game mods are free to download and install. Mods like Red Orchestra, Team Fortress, Quake CTF work because it takes the user base and: 1) makes it available to everyone, 2) It's an all or nothing upgrade, and 3) everyone already has the base program.

Yes, there is segmentation, but it's only limited to the amount of people that download, install and play the mod. I think everyone has seen mods that just faded off because not enough people downloaded it.

With mini-expansions they can come quick and fast. It will depend a lot on the publisher on how they push these things. Too many, too fast and it could wreck the game environment.

 

[masher]

They're always paid. period...Everything that comes out of EA is paid for. If DICE wasn't getting paid to release new stuff and patches, you simply wouldn't see them.

This is, quite simply, the most intellectually unsound reasoning I've seen in quite a while. The mere fact that a particular developer-- or development house-- is being paid by another company, just pushes the problem up one level. It doesn't change anything. Content is still being generated and-- if whoever is footing the bill isn't eventually paid by the end users-- its being generated for free. Someone, somewhere is not getting paid.

Just what the world needs; a gaming equivalent of American politics...

Only someone with no real knowledge of politics around the globe would try to claim the American flavour was any worse than average. Coming from someone whose lived in several foreign nations, I call it well above average.

 

[Rich Tate]

1942 and DC is a prime example. A lot of us went to DC, but many still preferred 1942, and yes I know DC was free, but I still think it can work, I think there is a base that will pay for addons. Torgo is right however, the implementation is the key to success.

 

[HHunt]

MMORPGs are a bit like this. You get free updates (WoW has had a number of instances added for free in patches), and addons (there are how many EQ addons?).
The reason they can do free updates with newly added content is probably the monthly fees. I wonder how that would work for BF2?

Consider this:
Make the game cheap, but require a monthly fee to play online. [1]
Routinely add content (mainly maps, I guess), and push it to everyone by including it in the patches.

Avoids segregating the player base, while retaining the income stream.
The challenge is, of course, making players feel they get enough for their money.


[1] LAN games should probably remain free. And I have no hope that EA would ever sell a game cheap, even if it made sense.

 

[Phoenix86]

The only problem with that is a lot of people are resistant to monthly charges.

After thinking about it for a while, and comparing cost to play time it's really a good idea. Afterall, WoW is a cash cow and there *are* plenty of people playing it.

 

[HHunt]

Come to think about it, you're also competing in the same general market as valve, who adds CS:S maps for free every now and then without any monthly fees. People might look at them and feel cheated.

 

[Attean]

This is, quite simply, the most intellectually unsound reasoning I've seen in quite a while. The mere fact that a particular developer-- or development house-- is being paid by another company, just pushes the problem up one level. It doesn't change anything. Content is still being generated and-- if whoever is footing the bill isn't eventually paid by the end users-- its being generated for free. Someone, somewhere is not getting paid.

Only someone with no real knowledge of politics around the globe would try to claim the American flavour was any worse than average. Coming from someone whose lived in several foreign nations, I call it well above average.

No, his logic was perfectly sound. I bet DICE sees almost none of the money for that crap. They're just pushing deadlines for EA - which is killing their reputation as a sound developer.

 

[jahcs]

Short Answer:

A = What do you want for your money?
B = What do game companies want to give you for that money?

If A does not = B then don't spend your money.


Long Answer:

When I buy a game I expect a few things:
1. A product not riddled with bugs and/or exploits.
2. A product that's fun to play (read: offer a demo before sale to try before you buy).
3. A certain amount of patch support. There will always be some unforseen errors in game codes and players are always creative enough to find "broken" exploits. I want a company that takes action on these types of errors.
4. I expect the minimum hardware requirements to deliver a playable experience.

Anything after that is a bonus. Free content with a patch, bonus. Servers patrolled by admins, bonus.
If an expansion/booster comes out then I ask myself "Is the added content worth the price?" (See Short Answer above )
An expansion/booster should not be an excuse to charge the consumer for a needed patch. It should be an add on for extra content. Is the content worth $10 or $30? Is that what the game company is charging?

People spend money to be better at games all the time. If they didn't Zboard and other companies that make gaming gear would go out of business. Video card and Internet connection upgrades might be less common (the ability to turn up graphics options and reducing lag by a few points can have significant impact on gameplay). Does an expansion pack's content just give a player an edge or is it game breaking? If it's game breaking then something needs to change. If a loud enough ruckus is raised then most game companies will listen. If not, take your knocks and develop a new strategy. That, or buy the expansion, or get a new hobby.

 

[Attean]

Short Answer:

A = What do you want for your money?
B = What do game companies want to give you for that money?

If A does not = B then don't spend your money.


Long Answer:

When I buy a game I expect a few things:
1. A product not riddled with bugs and/or exploits.
2. A product that's fun to play (read: offer a demo before sale to try before you buy).
3. A certain amount of patch support. There will always be some unforseen errors in game codes and players are always creative enough to find "broken" exploits.
4. I expect the minimum hardware requirements to deliver a playable experience.

Anything after that is a bonus. Free content with a patch, bonus. Servers patrolled by admins, bonus.
If an expansion/booster comes out then I ask myself "Is the added content worth the price?" (See Short Answer above )
An expansion/booster should not be an excuse to charge the consumer for a needed patch. It should be an add on for extra content. Is the content worth $10 or $30? Is that what the game company is charging?

People spend money to be better at games all the time. If they didn't Zboard and other companies that make gaming gear would go out of business. Video card and Internet connection upgrades might be less common (the ability to turn up graphics options and reducing lag by a few points can have significant impact on gameplay). Does an expansion pack's content just give a player an edge or is it game breaking? If it's game breaking then something needs to change. If a loud enough ruckus is raised then most game companies will listen. If not, take your knocks and develop a new strategy. That, or buy the expansion, or get a new hobby.

We're not upset that they're adding new content for a price.

We're upset because EA is interrupting the old content, the content I paid my good money for and I have no desier to further my experience. I just ask that they do not ruin my current one by making my play experience monetary.

 

[Majin]

EA has been ass fucking us for years.
Most of the time it's with games that really shouldn't have been released when they are. Games that still need work ie. BF2. Then they sit back and release a patch 8 or so months later that is just enough to hold you tight till the expansion that comes out just as fucking bugged!

Anyone else remember back when Patches didn't exist?
Back when game developers put out games that had been tested to hell and back and had almost no bugs.

Then the PATCH caught on and now, there is no reason to even finish a game before releasing it, cause you can always fix it later with a patch.

How fucking long before EA (oh and it will be them.. the bastards) puts out a game where you only get 3/4th of the game, and have to buy the ending in a "Ending Pack"?

GOD I HATE YOU EA!