[Rumor] EA to Charge for Weapons in Battlefield: Bad Company?

[fitbabits]

Microtransactions. Ever since Horse Armor-gate (am I doing it right?), the mere mention of "microtransaction" is enough to send people into fits of micro-rage.

In an effort to squeeze just a few more pennies from gamers everywhere, it appears that some weapons in Battlefield: Bad Company may be available via microtransactions only:

...and it appears that the Battlefield: Bad Company Beta lists individual weapons for sale via the XBLM. A total of ten weapons are locked that have text reading "Available for purchase on Xbox Live Marketplace" next to them. The details of this are a bit shaky as of now however, as of those ten weapons, five weapons are listed as simply available for purchase, and five are listed as available in gold edition or for purchase. The gold edition likely refers to the game's collector's edition which sports a faux gold finish and which will apparently have extra content.
Source - Xbox360 Fanboy (http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/03/21/ea-charging-for-weapons-in-bad-company-beta/).

NOTE - at this point this is a rumor. Keep that in mind before posting a reply and you'll save yourself a bout of indigestion!

[LostToys]

Wouldn't be too surprised. EA has been charging for "cheats" for a while now, and their model of operation for the upcoming "free" Battlefield Heroes will also have microtransactions.

[Telefrog]

Didn't Chromehounds do the same thing, and wouldn't this just be par for the course when the next Battlefield game is dependent entirely on microtransactions and ads?

[fitbabits]

Didn't Chromehounds do the same thing, and wouldn't this just be par for the course when the next Battlefield game is dependent entirely on microtransactions and ads?

This is not the 'free' PC version, this is the console one.

[Bingley Joe]

EA can get fucked even if this is a rumour (although I don't really see any reason why they wouldn't pull something like this).

As far as I'm concerned, this BF would be all about the SP game anyway, but as I'm a bit skeptical as to how fun it's going to be, I'm waiting for a decent demo and/or stellar reviews to sway me.

After that, it's a used-purchase from a small brick-and-mortar, as are any EA games I buy.

[Gorvi]

This is one of the few FPSs that actually looked pretty interesting to me. That's too bad, as if this is true, the game may as well not exist.

[Judas]

Remember, there are pleny of game to play, and there's probably no reason to have to buy this game. Nothing sends a clearer message than that to get a point across, otherwise you play into their greedy little schemes.

[Deadend]

It's right there in the menus, so I don't think it's a rumor.

There are other guns you can unlock through skill, but it looks like the better guns for each class are pay to unlock.

But, would we be willing to deal with it if the game was $10 or so dollars less?

[shunoshi]

Having to pay extra money to remain competitive is ridiculous. If this ends up being the case, EA can kiss my ass.

[Telefrog]

This is not the 'free' PC version, this is the console one.

Right. That's my point. The 'next' Battlefield game after this is completely microtransaction driven, so why is this surprising?

[Albinobees]

sweet! i cant wait until they charge per bullet.

[BalekFekete]

Having to pay extra money to remain competitive is ridiculous. If this ends up being the case, EA can kiss my ass.

QFT. If it goes this way, I'll join the "Boycott EA" club.

[Phanto]

Sad thing is that there is always a "gamer" that approve this kind of "game/sales" and actually paid for it.

[2HeadedBoy]

I installed the beta for this last night, and was looking at the different weapons in the options section...and I noticed that at least 5 weapons saying that they would be available in gold version or via XBL marketplace.

EDIT: I'm am idiot... should have read the entire news post...

[rein]

Am I understanding this correctly? There are 10 weapons available online for purchase and 5 available in the "gold" edition of the game that average users will not be able to obtain in the game if they do not purchase them this way? Even if I pay the extra for the "gold" version I will still have to pay more for the other five weapons to make a complete game? At launch? I've will be very disappointed of this turns out to be true. Absolutely a no buy for me if there is no other way to access these locked weapons.

[Mdot23]

If the game includes equivalent guns that are the same as the ones you can buy, whatever. If you gain an advantage, gameplay-wise, by buying new guns, that's unacceptable horseshit.

[Sandman]

No. Bad EA. Bad. Go to the corner.

[torrefaction]

Quick...everyone talk about how horrible EA is.

Oh...wait.

[Pureboy]

I just worked on a graduate school paper about DLC, and honestly, this type of thing would be a great idea- if, and only if, they pass the savings on to the consumer. If the game was $10 or $15 cheaper, and each weapon was $2.50 or less, the consumer gets to customize the game as he sees fit, for less than retail would cost, and the margins on the DLC are higher for EA.

Of course, EA is likely to charge the same for the game, in which case, the customer is screwed.

[Hemalin]

Would people be fine with this method if there was no sign of the weapons in the game and these showed up a month later?

[asimonk]

Can we PLEASE stop adding -gate to something when referencing a scandal/hullabaloo? That's about as childish or intelligent as abbreviating Microsoft as ***.

Also, depending on the actual price of the game, this is debatebly bad. Cheap/free game with microtransactions isn't all that new actually. Games have been doing this in Asia for years. Hell, Gun Bound (PC Worms like game) used this exact model.

Now, full retail plus this, and fuck that.

And as to the person mentioning paying per bullet, I give you this. (http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2008/03/18/online-shooter-offers-gamers-cash-rewards-and-losses)

[Dr.Finger]

I wonder if this will be the (or at least a) tipping point. As several people have said, if you couldn't see these weapons in the base game, and a month later there was a $10 DLC that gives you those guns, would people be as upset?

I think Bad Company was going to struggle a bit in the marketplace, and this will certainly turn off some gamers, particularly the ones that already hate EA.

[DigiWiz]

If you end up not paying 60$ for a game on the shelves, but 10$ for a bunch of weapons for the classes you actually like to play, I have no issue with this. Oh wait.... that' Battlefield Heroes..

[fitbabits]

Can we PLEASE stop adding -gate to something when referencing a scandal/hullabaloo? That's about as childish or intelligent as abbreviating Microsoft as ***.

Um, you forgot to don your sarcasm detector!

[Chimpbot]

Would people be fine with this method if there was no sign of the weapons in the game and these showed up a month later?

I'd be able to swallow it a tad easier if that were the case, yes.

The DLC weapons are, in all likelyhood, already on the disc; if this is the case, then EA is compelling people to pay more money for somethig they've technically already purchased.
If said weapons are not on the disc, however...that's an entirely different story. It would be entirely new content at that point, which is something I don't mind paying for. The weapons would be akin to the DLC songs for Rock Band, in that regard.

I still don't like the idea of paying real money to gain an advantage in a game, which is why I stuck to the servers that shut off the equipment bonuses in Gunbound. With purchasable equipment such as that game had, any moron with their parent's credit card could easily compensate for their overall lack of skill by buying the best equipment in the game.

[Sasori the Medic]

EA does these kinds of things because the market, i.e. YOU, continue to buy their products.

[jeffbax]

You know, I remember all the fuss on the interwebs about this kind of shit when they first unveiled the 360 and talked about DLC... but I never thought it would get this bad. I guess I was wrong.

The solution is pretty easy though... get the game that doesn't do this.

And like VF5, the weapons are almost certainly still on the disc.... otherwise how would you kill people who didn't have them with the extra guns? They wouldn't have downloaded them so they must be somewhere...

[asimonk]

Um, you forgot to don your sarcasm detector!

This is probably true. However, I stand by the point as valid!

[Doctor Setebos]

I just worked on a graduate school paper about DLC, and honestly, this type of thing would be a great idea- if, and only if, they pass the savings on to the consumer. If the game was $10 or $15 cheaper, and each weapon was $2.50 or less, the consumer gets to customize the game as he sees fit, for less than retail would cost, and the margins on the DLC are higher for EA.But that's just the thing. This isn't about finding other sources of income in order to "pass savings on to the consumer." This is about finding other sources of revenue, period. Development costs are rising and publishers need to be able to offset rising costs, and still manage to increase profit. Enter microtransactions.

Yeah, margins are slightly better on DLC. But all that means to a publisher is that they get more money on top of the money they made from the (full retail price!) sale of the game. That's the formula for a winning business strategy. I'm not quite sure what the fallback strategy is when this one bombs.

EDIT: that may have come across as me arguing with you, but I was actually supporting your original statements. :D

[fitbabits]

This is probably true. However, I stand by the point as valid!

It is a valid point, and it was mentioned earlier in the week about "Gertsman-gate", which is why I added the parentheses.

[Lekon]

How does one get into the beta anyways?

[fitbabits]

How does one get into the beta anyways?

Here (http://www.gamestop.com/Product.asp?product%5Fid=200388).

Pre-order now and get into the GameStop Exclusive Closed Multiplayer Beta for Battlefield: Bad Company beginning on March 25, 2008 and ending on April 25, 2008. This exclusive offer is only available for GameStop customers who pre-order Battlefield: Bad Company for the Xbox 360. Only the first 5,000 pre-orders will receive a beta key, so pre-order now! Allow 48 hours from time of purchase to receive your code, excluding weekends and holidays. Please provide a valid e-mail at time of purchase.

Beta Features

Only the 3rd X360 title to have a closed beta, 1st for EA.
Multiplayer gameplay with 2 maps, Ascension and Oasis
Ascension is an infantry based map, Oasis is vehicle based with tanks, jeeps and helicopters
First look at an all new game mode, “Gold Rush” with 12v12 action

When you pre-order Battlefield Bad Company online, you will receive a GameStop Exclusive Limited Edition Sniper Rifle. Customers, who pre-order online, will receive their code by e-mail to unlock the sniper rifle. Codes will be e-mailed one week prior to ship date or sooner. Please supply a valid e-mail address at time of purchase.
You're welcome.

[Felonous]

If it is true that weapons will be sold from XBLM then this game went from my must buy to never buy list. I have played every battlefield game so far, way to make sure I'll avoid the franchise EA.

[Pluvious]

If this turns out to be true, (and it's looking like it is) let EA know how you feel buy NOT BUYING THE GAME. Maybe when the sales tank, they might get a clue that we aren't sheep and won't stand for this nickel and diming us to death.

[GrinR]

I find it difficult to pretend surprise and outrage when this is precisely the model a huge majority of gamers support. Welcome to digital downloads!

[wyeast]

Didn't Chromehounds do the same thing, and wouldn't this just be par for the course when the next Battlefield game is dependent entirely on microtransactions and ads?

Yes, it's true that Chromehounds did do this. For the most part (iirc) the pay-for weapons weren't a whole lot more powerful than the ones in-game. Just different. A goodly part of that game was juggling weight/energy ratings, so having different parts available did make a difference to that end.

That's an aspect I assume we wouldn't have on a Battlefield game, tho'.

So I guess it comes down to this. If it's mostly "Vanity parts", meaning mostly different look, not a whole lot of different performance, than meh.

If there's some guns in there that actually disrupts the balance of gameplay, then HELL F'N NO. :mad:

Just when I was starting to consider liking EA again, too... now that Activision and Ubi are busy trying to piss me off. :p

[Adam Blue]

If the game includes equivalent guns that are the same as the ones you can buy, whatever. If you gain an advantage, gameplay-wise, by buying new guns, that's unacceptable horseshit.

This is it. Unless we know that they do enhance the game play, this is no different than horse armor.

[Flatpicker]

If the game includes equivalent guns that are the same as the ones you can buy, whatever. If you gain an advantage, gameplay-wise, by buying new guns, that's unacceptable horseshit.
But, don't collectible card games do that also?

[bKangy]

Welp, I just saved £40 by not buying this game.

[Intruder]

What pisses me off more than anything though, is charging to "unlock" content that is already on the disc. If this is the case...ughh It urks me to think about it.

[Dukefrukem]

Wouldn't surprise me. EA has no shame.

[MrSatan]

People need to boycott this game until EA stops pulling these shenanigans. I expected better out of DICE but I guess EA pays their bills.

[fitbabits]

People need to boycott this game until EA stops pulling these shenanigans. I expected better out of DICE but I guess EA pays their bills.

Wait! You're "MrSatan"... Don't you work for EA? :rolleyes:

[Johan]

I hope by now it's clear what my view is of EA; this would not surprise me at all, and it also will not surprise me a bit when the game sells despite this potential news...

[Evil Avatar]

Is there a LOLcats for "I told you so?"

[Wolvie]

Rumor or no my response is this: NO! Do not do it! Make all weapons available out of the box.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

I have said over and over that DLC and the Live Marketplace are rife for exploitation. I've been saying this since MS first announced them. Of course there was/is a large contingent of people who said that the system was great and didn't have flaws, just as there are those who staunchly defend in-game advertising.

I stand by my assertion that outside of some truly amazing games, this generation has brought a ton of bullshit to the gaming industry.

[lockwoodx]

Quick...everyone talk about how horrible EA is.

Oh...wait.

Way ahead of you. I've thought it for years.

[Yeti2005]

For every good use of DLC (see Rockband), there's an incredibly retarded use for DLC (see paying for weapons that are already in the game).

[Chainblast]

This is a terrible idea and always has been. Put it this way, I'll RENT the game for the single player campaign but I will not buy a game for multi-player that supports this kind of shit. There are other ways to increase revenue. Being a Battlefield fan and all I likely would have bought this game if the review were decent enough. Instead EA is going to miss-out on $60.

If the industry wants to kill itself on greed then fine by me. Most of the games I've been enjoying lately are independent products anyway.

[Kem0sabe]

Consumers are the oens to balme, if people didnt put up with this kinda shit from EA, they would have stoped a long time ago.

[aries100]

sweet! i cant wait until they charge per bullet.

You don't have to wait that long apparently. According to the February 2008 Danish Pc Player Magazine a game called Kwari, made by a man called Eddie Gill will be charging you buy the bullet...

It's only 5 US dollars for 5,000 bullets - and the game is free to download...
+ you can win great prizes...

more on topic though:

I think these micro-transactions have gone too far if EA really does get away with this. I mean - horsearmour, premium packages and extra contents lile Knights of the Nine etc. are OK since theyy add something extra to the game...

Having to pay for guns & rifles that allows you to finish the game is just a bit silly, imo. Especially, since you probably can't get the best rifles etc. -
if you don't pay for them...

edit: added eddie's last name...

[Headcase]

People need to boycott this game until EA stops pulling these shenanigans. I expected better out of DICE but I guess EA pays their bills.

No need to officially boycott. Just only buy games worth the money. If EA locks stuff for DLC that would normally be in the game, the value of the game decreases and probably isn't worth the money anymore.

In the end though, I guess it amounts to the same thing, no sales for EA :)

[Emabulator]

I'm not going to touch this game with a ten foot pole.

[nixpayn]

if the multiplayer has the legs that the previous BF games did, i dont see a problem with paying for new guns. its not like theyre gonna patch in Doom's BFG or antyhing, i dont imaging it would be anything thats going to put regular players at a huge disadvantage or anything. I mean driving games release new cars and such right?

The BF games always had a limited number of weapons - 2142 had like 3 per kit, 4 kits, for a total of 12 guns i guess. unless im forgetting a kit.. anyway. if its .. 80pts for a new gun, and the multiplayer is good and you play it regularly, i dont see it being an issue. at least its something more interactive for you to expand you game with than a map pack. so if you're playing this game for 10 hours a week multiplayer, really, the maps in games dont make a huge difference. there are spots where people always go, you've got your favorite spots.. the addition of new weapons would let you revisit these maps and play them a whole new way (provided the guns are more than a skin job).

Come on, in CoD4, building 1 in pipeline.. theres always someone either up on the grate or around those boxes by the train yard. every map has spots like that, in every game. to the point where the map kinda becomes irrelevant - its a sniper level, its a rush level, its a just run all over the place and look for targets level.. the scenery changes but your weapons don't.

I think its funny that you praise rockband and scream about this DLC.. rockband is EA too :P

and come on, as evil or silly as EA might be, theres no way they're going to DLC in game breaking weapons. if you like the game, play it, if you get bored with the out of the box weapons, download some new ones for a couple bucks and extend the life of the game.

my 2 cents.