EA Announces Subscription Service

[Akolyte]

I uninstalled origin ages ago.  Never, ever again will I use Origin.  

[Trik'Stari]

If it's bad then all people have to do is not pay for it and it will go away. Just look how much Microsoft turned back on their Xbox One plans originally. People weren't going to pay for it so Microsoft changed it. The same will happen with this service, if people don't like it they won't pay for it and it will go away.

 

Also, you never have and never will "own" software. You have always been sold a license not to mention they already can "revoke" games you have purchased. Steam and Origin and the like can already do that.

 

EA changed their CEO I think it was two or so years ago so it's not like it's the same guy telling us things now as it was before. What has EA done in the last 2 years that was absurdly bad other than releasing a game before it was ready?

Actually your incorrect, I OWN every copy of linux that I care to download.

 

And wasn't it this CEO that said that?

 

 

 

I uninstalled origin ages ago.  Never, ever again will I use Origin.  

I unfortunately must use origin to play bf4, which I only play because it's the only shooter that currently I deem to be playable (and half the time I still get angry and rage quit).

[jmaster299]

Actually your incorrect, I OWN every copy of linux that I care to download.

 

And wasn't it this CEO that said that?

 

 

 

I unfortunately must use origin to play bf4, which I only play because it's the only shooter that currently I deem to be playable (and half the time I still get angry and rage quit).

No, you don't own your copies of Linux either. If you did you would be allowed to alter it and sell it for profit. Read the terms of any game or other piece of software. You are granted a limited license to access the content, a license that can be revoked at any time. It's why various game developers have fought so hard to find a way to shut down the trading and reselling of used games. They have every right to stop you from doing it, but have only avoided doing so because of fear of upsetting their customers too much. PC gamers deal with it, but console gamers refuse to accept it.

Subscription models like this are just an attempt to get console owners to accept the truth that PC gamers already accept, that they don't own the games they play and they actually have to follow certain rules put in place by the developer. If Valve announced that you could spend $5 a month to access a catalog of various games, no one would be complaining. They'd all be dancing in the streets about how cool it is.

 

[RH00D]

Actually your incorrect, I OWN every copy of linux that I care to download.

 

And wasn't it this CEO that said that?

 

 

 

I unfortunately must use origin to play bf4, which I only play because it's the only shooter that currently I deem to be playable (and half the time I still get angry and rage quit).

I'm well aware of FOSS and the GPL. Even with software under the GPL you still can't do whatever you please with it, you still have to adhere to the terms of the license.

[Yoinkerman]

Clearly you aren't even trying to understand this.

In a subscription based game model, like Wow, the customer pays every month to keep his little guy alive on a hard drive somewhere in a Datacenter. The customer also pays for things like bug fixes and continual updates to the game, fixes like the atrocious netcode of bf4 that still hasn't been fixed. Also a subscription pays for new content, like new areas and stuff to do. Currently in battlefield, there's no little guy to keep alive in a fake world with all the other little guys playing the game on a single world shard like planetside. They don't really fix bugs. There is limited new content in the form of DLC maps and other content updates.

So the current battlefield model would be a very poor choice for a subscription based service. You're just giving them money continually and not getting stuff in return. And peggle, really? It's like a $1.99 game.

So they can change battlefield and whatever other game so it lends toward a subscription, and that would make sense, or they could not, and it wouldn't, because you're essentially just renting a game forever, for a game that doesn't match the rental model.

Yes, they could just do it anyway and not change anything, however that is a huge move towards leased games and not ownership that I for one don't want to see.

What are you talking about?! What does have hosting a server on your computer has to do with a pay-to-play, or subscription like, model? It's a solid model that holded on of the largest play base in the history of games - if it doesn't suit you, don't subscribe! Just as easy as that.

I just don't understand all the drama around this, all I can sense is the same old circle-jerking.

You are all over the place, you couldn't give me on straight answer! You are on NETCODE fixes now! What is wrong with you LOL?!

[jmaster299]

Clearly you aren't even trying to understand this.

In a subscription based game model, like Wow, the customer pays every month to keep his little guy alive on a hard drive somewhere in a Datacenter. The customer also pays for things like bug fixes and continual updates to the game, fixes like the atrocious netcode of bf4 that still hasn't been fixed. Also a subscription pays for new content, like new areas and stuff to do. Currently in battlefield, there's no little guy to keep alive in a fake world with all the other little guys playing the game on a single world shard like planetside. They don't really fix bugs. There is limited new content in the form of DLC maps and other content updates.

So the current battlefield model would be a very poor choice for a subscription based service. You're just giving them money continually and not getting stuff in return. And peggle, really? It's like a $1.99 game.

So they can change battlefield and whatever other game so it lends toward a subscription, and that would make sense, or they could not, and it wouldn't, because you're essentially just renting a game forever, for a game that doesn't match the rental model.

Yes, they could just do it anyway and not change anything, however that is a huge move towards leased games and not ownership that I for one don't want to see.

 

First off, WoW's subscription based service has nothing to do with keeping "a little guy alive in a datacenter". All player information is stored client side and nothing will ever happen to it if you stop paying the monthly fee. That fee only allows you to actually play the game, the exact same principle that EA is applying.

The difference is EA is giving you access to multiple games for that monthly fee, and not just one. That's the biggest false assumption that people are making trying to make arguments that's it's just cheaper to buy the one game. It's also 100% optional, no one has to pay for it if they don't want and can purchase individual games if they want.

This model actually comes as a result of what MS and Sony are doing with their free game service. Pay for XBox Live or PSN and you get access to certain games for free. EA is taking that same model and running the program on their own so MS and Sony don't get to take a cut.

And, for like the 3rd time in this thread alone, you don't actually own any of the games you currently play. Every game is leased.

[Imaginaerum]

(in the hopes of stealing away CoD fans, which true battlefield fans didn't want in the first place because we hate the average CoD players that bellyflop everywhere and noob tube half way across the map)

Oh come on now, Battlefield 2 was a big bellyflop fest until they ended up patching the reticule to not be instantly accurate which wasn't until Battlefield 3 was nearly released, or after it was released (I can't remember, either way it took forever).

[Trik'Stari]

Oh come on now, Battlefield 2 was a big bellyflop fest until they ended up patching the reticule to not be instantly accurate which wasn't until Battlefield 3 was nearly released, or after it was released (I can't remember, either way it took forever).

Dont know about bf2, I joined the chaos in bad company 2, which was fucking epic fun. They need to drop the regular bf and just do bad companies, WAY better.

 

right now I consider bf4 to be unplayable since that new DLC came out with the bulldog assault rifle which is so OP it's not even funny, it's worse than the MASS DART m416 heavy barrel combo was in bf3

[Yoinkerman]

Uh, have you played Wow? Characters are not stored on clients. At all.

Yes it is similar to the Xbox and Playstation plus model.

[Guest Kloaked]

I hope the potato Xbone owners take to it and it gets popular, then EA brings that to PC.

 

Then again, I think I'd rather pay the full price for the game to be honest.

[EChondo]

This. If steam came out with even 4-5 games on a rotation for 30 bucks a year we'd all be having a damn fit and bowing low to our lord gaben. Its basically what the "dirty console peasants" have been enjoying for a while with there subs to PSN+ and XBL and aside from the the fact that you need the two services to play online and access many of the features its not a horrible deal.  

That being said EA is EA...so..there's that.

Well Steam wouldn't be able to do this with their entire catalog, only Valve games and other devs/pubs that want to get in on it. I'd rather stick with Steam's current model of great sales than have a pay by year subscription, but that's also because Counter Strike doesn't cost us $60.

 

But you have unsubscribed, you have lost access to everything you have played for, you can no longer pay for something you have paid money for. While the overall cost of the service over a two years, is only the cost of one title from EA, the money is made back off of a steeper DLC policy and a greater use of micro-transactions in games. That is where they will make a fortune from this service. Give you the games for nothing, the part that costs the most money to make and buy, also the part that more and more people are loosing interest in. Then you grab them, slowly, with games being built more and more for micro-transactions and stupid DLC policies. Make people think they are getting a good deal while you rob money from every person who is using your service...

Yeah what if they raise Season Pass/DLC prices? Or release less games and put out more DLC as a compromise? 10% off a $60 Season Pass isn't much at all...

[jmaster299]

Well Steam wouldn't be able to do this with their entire catalog, only Valve games and other devs/pubs that want to get in on it. I'd rather stick with Steam's current model of great sales than have a pay by year subscription, but that's also because Counter Strike doesn't cost us $60.

 

Yeah what if they raise Season Pass/DLC prices? Or release less games and put out more DLC as a compromise? 10% off a $60 Season Pass isn't much at all...

STEAM could do it with non-Valve games if they had an agreement with the developers of other games. But even with Valve's own official library of games, there is a lot more available than just Counter Strike. It's 100% Valve's fault that those gamers are all older titles though. But it still does change the main point, that if Valve did this all these same people hating on EA would be saying what a good idea it is. This concept is only being bashed because EA is the one doing it, and not that the concept is actually bad.

The issue with losing access to the games you had during the subscription service is not a negative against the concept. It's the only check they can put in place to make sure the system is not abused. People pay for a months subscription, download all the games available, and then cancel after only having paid $5. WoW, and all it's expansions to play current content, will set you back $40, and the new expansion coming out this year will cost another $40-$50. Yet you still have to pay $15 a month to play it and lose access to playing it if you stop paying that $15 a month.

Also, as I've already pointed out, MS and Sony have already used this same concept on the console side of things. There is nothing new with what EA is doing, and there is no downside to it that people won't know about before signing up for it.

[EChondo]

STEAM could do it with non-Valve games if they had an agreement with the developers of other games. But even with Valve's own official library of games, there is a lot more available than just Counter Strike. It's 100% Valve's fault that those gamers are all older titles though. But it still does change the main point, that if Valve did this all these same people hating on EA would be saying what a good idea it is. This concept is only being bashed because EA is the one doing it, and not that the concept is actually bad.

 

I already said if the devs/pubs were interested they could join in, but at first Steam would only be able to do Valve games, and with that in mind, just this summer sale you could buy the Valve complete back for $25. Every single Valve game to date, for $25 flat. Why should I pay $30 a year when I pay $25 once? Sure if they include other games that are not Valve or lower the subscription cost, then it can get interesting, but then it all depends on your preference as a gamer and if you value $30 a year for the one or two games you're really interested in. This doesn't include DLC either, which Valve does very little of and EA does a whole lot of. $30 a year for a bunch of base games and then turn around and charge $60 for a Season Pass? How do we know if they aren't planning on raising DLC prices? I'm mainly worried of this concept because of how easily abused it can be, and to me, it doesn't matter if it's Valve or EA doing this, this is still a crummy model that can hurt gaming in the long term.

 

The issue with losing access to the games you had during the subscription service is not a negative against the concept. It's the only check they can put in place to make sure the system is not abused. People pay for a months subscription, download all the games available, and then cancel after only having paid $5. WoW, and all it's expansions to play current content, will set you back $40, and the new expansion coming out this year will cost another $40-$50. Yet you still have to pay $15 a month to play it and lose access to playing it if you stop paying that $15 a month. Also, as I've already pointed out, MS and Sony have already used this same concept on the console side of things. There is nothing new with what EA is doing, and there is no downside to it that people won't know about before signing up for it.

Yes, it isn't a new concept, but this is a completely different road EA is going down and it can hurt gaming depending on where they want to take this. Or EA is going to eventually turn down the F2P road and price gouge customers for DLC.

[ACatWithThumbs]

I think it's awesome.
A subscription for accessing games would be great.
But what I would like to see is that you can keep the game if you buy the DLC.
 

[deviant88]

Make it PC with access to all DLC including BF4 retardation premium etc...

[Tacitus]

I'd maybe consider this if and when it comes to PC or PS4.

[Victorious Secret]

The sad truth is that if Steam offered this, you'd all cream your collective pants at how revolutionary and forward thinking it is. 

[ToxicFire]

STEAM could do it with non-Valve games if they had an agreement with the developers of other games. But even with Valve's own official library of games, there is a lot more available than just Counter Strike. It's 100% Valve's fault that those gamers are all older titles though. But it still does change the main point, that if Valve did this all these same people hating on EA would be saying what a good idea it is. This concept is only being bashed because EA is the one doing it, and not that the concept is actually bad.

The issue with losing access to the games you had during the subscription service is not a negative against the concept. It's the only check they can put in place to make sure the system is not abused. People pay for a months subscription, download all the games available, and then cancel after only having paid $5. WoW, and all it's expansions to play current content, will set you back $40, and the new expansion coming out this year will cost another $40-$50. Yet you still have to pay $15 a month to play it and lose access to playing it if you stop paying that $15 a month.

Also, as I've already pointed out, MS and Sony have already used this same concept on the console side of things. There is nothing new with what EA is doing, and there is no downside to it that people won't know about before signing up for it.

 

Do you work for EA or any of its affiliates?

 

Yes you pay 40-50 dollar to get upto latest expansion, and then probably 40-50 dollar for each expansion in the future at release, but the development cycle is 2 years per expansion, with between 3-4 sub expansions which your not charged for, then your subscription, which pays for maintenance & support and development of inter-expansion content. But compare the average amount of time someone plays an mmo, not to mention people rarely play more than one mmo at the same time.

 

This means direct comparisons of the models are tricky at best. The point about MS and Sony using a similar concept isn't entirely true, your paying for access to the network, more like paying for an isp and the games that gives you for free are just perks not the main selling point like free email and webspace with your isp. EA's model is more like netflix or amazon instance vid, but lets draw this point, you don't get new releases available instantly on netflix as part of your sub. Regardless you'll still be playing you access fee for Xbox Live or PSN as well as your EA subscription fee.

 

Frankly I can see it turning out like this new releases don't go onto the subscription service after a specific amount of time (probably tied to the purchase price versus the subscription price) and initial sales targets are met or they start to fall, If you want day one access you have to pay a purchase charge, much like streaming movies model. DLC will probably be available but will be charge only never on subscription with probably no difference in accessibility between who ever purchased and who ever got the game on subscription. Then when theres more titles you'll probably get some division by genre, sub's based on major groups, FPS, Strat, etc etc. So unless you only play one type of game in your life you'll end up paying double subscription. In short it will become very easy to exceed what you'd have paid for perhaps the 3-4 titles you purchase a year in the non mmo category. Then as i've said before, you'll get other publishers copying the same model meaning a handful of subs if you want titles from different publishers, not to mention it will kill smaller publishers off because the casual gamer will go "you what, you want me to pay $40 for a game, but i can access so and so many games from my sub". And frankly it will cause a consolidation of the games industry down to a few giants, exactly like tv/movies went, and that imo will just lead to clones of what works and no new innovative or risky concepts.

 

Probably no company would pursue a new marketing model that they didn't see a potential increase in profits. Once people are weaned onto a subscription/credit type models its very hard to go back because people just bawk at the initial capital they stump up for a product, that human behaviour, look at why people buy on credit and end up paying more for a product rather than saving and paying upfront + paying less and that kinda behaviour will be why the majority of people will still pay upfront for a game on release day yet still get the subscription because it looks such a good deal.

[bogus]

Clearly you aren't even trying to understand this.

In a subscription based game model, like Wow, the customer pays every month to keep his little guy alive on a hard drive somewhere in a Datacenter. The customer also pays for things like bug fixes and continual updates to the game, fixes like the atrocious netcode of bf4 that still hasn't been fixed. Also a subscription pays for new content, like new areas and stuff to do. Currently in battlefield, there's no little guy to keep alive in a fake world with all the other little guys playing the game on a single world shard like planetside. They don't really fix bugs. There is limited new content in the form of DLC maps and other content updates.

So the current battlefield model would be a very poor choice for a subscription based service. You're just giving them money continually and not getting stuff in return. And peggle, really? It's like a $1.99 game.

So they can change battlefield and whatever other game so it lends toward a subscription, and that would make sense, or they could not, and it wouldn't, because you're essentially just renting a game forever, for a game that doesn't match the rental model.

Yes, they could just do it anyway and not change anything, however that is a huge move towards leased games and not ownership that I for one don't want to see.

 

I almost speachless... I mean... keeping "the little guy alive"? That's a new one.

I'll try to make it simple to you: there are no little guys living in a digital world. There is data. And data is stored in servers. The little guy is a sum of experience points, items, quests, etc - all that. In battlefield 4, guess what? Is exactly the same thing: you have experience points, weapons unlocked, perks, camouflage, vehicles, etc. Whenever you log in, you access that information.

So so far, you have exctly 2 games that work mostly the same way even being different genres. About the bugs, I wont even comment - circle-jerk moar.

I'm glad you brought DLCs - guess what? WOW also has DLCs - way more DLCs then BF2+BF3+BF4 put together.

So yeah... I think you don't quite understand how this works.

[ShadowCaptain]

Can we stop the mindless EA hate train, shit got annoying MONTHS ago

 

Agreed

 

Sure have and do make stupid decisions..like every single other company in the world

 

 

 

This is actually pretty good, I wish steam offered a netflix like service, say $20 a month to access all games or something. That would be an amazing service!!!!!

[LAwLz]

The sad truth is that if Steam offered this, you'd all cream your collective pants at how revolutionary and forward thinking it is. 

I wouldn't. I see this as a step in the wrong direction.

I want as little restrictions as possible. preferably just an installer file that I can take wherever and just run it and play. This is a step towards "want to play our newest game? Then subscribe to our action pack for only 20 dollars a month! If you do we will also give you our strategy game subscription for only 10 dollars a month!".

I think the TV business model is outdated and has a ton of drawbacks, and with this we are moving one step closer to make games that way.

 

 

I'm glad you brought DLCs - guess what? WOW also has DLCs - way more DLCs then BF2+BF3+BF4 put together.

WoW does not have DLC. The patches released for WoW (for free) are big enough to be classified as DLC. It got expansion packs but those are big enough to be classified as brand new games by today's standard (see the endless refresh of COD or Fifa if you want examples).

 

WoW has a much higher operations cost than Battlefield 4. Not only are the servers much more demanding but they also got a huge in-game support, releases a lot of content for free, constantly making changes and the list goes on.

I don't like subscription based games and that's why I don't play WoW, but a subscription model makes a lot more sense for a game like WoW than it does for a game like Battlefield.

[FireofDestruction]

so another way EA wants to generate income, greedy...unless the price of games comes down by doing this...they wouldn't ever cut profits though

[Suika]

On the Xbox One? Not if I have to pay a premium for Xbox Live already lol.

It sounds like a nice deal actually, but I don't want to set an Xbox One up with a $400 down payment and yearly subscription of $90 or more (if other developers follow). In like two years it already would have been more worth it to get a PC instead.

[bogus]

 

WoW does not have DLC. The patches released for WoW (for free) are big enough to be classified as DLC. It got expansion packs but those are big enough to be classified as brand new games by today's standard (see the endless refresh of COD or Fifa if you want examples).

 

WoW has a much higher operations cost than Battlefield 4. Not only are the servers much more demanding but they also got a huge in-game support, releases a lot of content for free, constantly making changes and the list goes on.

I don't like subscription based games and that's why I don't play WoW, but a subscription model makes a lot more sense for a game like WoW than it does for a game like Battlefield.

Currently I see at least one, and a pre order for another: http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/shop/

And this is 2014.

Please show me the sheet with the operation costs of Battlefield 4 and World of Warcraft. I don't even ask you for a detailed one, just the resume with the numbers.

[Mooshi]

Subscription to buy rehash, GG.