EA Announces Subscription Service

[LAwLz]

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.

Excuse me but where is the DLC on that page? I see two expansion packs and like I said before, those are big enough to be classified as whole games by today's standards.

Patches for WoW often add brand new dungeons/raids and do many changes. You know how they sometimes release "map packs" and "weapon packs" for games? That's what patches are in WoW. You know how your new COD game might have like a new campaign, new weapons and maybe some new perks or whatever? That's what expansion packs are in WoW.

 

I don't have any numbers for Battlefield, but the upkeep cost for all WoW's servers cost Blizzard 136,986 US dollars A DAY back in 2011. That's about 50,000,000 dollars a year.

I strongly doubt EA spends even 1/100 of that for Battlefield. The number of players and the processing needed is simply not anywhere near as much. The maps on Battlefield are really really REALLY small compared to the massive world in WoW, there are fewer players and they don't need as big of a support team.

It's ridiculous to even try to compare the two.

[BloodySinner]

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

 

Right. The reality is Steam doesn't need this. They offer products at competitive prices. Especially with their sales.

[Trik'Stari]

I say it's perfect for console users, but keep it off of PC (let them get fucked so we can sit back and lol)

[Victorious Secret]

Right. The reality is Steam doesn't need this. They offer products at competitive prices. Especially with their sales.

 

If Steam sales were actually worth anything these days, that would be a valid point. 

 

Steam sales these days are "Lets put the same crap on the same sale as we always do and have people buy more pointless shit they don't use so it just sits in their library and never gets used"

30 bucks can get me a few Steam games. But nothing that I really care for. 30 a year gets me access to who knows how many EA titles. Right now, EA gets the upper hand on value for money with this program. 

[BloodySinner]

If Steam sales were actually worth anything these days, that would be a valid point. 

 

Steam sales these days are "Lets put the same crap on the same sale as we always do and have people buy more pointless shit they don't use so it just sits in their library and never gets used"

30 bucks can get me a few Steam games. But nothing that I really care for. 30 a year gets me access to who knows how many EA titles. Right now, EA gets the upper hand on value for money with this program. 

 

Nothing you really care for? Then why are you buying the product? If it sits in the library, who's fault is that? Sorry, there's no value with EA. Never has been and never will.

[LAwLz]

30 a year gets me access to who knows how many EA titles.

I know. 30 a year gives you access to four games. FIFA 14, NFL 25, Peggle 2 and Battlefield 4.

 

 

I remember when some people said EA wouldn't make games exclusively for Origin. That they would release games on for example Steam as well. I am willing to bet that they will start adding games exclusively to this subscription program in the future, and I would not be surprised if they start making different tiers and/or packs following this model. Like I said before, one pack for FPS games, one for strategy games, one for simulators etc. Just you wait, gaming (at least EA) is trying to follow the steps of TV... and I see a very tall cliff at the end of that path.

[Victorious Secret]

Nothing you really care for? Then why are you buying the product? If it sits in the library, who's fault is that? Sorry, there's no value with EA. Never has been and never will.

 

Thats why I don't buy a lot from Steam anymore. Games I want, rarely are on sale when I go to buy. Steam having all these sales means nothing if its on random crap. I've already done that mistake too many times. Oh its on sale, I should get it. A year later its still there, never installed and never played. 

I apologize if I found value in Battlefield, Mass Effect, Dead Space and Dragon Age. Sorry, I don't blindly jump on the bandwagon to shit on anything EA attempts to do. 

 

I know. 30 a year gives you access to four games. FIFA 14, NFL 25, Peggle 2 and Battlefield 4.

 

 

I remember when some people said EA wouldn't make games exclusively for Origin. That they would release games on for example Steam as well. I am willing to bet that they will start adding games exclusively to this subscription program in the future, and I would not be surprised if they start making different tiers and/or packs following this model. Like I said before, one pack for FPS games, one for strategy games, one for simulators etc. Just you wait, gaming (at least EA) is trying to follow the steps of TV... and I see a very tall cliff at the end of that path.

 

I was being pedantic but okay. Its 4 games right now, early access to the next round of sports games AND Dragon Age, and anything else they decide to add on down the line. So this isn't some neglected service they are trying to introduce. 

 

We don't know how it will go. You don't, I don't; no one. We're speculating the absolute worst case scenario that might not even come to pass. EA might can this program after 6 months because it doesn't work. EA might keep it up because it is working. It isn't even on public release and you guys are already crapping on it. 

[bogus]

Excuse me but where is the DLC on that page? I see two expansion packs and like I said before, those are big enough to be classified as whole games by today's standards.

Patches for WoW often add brand new dungeons/raids and do many changes. You know how they sometimes release "map packs" and "weapon packs" for games? That's what patches are in WoW. You know how your new COD game might have like a new campaign, new weapons and maybe some new perks or whatever? That's what expansion packs are in WoW.

 

I don't have any numbers for Battlefield, but the upkeep cost for all WoW's servers cost Blizzard 136,986 US dollars A DAY back in 2011. That's about 50,000,000 dollars a year.

I strongly doubt EA spends even 1/100 of that for Battlefield. The number of players and the processing needed is simply not anywhere near as much. The maps on Battlefield are really really REALLY small compared to the massive world in WoW, there are fewer players and they don't need as big of a support team.

It's ridiculous to even try to compare the two.

Oh my god, really? One name a marketing department created for extra content "DLC", then a expansion pack that does what? Adds more content Or it's the way they are distributed? One is in physical DVD format, other is digital? Oh wait... the expansion packs can also be downloaded!

DLC stands for Downloadable Content, a marketing WORD! What are dungeons/raids if not "new maps/missions"?! It's all content! Some bring more then others, but the nature of the game in itself is different and the price you pay for it it's different - but in the end its NEW CONTENT!

If you don't have any numbers for Battlefield, then you can't make any claims can you?

What is ridiculous is to be narrow minded to consider that some make more sense to keep "alive a avatar" or to keep a "player profile" with their achievements and experience, to consider that a new "dungeon" is different then a "map", to consider new "quests" are different then new "campaign missions"... my god... the things people say fueled by hate!

[Poohy14]

this actually seems good to do now

[LAwLz]

We don't know how it will go. You don't, I don't; no one. We're speculating the absolute worst case scenario that might not even come to pass. EA might can this program after 6 months because it doesn't work. EA might keep it up because it is working. It isn't even on public release and you guys are already crapping on it. 

If Lex Luthor started round testing a new super tank that shot bullets made out of kryptonite I think the people in Metropolis should be very careful and not trust it. Sure, he might just want to use it for his Sunday drives, but it's more likely that it will be used for evil.

I am not against technology that could be used for evil. I am against it when bad people are interested in it though.

 

 

Oh my god, really? One name a marketing department created for extra content "DLC", then a expansion pack that does what? Adds more content Or it's the way they are distributed? One is in physical DVD format, other is digital? Oh wait... the expansion packs can also be downloaded!

 

DLC stands for Downloadable Content, a marketing WORD! What are dungeons/raids if not "new maps/missions"?! It's all content! Some bring more then others, but the nature of the game in itself is different and the price you pay for it it's different - but in the end its NEW CONTENT!

The difference (in my opinion) is that DLC adds some extra stuff to a game. An expansion pack dramatically alters the game. For example in WoW the new expansion pack enhanced the graphics a lot, added many many hours of additional content (we're talking 100+ hours if not even more), introduced new classes and the list goes on. If you got such a loose definition of "DLC" then is Battlefield 4 just DLC? It is essentially just new content for Battlefield 3.

I think TES Oblivion is a good way to differentiate between DLC and Expansion packs. Oblivion had some DLCs (like Horse Armor Pack, Spell Tomes, Vile Lair etc) and it had an expansion pack (Shivering isles). The difference between the two is size. One only adds small things to the game while the other is very big. If you're going to be pedantic then yes, DLC and expansion pack are kind of interchangeable. I think most will agree (including game companies such as Bethesda) that the difference between DLC and an expansion pack is size.

 

It seems to me like you haven't seen how big WoW patches can be. Every 1.X.0 patch is huge and adds more content than most DLC does. New raids, arenas, quests, bosses, battlegrounds etc.

 

Think of it this way:

Each new COD game changes as much as each Expansion pack for WoW does.

Each DLC for COD changes as much as free patches does in WoW.

 

I hope that helps.

 

 

If you don't have any numbers for Battlefield, then you can't make any claims can you?

I think it's common sense that hosting WoW costs more than hosting Battlefield 4. Have you even played WoW? It's like saying you can't say an elephant weights more than a mouse because you have only weighted the elephant and not the mouse (which ran away and hide in a hole). More users * bigger world + more staff = highest cost. It's as simple as that. Not to mention that people pay EA to have their own servers, which Blizzard doesn't do with WoW.

 

I think it's kind of funny how you're the one calling others narrow minded and say their comments are "fueled by hate" since you seem far more angry than I am.

[Ashley]

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

They are delivering a $5/month subscription for a decent bunch of games. There will likely be microtransactions but you don't necessarily have to spend money. Those with more money can pay a bit more (hopefully not pay-to-win) and get some cool stuff, and everyone else can enjoy a large game library for cheap. Even if you just play BF4 this is cheaper for two years.

 

We'll see if anything "evil" happens, but this looks really good right now... Oh yeah, EA bring this to PC please. You already have your own damn platform to do it on since you abandoned Steam.

[bogus]

If Lex Luthor started round testing a new super tank that shot bullets made out of kryptonite I think the people in Metropolis should be very careful and not trust it. Sure, he might just want to use it for his Sunday drivers, but it's more likely that it will be used for evil.

I am not against technology that could be used for evil. I am against it when bad people are interested in it though.

I find this funny, weren't you the guy who supported Gameworks LOL? This dude... calls EA EVIL, and NVIDIA is white knight? Oh my god LOL

 

The difference (in my opinion) is that DLC adds some extra stuff to a game. An expansion pack dramatically alters the game. For example in WoW the new expansion pack enhanced the graphics a lot, added many many hours of additional content (we're talking 100+ hours if not even more), introduced new classes and the list goes on. If you got such a loose definition of "DLC" then is Battlefield 4 just DLC? It is essentially just new content for Battlefield 3.

I think TES Oblivion is a good way to differentiate between DLC and Expansion packs. Oblivion had some DLCs (like Horse Armor Pack, Spell Tomes, Vile Lair etc) and it had an expansion pack (Shivering isles). The difference between the two is size. One only adds small things to the game while the other is very big. If you're going to be pedantic then yes, DLC and expansion pack are kind of interchangeable. I think most will agree (including game companies such as Bethesda) that the difference between DLC and an expansion pack is size.

 

It seems to me like you haven't seen how big WoW patches can be. Every 1.X.0 patch is huge and adds more content than most DLC does. New raids, arenas, quests, bosses, battlegrounds etc.

 

Think of it this way:

Each new COD game changes as much as each Expansion pack for WoW does.

Each DLC for COD changes as much as free patches does in WoW.

 

I hope that helps.

 

 

I think it's common sense that hosting WoW costs more than hosting Battlefield 4. Have you even played WoW? It's like saying you can't say an elephant weights more than a mouse because you have only weighted the elephant and not the mouse (which ran away and hide in a hole). More users * bigger world + more staff = highest cost. It's as simple as that. Not to mention that people pay EA to have their own servers, which Blizzard doesn't do with WoW.

 

I think it's kind of funny how you're the one calling others narrow minded and say their comments are "fueled by hate" since you seem far more angry than I am.

You are making an effort to say that "content" is different from "content", because one offers "more content", other offers "less content" - those who offer "more content", make you pay more for it; those who offer "less-content" make you pay less. 

All of this, so you can avoid the point that paying a subscription to play World of Warcraft is exactly the same thing as to pay a subscription to play Battlefield 4. You know what is the difference? EA at least lets ou buy the full version, and you don't have to use the subcription, Blizzard doesn't.

I'll give you another example: Lineage 2 never made you pay for new game chaging content, for YEARS. How about that? What do you call that? Patch? DLC?

Oh it's common sense? The thing you seem to lack the most LOL!

I've played alot Lineage 2. I'm still to see the point you are trying to make - WoW was built around subcription model, even when it had less players then what BF4 currently has, even when it had ZERO PLAYERS, so all of a sudden what you said makes no sense at all - or do you think WoW started with the same number of players it has today with the same costs?

[DLM_012]

So... No PC?

 

It's ok they'll beta test it for us and everyone else will get the final, somewhat perfect-but-still-buggy version

[flibberdipper]

It's ok they'll beta test it for us and everyone else will get the final, somewhat perfect-but-still-buggy version

haha Sad but true. PC is not a guinea pig platform. They need to learn that the consoles are.

[LAwLz]

I find this funny, weren't you the guy who supported Gameworks LOL? This dude... calls EA EVIL, and NVIDIA is white knight? Oh my god LOL

I have never supported GameWorks nor have I ever called Nvidia good (I have called them evil many many times). You just interpreted my posts that way because I was also bashing AMD for keeping things secret and closed sourced. Bashing both companies equally does not make me a supporter of either. This is a problem with being neutral. If I say "AMD is just as bad as Nvidia" the AMD fanboys will think "wow he insulted AMD by saying they are as bad as the horrible Nvidia! What a fanboy!" and the Nvidia fanboys will think "wow he insulted Nvidia by saying that they are as bad as the horrible AMD! What a fanboy!". If you reread my posts in that thread you will see that I was bashing both companies equally.

 

You are making an effort to say that "content" is different from "content", because one offers "more content", other offers "less content" - those who offer "more content", make you pay more for it; those who offer "less-content" make you pay less. 

Yes I think that's logical. Calling things by different names to differentiate between them makes a lot of sense to me. For example pizza has 3-4 different classifications for sizes. You got small, medium, large and family. In games we got DLC and expansion packs.

I don't understand how you can not get this simple concept. Like I said before, even developers are following this classification.

 

All of this, so you can avoid the point that paying a subscription to play World of Warcraft is exactly the same thing as to pay a subscription to play Battlefield 4. You know what is the difference? EA at least lets ou buy the full version, and you don't have to use the subcription, Blizzard doesn't.

The difference is also the amount of content you get. In WoW you get free and fairly frequent patches which adds quite a lot of content, a much more extensive world with a much wider variety of things to do.

Battlefield 4 and WoW are very different games so it's kind of like comparing apples vs oranges. Remember, I am against subscriptions even in WoW, but I think the subscription model does make more sense for WoW than it does for BF4.

Another important thing is that I want to move away from the subscription model. Following the status quo for a handful of games is not as bad as trying to push more games in the wrong direction. In other words, it's more frustrating to see someone in the lead take a giant step backwards than it is to see everyone continue to stay in the same positions.

 

Oh it's common sense? The thing you seem to lack the most LOL!

Oh great... Now you've sunk down to name-calling. I am not surprised.

 

I've played alot Lineage 2. I'm still to see the point you are trying to make - WoW was built around subcription model, even when it had less players then what BF4 currently has, even when it had ZERO PLAYERS, so all of a sudden what you said makes no sense at all - or do you think WoW started with the same number of players it has today with the same costs?

I kind of see your point but you're not factoring in the fact that running servers has gotten cheaper and cheaper. Back in 2004 running the thousands of machines needed to support all WoW players, and hiring all the support needed would have sucked all the money out of Blizzard's account faster than a black hole. Back then it was needed because Blizzard anticipated that the game would be big and that they would need a constant source of money to pay for the server maintenance. Since then the cost per user of servers has gone down dramatically. They could probably lower the subscription fee by a lot and still be very profitable, but since people are willing to pay they haven't gotten around to do so.

With all that being said, you still have to include the fact that people pay for Battlefield servers.

 

By the way, are you trying to backpedal? First you implied that all the WoW servers doesn't cost more than BF4 to host and now you've regressed to "in the beginning when WoW was new it didn't cost more!".

 

Here is a quick summary of my points:

1) WoW brings out a lot of free stuff. Think of it as free DLC.

2) WoW has a much higher maintenance cost.

3) WoW is a much bigger and more varied game. You can't really compare it to a very small (in comparison) game like Battlefield.

4) It's worse to take a step backwards than it is to stay in the same place.

[rambi36]

I'm glad EAs doing this but why is this Potato XBone exclusive?

[dalekphalm]

Fuck this shit. Why would EA even consider doing this... oh wait money... and the fact the people who will buy this are sheep. People will think they are getting a good deal because they get a discount on content and they don't have to pay up front for games. People will think this is the future and that buying games is a thing of the past and instead you pay for an entire publishers games library including new content. It'll start off fine until you end up paying more for the games, or, you decide you don't want to play any of the new games and you unsubscribe.

 

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...

 

This is not the future of the games industry, this is not. What ever happened to people buying the game when they want to play it, why don't people want to do that anymore? Oh wait, EA are a publisher to blame that on. Their games took a large turn for the worse as they alienated both the developers working on them as well as the people buying them. I'm sure hoping people do not support this and stop buying games with the EA tag on them in general. You are supporting a publisher that is playing a large part in a games industry crash that we are only moment away from.

Perhaps this might happen... Or... you know... it could not?

 

Why don't we all calm down and just wait and see. This was just announced. We know very little detail, especially how DLC will come into play. There's no evidence one way or the other about DLC and/or Micro transactions. So let's just, you know, be logical and wait for more information?

 

Potentially this could be great, as long as EA continues to offer all the games for sale, full price, as normal.

 

Also lets be honest, the average gamer doesn't replay games, especially single player ones. We, here, aren't the average gamer, we're tech enthusiasts. The only replay most gamers get is through multiplayer (Hell most don't even play the campaigns in stuff like BF and MW). For $30 a year, as long as they keep the library updated, the average person would be totally fine with that. Is this business model perfect for everyone? Of course not. But that doesn't make it a bad business model. There are plenty of gamers who don't give a shit about old games once the new ones come out.

 

For me, this doesn't interest me because I generally wait for things to go on sale via Steam or Origin (Or Humble Bundle) and get the titles for 75% off anyway. I'm willing to wait the necessary 6 months or so. But I could see myself subscribing to this if they put new releases up right away, so I can try them out, play some, and then if I enjoy the game, buy it when it goes on sale for 75% off. Hopefully saves would be transferable if you outright bought the game (It seems like that is the case).

[Victorious Secret]

Perhaps this might happen... Or... you know... it could not?

 

Why don't we all calm down and just wait and see. This was just announced. We know very little detail, especially how DLC will come into play. There's no evidence one way or the other about DLC and/or Micro transactions. So let's just, you know, be logical and wait for more information?

 

Potentially this could be great, as long as EA continues to offer all the games for sale, full price, as normal.

 

Also lets be honest, the average gamer doesn't replay games, especially single player ones. We, here, aren't the average gamer, we're tech enthusiasts. The only replay most gamers get is through multiplayer (Hell most don't even play the campaigns in stuff like BF and MW). For $30 a year, as long as they keep the library updated, the average person would be totally fine with that. Is this business model perfect for everyone? Of course not. But that doesn't make it a bad business model. There are plenty of gamers who don't give a shit about old games once the new ones come out.

 

For me, this doesn't interest me because I generally wait for things to go on sale via Steam or Origin (Or Humble Bundle) and get the titles for 75% off anyway. I'm willing to wait the necessary 6 months or so. But I could see myself subscribing to this if they put new releases up right away, so I can try them out, play some, and then if I enjoy the game, buy it when it goes on sale for 75% off. Hopefully saves would be transferable if you outright bought the game (It seems like that is the case).

 

Bless your reason and non-knee jerk, non-circle jerk reaction to this. 

 

Does it sound good? Yes. Could it be good? Yes. Is it bad? Too early to say. Could it be bad? Too early to say. 

 

If EA holds through and lets me have access to FIFA 15 and NHL 15 for 30 bucks a year, umm. Yea. HELL YEA. Even if its 6 months after. Im not complaining. 6 months after launch is usually when school and work quiet down, thus giving me time to actually play games in general. So I can see myself using this, if it works well. 

 

But there is the rub. IF IT WORKS WELL. We don't know anything else yet. Im happy to sit and watch. Not to hurl crap on EA for actually bringing something new to the market. 

[LAwLz]

Bless your reason and non-knee jerk, non-circle jerk reaction to this. 

 

Does it sound good? Yes. Could it be good? Yes. Is it bad? Too early to say. Could it be bad? Too early to say. 

 

If EA holds through and lets me have access to FIFA 15 and NHL 15 for 30 bucks a year, umm. Yea. HELL YEA. Even if its 6 months after. Im not complaining. 6 months after launch is usually when school and work quiet down, thus giving me time to actually play games in general. So I can see myself using this, if it works well. 

 

But there is the rub. IF IT WORKS WELL. We don't know anything else yet. Im happy to sit and watch. Not to hurl crap on EA for actually bringing something new to the market. 

It makes a lot of sense for games like FIFA and NHL which gets updated yearly anyway. You're paying almost half the price (assuming these games retail for about 50 dollars when they are new) to get access to the latest game at all time. It seems like some other EA games are moving to a yearly release scheduled as well so it has the potential to be good. It also has the potential to be very, very bad and since it is EA that's behind this, I am very cautious. Like I said before:

If Lex Luthor started round testing a new super tank that shot bullets made out of kryptonite I think the people in Metropolis should be very careful and not trust it. Sure, he might just want to use it for his Sunday drives, but it's more likely that it will be used for evil.

I am not against technology that could be used for evil. I am against it when bad people are interested in it though.

[shiftberry]

EA to MS

 

[dalekphalm]

pls fix colored text. most people on the forums use the night theme

I'm sorry, what? How can you possibly say most people on the forum use the night theme? I highly doubt that. Most people on the forum just sign up and start posting and likely don't bother with any themes at all besides the standard one. The Admins might actually have some stats to say one way or the other which theme is the most used, but I haven't seen this information released. Perhaps you could post a link?

 

While it is courtesy to use "Automatic" colouring for the sake of the night theme users, unless the CoC has been updated, I don't think it's actually a requirement, nor do I believe that the night theme users are in the majority. If I'm incorrect, please provide proof and I will gladly adjust my opinion based on the new facts.

[bogus]

I have never supported GameWorks nor have I ever called Nvidia good (I have called them evil many many times). You just interpreted my posts that way because I was also bashing AMD for keeping things secret and closed sourced. Bashing both companies equally does not make me a supporter of either. This is a problem with being neutral. If I say "AMD is just as bad as Nvidia" the AMD fanboys will think "wow he insulted AMD by saying they are as bad as the horrible Nvidia! What a fanboy!" and the Nvidia fanboys will think "wow he insulted Nvidia by saying that they are as bad as the horrible AMD! What a fanboy!". If you reread my posts in that thread you will see that I was bashing both companies equally.

 

Yes I think that's logical. Calling things by different names to differentiate between them makes a lot of sense to me. For example pizza has 3-4 different classifications for sizes. You got small, medium, large and family. In games we got DLC and expansion packs.

I don't understand how you can not get this simple concept. Like I said before, even developers are following this classification.

 

The difference is also the amount of content you get. In WoW you get free and fairly frequent patches which adds quite a lot of content, a much more extensive world with a much wider variety of things to do.

Battlefield 4 and WoW are very different games so it's kind of like comparing apples vs oranges. Remember, I am against subscriptions even in WoW, but I think the subscription model does make more sense for WoW than it does for BF4.

Another important thing is that I want to move away from the subscription model. Following the status quo for a handful of games is not as bad as trying to push more games in the wrong direction. In other words, it's more frustrating to see someone in the lead take a giant step backwards than it is to see everyone continue to stay in the same positions.

 

Oh great... Now you've sunk down to name-calling. I am not surprised.

 

I kind of see your point but you're not factoring in the fact that running servers has gotten cheaper and cheaper. Back in 2004 running the thousands of machines needed to support all WoW players, and hiring all the support needed would have sucked all the money out of Blizzard's account faster than a black hole. Back then it was needed because Blizzard anticipated that the game would be big and that they would need a constant source of money to pay for the server maintenance. Since then the cost per user of servers has gone down dramatically. They could probably lower the subscription fee by a lot and still be very profitable, but since people are willing to pay they haven't gotten around to do so.

With all that being said, you still have to include the fact that people pay for Battlefield servers.

 

By the way, are you trying to backpedal? First you implied that all the WoW servers doesn't cost more than BF4 to host and now you've regressed to "in the beginning when WoW was new it didn't cost more!".

 

Here is a quick summary of my points:

1) WoW brings out a lot of free stuff. Think of it as free DLC.

2) WoW has a much higher maintenance cost.

3) WoW is a much bigger and more varied game. You can't really compare it to a very small (in comparison) game like Battlefield.

4) It's worse to take a step backwards than it is to stay in the same place.

The secret AMD is keeping doesn't cripple anyone, that's as simple as it gets.

Moving on.

Jesus... Ok so now it's a matter of size, let's see if you understand how ridiculous that is by answering this: what's the size of the content and the unit of measurement that separates a "Expansion Pack" from a "DLC"? Trust me, it's the Marketing Department, not the developers who follow this definitions.

Subscription is a proven sustainable model, and alot of people like it - else no one would subscribe. Not only in games, but in any kind of multimedia.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you seem to be making an effort not to understand a simple thing. They are both online games, where you have a player profile and you evolve it/customize it by playing. If one is a RPG, the other is a FPS, the others are sports simulation makes no difference at all. If Blizzard has more server expenses or not, it's irrelevant, it's not the justification - because in one point in time they sure had WAY LESS SERVER EXEPENSES, a fraction I dare to say, then EA has on Battlefield 4. It's all about making money. They are no charitys.

If subscription was the only sustainable model for Blizzard? Who knows? I don't have their business plan in front of me, neither any kind of report that shows their business model, neither you have such thing to support any of those statements. But sure thing if there was any better model, they would go for it - like releasing "Expansion Packs"... hell Lineage 2 had similar updates for years and never asked money for it.

People pay for their OWN Battlefield 4 servers, as far as i remember there are official servers. If no one paid for servers, I gurantee you there was plenty of servers for anyone. There are no private WoW servers because Blizzard doesn't want to. Just as simple as that.

I don't backpedal, and that's not the point of this conversation. You have no proof of EA costs per user, neither you have from Blizzard - one thing is sure, the more users you have the lower is the cost.

Here are my points:

1) Subscription model works on any online game;

2) The nature and size of the content released after the original game is irrelevant because it's just content;

3) The genre of the game is irrelevant since most of them consist in a player profile that evolves as long as you play.

4) The size of the user base is irrelevant since every user pays to play, and the more players you have the less is the cost-per-player;

[LAwLz]

The secret AMD is keeping doesn't cripple anyone, that's as simple as it gets.

Neither does Nvidia's if implemented properly (with on/off switches like some developers have done).

 

Jesus... Ok so now it's a matter of size, let's see if you understand how ridiculous that is by answering this: what's the size of the content and the unit of measurement that separates a "Expansion Pack" from a "DLC"? Trust me, it's the Marketing Department, not the developers who follow this definitions.

Of course. It's always been a matter of size. A quick Google search shows that many people follow the same definition. There is no hard line but expansion packs are usually fairly big compared to the main game. For example 100MB on a 300MB game could be called an expansion pack. The new maps and guns for COD is like a few MB for a game that's over 40GB. That's DLC. If they released like a 5GB thing for COD I'd call it an expansion pack. The content is also important. Just releasing a 5GB texture pack would not be an expansion since it doesn't add enough game changing things in my opinion.

It's important to note that there are no strict definitions for this.

 

Subscription is a proven sustainable model, and alot of people like it - else no one would subscribe. Not only in games, but in any kind of multimedia.

Completely irrelevant to our conversation.

 

 

I'm sorry if I offended you, but you seem to be making an effort not to understand a simple thing. They are both online games, where you have a player profile and you evolve it/customize it by playing. If one is a RPG, the other is a FPS, the others are sports simulation makes no difference at all. If Blizzard has more server expenses or not, it's irrelevant, it's not the justification - because in one point in time they sure had WAY LESS SERVER EXEPENSES, a fraction I dare to say, then EA has on Battlefield 4. It's all about making money. They are no charitys.

Bullshit. You're trying to make it sound like it wasn't your intention to offend me but it was clearly your intention. Anyway things can share some similarities but still be radically different. A boat and an airplane for example. Both cost money. Both are used to average people. Both transport you from A to B, but that's not to say it makes sense to compare a boat versus an airplane.

 

Your second point is not true either. First of all, servers were far more expensive back when WoW launched. Not only did the hardware cost more (relative to the performance needed for each player) but they were far less efficient back then as well, so they cost more in cooling and power consumption. Even IF it was true you're still not addressing this point I made:

"It's worse to take a step backwards than it is to stay in the same place"

Do you understand what I mean by that? I mean it's worse for EA to now take a step backwards and start making people subscribe to games, than it is for Blizzard to continue like they have done for a decade and continue charge subscription fees. I want EA to be better than Blizzard. With this they are taking one step towards becoming as bad if not worse.

 

 

If subscription was the only sustainable model for Blizzard? Who knows? I don't have their business plan in front of me, neither any kind of report that shows their business model, neither you have such thing to support any of those statements. But sure thing if there was any better model, they would go for it - like releasing "Expansion Packs"... hell Lineage 2 had similar updates for years and never asked money for it.

Stop strawmanning. I never said it was the only sustainable business model for WoW. There are other ways of ensuring a steady cash flow to pay the server maintenance.

 

 

People pay for their OWN Battlefield 4 servers, as far as i remember there are official servers. If no one paid for servers, I gurantee you there was plenty of servers for anyone. There are no private WoW servers because Blizzard doesn't want to. Just as simple as that.

And your point is? People are paying to rent servers from EA. I doubt that it costs EA 1.49 USD to keep a Battlefield 4 server online for a day, so they are making a profit on the "rent-a-server" program. I am not saying that's bad, but they can use the profit from that program to fund the official servers. It is irrelevant that Blizzard doesn't allow you to rent WoW servers. All I said is that it costs more to maintain WoW than it does for Battlefield 4. EA has another source of revenue which tips the scale even further. That's what I was trying to say but you seemed to have missed that point.

The higher the server cost, the more sense it makes to have a subscription model since you need a constant flow of revenue to fund the servers. Even after all that, I still don't like the subscription model.

 

 

I don't backpedal, and that's not the point of this conversation. You have no proof of EA costs per user, neither you have from Blizzard - one thing is sure, the more users you have the lower is the cost.

What do you think requires more processing power. A tiny maps with a maximum of 64 players, or a huge worlds with thousands of players each? It's very simple logics, and since we got a number for the WoW servers it's pretty safe to say that EA do not spend hundreds of thousands of dollars every single day just to keep the BF servers running. Wow has more players, bigger world and more variables flying around. Of course it's going to use more resources.

 

 

Here are my points:

1) Subscription model works on any online game;

Yes but "it works" and "it's good" are two different things. I don't think it's good in WoW and I think it's even worse for Battlefield.

 

 

2) The nature and size of the content released after the original game is irrelevant because it's just content;

What does that even mean? Of course how much free content you get periodically is relevant. That's usually why you sign up for subscription services, because you expect to get more things in the future. If NetFlix stopped adding new videos their userbase would probably shrink after awhile. Periodically adding additional content to a subscription based service is very important to keep customers. Blizzard knows this and I suspect EA will add/swap out games for their service as well.

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about here.

 

 

3) The genre of the game is irrelevant since most of them consist in a player profile that evolves as long as you play.

The genre is irrelevant but how much space and how complex the game is (per player) is relevant. It costs more to calculate 10 complex variables and save 10MB of data than it does calculating 5 complex variables and save 1KB of data. The number of players is also relevant.

 

 

4) The size of the user base is irrelevant since every user pays to play, and the more players you have the less is the cost-per-player;

The cost per player does not go down after a certain point. The size of the user base is relevant as well. The more players you got, the more servers and more powerful server hardware you need. Blizzard is charging far more than the server cost per player, so the more subscribers they get the more money they make, but the amount of money they make from each subscriber stays the same.

[jmaster299]

Excuse me but where is the DLC on that page? I see two expansion packs and like I said before, those are big enough to be classified as whole games by today's standards.

Patches for WoW often add brand new dungeons/raids and do many changes. You know how they sometimes release "map packs" and "weapon packs" for games? That's what patches are in WoW. You know how your new COD game might have like a new campaign, new weapons and maybe some new perks or whatever? That's what expansion packs are in WoW.

 

I don't have any numbers for Battlefield, but the upkeep cost for all WoW's servers cost Blizzard 136,986 US dollars A DAY back in 2011. That's about 50,000,000 dollars a year.

I strongly doubt EA spends even 1/100 of that for Battlefield. The number of players and the processing needed is simply not anywhere near as much. The maps on Battlefield are really really REALLY small compared to the massive world in WoW, there are fewer players and they don't need as big of a support team.

It's ridiculous to even try to compare the two.

No, it's still DLC since it's just added to the main game and will not work without the main game. Each "expansion" just adds new content to the existing game. The original game and early expansions are just so old at this point that Blizzard lets you buy the original game and the first 3 DLC/Expansions together. In total there is World of Warcraft and 4 Expansions/DLCs, soon to be 5. The Burning Crusade, Wrath of the Lich King, Cataclysm, Mists of Pandaria and soon to be Warlords of Draenor. None of those expansions can operate without owning the original game, and not owning all the previous expansions will prevent you from being able to play the newest endgame content because you'll be incapable of leveling up due to the missing content.

Yes what EA is doing is not a direct comparison, but it's still a valid point to make. If you stop paying the monthly subscription for WoW, you lose the ability to play the game, no matter mow much you've previously spent on it.

[LAwLz]

No, it's still DLC since it's just added to the main game and will not work without the main game. Each "expansion" just adds new content to the existing game. The original game and early expansions are just so old at this point that Blizzard lets you buy the original game and the first 3 DLC/Expansions together. In total there is World of Warcraft and 4 Expansions/DLCs, soon to be 5. The Burning Crusade, Wrath of the Lich King, Cataclysm, Mists of Pandaria and soon to be Warlords of Draenor. None of those expansions can operate without owning the original game, and not owning all the previous expansions will prevent you from being able to play the newest endgame content because you'll be incapable of leveling up due to the missing content.

I still think DLC and expansion should be two different things (and many people, including game studios agrees). DLC is a small extra package. An expansion is like a huge DLC.

It's unfair to call for example Mists of Pandaria a DLC then most DLC is "get this new weapon!" or "Get this new outfit!".