EA plans a "fundamental shift" in how it makes games, says CEO

[EChondo]

Why are you fuckers complaining about Dlc? If you expect them to include the 20 maps they add with the dlc in the standard game you've lost your mind.

The problem is that anyone who doesn't have premium is missing out on the majority of the game. A simple solution would be free dlc, like you guys want. But you have to realize that the amount of work it takes to make the dlc costs money too. Then one would say that they could make less dlc. This would work. But it's not exactly an elegant solution, because out of each dlc there is maybe one good map and three cruddy ones. In the release game there's maybe three good maps and seven cruddy ones.

The solution is for quality control on the maps released. Then you have two dlcs, a CQ/infantry one and a vehicle one. You end up with 16-20 decent maps, and a variety for people to play.

Sorry, but $50 for 20 maps isn't viable to me, especially when a new Battlefield is being churned out every 1-2 years now(major releases(Since BF:BC2)). Battlefield is going the way of CoD, so unless they do a 180 right now and go back to their ways of Bad Company and the original Battlefields, then the series is officially dead. I'm not going to spend over $100 every 2 years(average) just to keep "up-to-date" with the series. If a Battlefield game came out maybe once every 3-4 years(minimum), then I'd reconsider, but I might as well buy the new BF when it's $30 a couple months after release off of a crummy Origin/Amazon sale and then pick up promotional free DLC along with it(or wait for the 50% off sale on that too), get my BF fill, then by the time I've enjoyed the game, the next one comes or has came out and repeat.

 

You know what killed CoD? The excessive amount of DLC, the blatant money grabbing. CoD4 is STILL being played to this day, you know how many maps that game had? Sixteen from the basegame and four from the ONE DLC it had, you know how many good maps were in that game? Twenty. All twenty maps were amazing. The fact that EA even offers "Premium" status just goes to show that they even know their DLC is going to be crap, so why not save $5 off of every single one? You're gonna buy them anyway since only "one good map and three cruddy ones", so instead of releasing a game with ten good maps, we'll put in filler content and then charge you more for the better maps we've set aside.

 

Enjoy your lackluster multiplayer. When the servers get shutdown, don't come crying here. I'll be too busy still playing Cod4 and Halo: CE.

[carolkarine]

Sorry, but $50 for 20 maps isn't viable to me, especially when a new Battlefield is being churned out every 1-2 years now(major releases(Since BF:BC2)). Battlefield is going the way of CoD, so unless they do a 180 right now and go back to their ways of Bad Company and the original Battlefields, then the series is officially dead. I'm not going to spend over $100 every 2 years(average) just to keep "up-to-date" with the series. If a Battlefield game came out maybe once every 3-4 years(minimum), then I'd reconsider, but I might as well buy the new BF when it's $30 a couple months after release off of a crummy Origin/Amazon sale and then pick up promotional free DLC along with it(or wait for the 50% off sale on that too), get my BF fill, then by the time I've enjoyed the game, the next one comes or has came out and repeat.

You know what killed CoD? The excessive amount of DLC, the blatant money grabbing. CoD4 is STILL being played to this day, you know how many maps that game had? Sixteen from the basegame and four from the ONE DLC it had, you know how many good maps were in that game? Twenty. All twenty maps were amazing. The fact that EA even offers "Premium" status just goes to show that they even know their DLC is going to be crap, so why not save $5 off of every single one? You're gonna buy them anyway since only "one good map and three cruddy ones", so instead of releasing a game with ten good maps, we'll put in filler content and then charge you more for the better maps we've set aside.

Enjoy your lackluster multiplayer. When the servers get shutdown, don't come crying here. I'll be too busy still playing Cod4 and Halo: CE.

Did you even read my suggestion on the end? I called for quality control so that all the maps would be decent, and at most two dlcs.

I also wish they would fix the and remove the shitty gadgets that just convolute the game and discourage players. Camping with a ucav is not a legitimate playstyle.

[Admire]

EA has shown their attitude in plenty of interviews...They will never fucking ever learn.

[Nomelas]

Here's what EA needs to do (And all companies take note of):

 

• Tone down on the micro-transactions & paid DLC in games & exclusive content
• If you're going to release DLC, do it as an expansion and bundle a bunch of worthwile content for $20-$30 and not just a couple maps/another mission
• To add on the previous note, don't charge full price for expansions, you've already done most of the hard work developing engines/models/etc from the core game and lets face it, to charge the same price as you would a new game for an expansion is just milking it and taking advantage of consumers.
• DO NOT release DLC just after the launch of the game.... seriously? and also have the audacity of charging MORE for it. If the game isn't complete, DONT release it until it is.
• POLISH your game before you release it! You don't see companies like Nintendo releasing buggy games, why? because they actually QA their products and don't release crap.
• Don't rehash game after game year after year that's virtually a copy of the previous one, I'm looking at the call of duties, etc games out there that are just the same thing over and over. For god sake come up with some original content once in a while!

[jezza39]

Ensure games are going to be functional and fun 'earlier'? Well shit, here I was thinking products should be finished or shouldn't be sold. Fuck me, game publishers these days. Don't mind selling you a hugely buggy product and slapping you with $100 worth of DLC. 

[beau]

I love EA just because of this very reason.  TBH EA were the pioneers to what is now called 'Early Access,' unfortunately EA were the pun of every noobs jokes about publishing half-polished games at release.

 

If people wanted polished games that take an extra 2+ years to release, go to blizzard.

[Nomelas]

I love EA just because of this very reason.  TBH EA were the pioneers to what is now called 'Early Access,' unfortunately EA were the pun of every noobs jokes about publishing half-polished games at release.

 

If people wanted polished games that take an extra 2+ years to release, go to blizzard.

Can't tell if troll or really believes in this

[NInety]

Why don't people like paid DLC? I mean, devs make (for example) 3-4 maps for your multiplayer experience and add a few new mechanics here and there for a relatively low price. It keeps the game from getting old and they usually have a season pass sort of thing so you can get it cheaper. I just see it as a way to support the dev team so they'll make the next game better. Just my two cents.

[Mindtrickz]

Too bad they won't kill Origin.

 

Why should they kill Origin? So Steam can have a monopoly? Fuck off. Steam bans your account with all your games if you use a proxy to buy form another region. Origin does not. That's a possitive in my book.

 

Get off Gabe's dick.

[beau]

Can't tell if troll or really believes in this

So just because someone doesn't jump on the EA hate bandwagon means they're a troll?

EA make some pretty sick games, just because you can't cope because it's not polished at release does that mean EA are the worst company around? It's a different business methodology.

Like I said, they're the pioneers to early access.

[Inkz]

Is it me or is Ubisoft and EA seem to be trading places?

[zacRupnow]

Too bad they won't kill Origin.

 

At least Origin works even if it sucks compared to STEAM, but Uplay makes Origin look like a Golden Egg and STEAM like the Arkenstone.

[AnthonyPaull]

Guys, Origin isn't terrible. When it was first introduced it was shit but it is nowhere near as bad now. It's functional and it works 99% of the time, more than I can say for Uplay.

[G9x001]

EA is the worse video game publisher on the face of the planet. And why I ever bought BF4 (at $49) after BF3 I don't know. Well I do because my friends where playing it and lets face it team play on BF can be a lot of fun even with the annoying random drop outs the bad glitch's and terrible maps.

Until the bad out ways the good people will still buy this crap even me.  

[Poppadopolous]

Yeah like the first comment I saw said, this is nothing but a bunch of bullshit. Just like Ubisoft saying "WE HATE DRM"

Did they say what they are going to do to mitigate that problem? 

Not really. They are just saying cool things to try and appear cool. Shame on Ubisoft, shame on EA. 

[Rain288]

Yes, even more mircro-transactions and DLC!

[ducecake]

I will never see this until they actually release a game that blows everything out of the water and is not full of bugs and stuff.

[Conniverse]

[RH00D]

Why are you fuckers complaining about Dlc? If you expect them to include the 20 maps they add with the dlc in the standard game you've lost your mind.

The problem is that anyone who doesn't have premium is missing out on the majority of the game. A simple solution would be free dlc, like you guys want. But you have to realize that the amount of work it takes to make the dlc costs money too. Then one would say that they could make less dlc. This would work. But it's not exactly an elegant solution, because out of each dlc there is maybe one good map and three cruddy ones. In the release game there's maybe three good maps and seven cruddy ones.

The solution is for quality control on the maps released. Then you have two dlcs, a CQ/infantry one and a vehicle one. You end up with 16-20 decent maps, and a variety for people to play.

1) Maps are actually pretty cheap to make and probably one of the less expensive things to develop in a game.

2) I remember when devs actually did give maps away for free but then publishers forced a monetary charge.

3) FPS games actually did used to come with 15+ maps out of the box.

4) Devs used to even go as far as to provide players with the tools necessary to create an endless amount of their own maps entirely free of charge.

[chicksoup]

they won't ever get rid of origin, because of all of their licensing rights and as a publisher they have the right to have their own platform to be selling their games on. If they were to sell them on Steam nothing would really change or get better

[Tainted]

I still haven't bought BF 4. I own BF 3 and BF BC 2. But I wouldn't spend more than $10-20 on BF 4. It's still buggy & unoptimized.

[Jaye1998]

wont buy anything EA until they bring back madden for pc

[LtRoyalShrimp]

wont buy anything EA until they bring back madden for pc

[Bloodyvalley]

wont buy anything EA until they bring back madden for pc

[OBEYSQUIRREL]

Why don't people like paid DLC? I mean, devs make (for example) 3-4 maps for your multiplayer experience and add a few new mechanics here and there for a relatively low price. It keeps the game from getting old and they usually have a season pass sort of thing so you can get it cheaper. I just see it as a way to support the dev team so they'll make the next game better. Just my two cents.

 

Because people expect games to cost exactly what they cost 30 years ago, and for them to cost that price forever. They don't care about the increase in inflation or the fact the games cost a hell of a lot more to produce these days. Sorry, but the next Battlefield won't release for free, and you shouldn't expect the DLC to either.