EA considering subscription model for Battlefield games

[Guild McCommunist]

In a recent interview with VentureBeat, EA's Patrick Soderlund admitted to the consideration of subscription services in their popular first person shooter franchise, Battlefield.

In response to being asked if subscription services were popular, Soderlund answered with "I think it's fair to say that we're looking at that. Like all other companies, we're looking at how we can maximise our investment in this and get the most out of our investment and get more people playing this product."

Call of Duty, Battlefield's largest (and leading) competitor recently launched Call of Duty Elite, a premium subscription services that delivered exclusive content to Call of Duty players at the cost of $50 (American USD) a year. This included map packs, amongst other things.

However, there was no mention of whether any potential subscription service would be a "pay-to-play" model, such as popular MMOs like World of Warcraft, or a premium service like Call of Duty Elite, delivering exclusive content for subscribers. There was also no mention if this would affect their latest franchise release, Battlefield 3, or new and upcoming Battlefield games.

Source

 

[Click This]

Oh hell no.

 

[Thesolcity]

Nothx

 

[Xuphor]

1 -

Like all other companies, we're looking at how we can .... get more people playing this product.

2 -

I think it's fair to say that we're looking at [subscription based models].

So..... according to him, if they introduce a subscription model, he thinks it'll get more people playing? Really?
And I thought Sega made stupid decisions.

Also, at that snip saying it didn't necisarily mean "pay to play", they need to learn definitions. That's what a "subscription service" is for a game, even if there is a free to play model with it. the "Subscription" part is ALWAYS pay to play. I've never once seen a "subscription service" inside or outside of games (magazines, special Cable TV channels, etc) that's free.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

So..... according to him, if they introduce a subscription model, he thinks it'll get more people playing? Really?
And I thought Sega made stupid decisions.

I'd like to think his statement is a lot more honest if you take the "L" out of "playing" and added a "for" after it.

 

[BloodyFlame]

Let's make it even more inconvenient to play EA games.

 

[ZAFDeltaForce]

I'd say this is the final nail in the coffin for me; I'm not buying anymore Battlefield games if this goes through.

Origin was bad. Like really bad. But this? This is just bullshit.

 

[shakirmoledina]

its to keep the company alive and besides, no one will suffer.
the way i see this happening is tht if u pay now, u will get more stuff but if u dont, u wont lose anything.

 

[KamiKazeKenji]

What kind of brainless company would be convinced that a subscription-based model would generate more customers? It didn't work for countless MMOs (which is why they went F2P) and it won't work for a pointless FPS, even Battlefield.

And here I thought I liked the Battlefield series better. I thought pulling Battlefield 3 from Steam was bad enough... It just goes to show you how much EA is in it for the money now. I think this is a nice precursor to how Origin is going to be like...

 

[Bladexdsl]

1st they fuck up the sims, and now this i can't wait to see how they fuck up simcity 5

 

[Qtis]

World of Warcraft.. Still going strong with players and it's p2p. Personally never tried it, but it's worth mentioning that making people buy the subscription isn't hard for a good game..

 

[Guild McCommunist]

1st they fuck up the sims, and now this i can't wait to see how they fuck up simcity 5

Sim City 5 aka Farmville Urbz.

its to keep the company alive and besides, no one will suffer.
the way i see this happening is tht if u pay now, u will get more stuff but if u dont, u wont lose anything.

The company makes enough money as it is. They have plenty of hit franchises, this is just taking advantage of the consumer. Why make people pay $60 for a BF3 game when you can instead have them pay an additional $50 for "premium benefits" or make them pay $60 a year to play the game?

 

[FireGrey]

This is the future of FPSs.
This is also the downfall of FPSs.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

This is the future of FPSs.
This is also the downfall of FPSs.

I thought the future of the FPS was going free to play.

 

[qlum]

Good thing I don't really care about battlefield games anymore since bf3. Although if they for some reason remember how to make battlefield games that dont have laser accurate weapons, insanely high damage, converted maps from rush mode into conquest that fail hard like metroll64 this stance may change.

 

[FireGrey]

This is the future of FPSs.
This is also the downfall of FPSs.

I thought the future of the FPS was going free to play.

I don't mean the good future
I mean what's going to happen.

 

[Wombo Combo]

No FPS should go P2P no fps is worth a subcription fee to play and if they go to this I wont be playing any FPS. Greedy assholes can screw off with this shit no money from me. I know most of thier fanbase will agree.

 

[omgpwn666]

No FPS should go P2P no fps is worth a subcription fee to play and if they go to this I wont be playing any FPS. Greedy assholes can screw off with this shit no money from me any I know most of thier fanbase will agree.

Team Fortress 2 is bad ass, but that's a one time pay to go premium thing. I wont be playing any FPS if they get a monthly fee though, that's for sure.

 

[Wombo Combo]

The only way I see anyone paying a monthly fee to play a FPS game is that if that game had the best anticheat detection and the lowest amount of hackers and any other game. I might consider that but in reality it seems imposible.

 

[chartube12]

Now if they do this to sports titles, not many would buy Madden for the XB360. No one wants to pay twice (3x if you count the internet) for online play.