ohh EA, you're so original...

Creamy Goodness

click me!

wonder where i've seen this idea before?

*edit* just seen the thread over on the battlefield forum, mods please delete as you wish.

Genghiz Cohen

Cremo wrote: »

click me!

wonder where i've seen this idea before?

*edit* just seen the thread over on the battlefield forum, mods please delete as you wish.

..but it's free.

dazftw

Tf2 ???

Creamy Goodness

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

..but it's free.

so it would be ok for me to re film star wars and put a new name on it as long as i gave it away?

po0k

And put had them do the Kessel run in 12 Starbucks' Grande Mochachinos

Krieg

Hehe, I wonder if the Magazine editor put the wee pic of tf2 intentionally?


I just read the details for the game

Release in late 2008
Powered by “Frostbite DX”
Set in year modern day
Will ship with 8 maps, each supporting up to 40-players per team
Two playable factions, NATO and MEC (Middle Eastern Coalition)
Same “ticket-based” gameplay style as before
Maps are mostly urban, based in Middle East
Squads and Commanders are present, introduced are “Battalions” which consist of three to four squads.
Five playable classes; Sniper, Assault, Engineer, Medic and Support
Will feature 48 different vehicles (24 for each faction)
Will feature 34 different weapons (17 for each faction) and another 22 unlocks (for both factions), in total 56 different weapons.
Other unlocks include different types of ammunition, body armor, helmets, camouflage and accessories.
Possible public beta in “Summer 2008″
Online stats tracking, awards and “real world ranks”
“Soldier” feature, looks like MMO-styled characters and avatars
Ranked servers will be available for resellers weeks before the game ships
In-game replay and recording feature
VoIP, friends list, in-game IM-client and “extensive clan support”
Built-in auto software updater
Widows Vista and OS X
Announcement and teaser trailer in January 2008.

Dont suppose they are familar with the term 'Beating a dead horse'?

Kold

Cremo wrote: »

so it would be ok for me to re film star wars and put a new name on it as long as i gave it away?

Ofcourse it would.

Genghiz Cohen

Cremo wrote: »

so it would be ok for me to re film star wars and put a new name on it as long as i gave it away?

Ummm...
Yeah!

If it is free then it's worth a try, if it's in the same theme as a currently very successful game/series of games then it's probably going to be similarly successful and you don't know anything about it (what is new/the same).

You didn't say that for any other FPS you now enjoy did you? And yet almost all FPS' are the same, excluding a few minor tweaks.
Point the gun, pull the trigger.

So this is one more FPS to add to the pile, you say meh, I say give it a go, because what is it going to cost you to give it a chance?

If people didn't remake FPS' almost constantly, and said 'Oh no we can't do that, it's been done before!' We would still be playing Doom.

Get over it, all of you.

Creamy Goodness

i'm not saying they are un-original by copying the actual genre of fps' far from it.

it's more that they've seen the success of TF2 was for valve and they now want to dominate the market like they always do.

Genghiz Cohen

Cremo wrote: »

i'm not saying they are un-original by copying the actual genre of fps' far from it.

it's more that they've seen the success of TF2 was for valve and they now want to dominate the market like they always do.

The reason people make games is to make money, if EA didn't hop on this little band-wagon they would have to be extremely stupid.

If they dominate the market it's because more people like their games, because they find them better in some major way.

Holsten

It's free... that's all that matters.

steviec

I'd say reworking a very major hardcore franchise to appeal to a wider market and putting it out for free is fairly original.

Does it really matter if the art style is similar to TF2? That makes it all the more interesting as far as I'm concerned. Lots and lots of games copy other games, and often in more important areas than graphical style.

Ciaran500

So where are they going to make their money?

quarryman

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7199881.stm

"Electronic Arts is to release a free online version of the popular Battlefield game to be supported by adverts and micro payments."

Dr Bob

quarryman wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7199881.stm

"Electronic Arts is to release a free online version of the popular Battlefield game to be supported by adverts and micro payments."

micro payments? -
uh oh...
" out of ammo? press 'r' to purchase more ammunition, please have your credit card details to hand...."

BlitzKrieg

Wait?

If the game is set as a nato vs middle east modern warfare game then where did the ww2 cartoon image come from?

Come on Cartoon WW2 is more fun then cartoon Iraq war.

Genghiz Cohen

"Gamers will be able to buy items which customise their appearance in the world, but will not be able to seek an advantage through buying weapons."

"Mr Cousins said EA expected 95% of people who played the game never to spend any money."

Perfect!

johnny_ultimate

Oh my. Am I the only one who breaks out in cold sweats when I hear the dreaded words 'micro payments'?
The scary thing is if some companies have their way the whole industry will be going that way soon. Sketch on lads!

Genghiz Cohen

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The scary thing is if some companies have their way the whole industry will be going that way soon. Sketch on lads!

As in, 'We give you games for free, and all we ask is that you consider buying some items to customise your character, but if you don't want to, don't worry you won't be at a disadvantage.'

OMG!!! You're right!
:rolleyes:

johnny_ultimate

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

As in, 'We give you games for free, and all we ask is that you consider buying some items to customise your character, but if you don't want to, don't worry you won't be at a disadvantage.'

OMG!!! You're right!
:rolleyes:

Maybe in this game it flies, but some of the 'microtransactions' Ive seen for other games are deplorable. The whole paying for extra maps on Xbox Live is one ridiculous example. I paid sixty euro for the game - I hardly feel charging another ten euro every two or three months for a few new maps is fair.

And less saracasm and rolling of eyes, please. Makes it difficult to have an arguement when you are being so condescending.

Genghiz Cohen

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Maybe in this game it flies, but some of the 'microtransactions' Ive seen for other games are deplorable. The whole paying for extra maps on Xbox Live is one ridiculous example. I paid sixty euro for the game - I hardly feel charging another ten euro every two or three months for a few new maps is fair.

And less saracasm and rolling of eyes, please. Makes it difficult to have an arguement when you are being so condescending.

Sorry, I'm generally a bastard when it comes to the ol' sarcasm gig.

Either way, would you enjoy the game more with bonus content?
Sure you would!

Would you like it free?
Sure as hell you would, me too.

But, shouldn't the people who put time and effort to make the content get something in return? They're not making it to feel all warm inside, as stated before, we make games to make money, no other reason.

If you bought/otherwise acquired the game, then you got what was in the box, nothing else and you must have enjoyed it, otherwise you wouldn't be looking for more.

Do people expect expansion packs free? BF 2142: Northern Strike sure as hell wasn't free, then again it was only a tenner, and what was that only additional content. The name of something means alot I.E. call something 'New Content' people don't want to pay, call it an 'Expansion Pack' and people don't mind.

If a company chooses to release content, the pricing is completely up to them, if the game sells well, or the company has strong backing, it may be free, to encourage more people to buy the original, but will cost them with no guarantee or return, and companies don't like to gamble. If distributing content free could cause a franchise to go bankrupt or finish with a loss or they could make more by selling the content, why should they?

Anyway, sorry for the sarcasm, let the debate continue.:D

KoKane

Free.
As in EA free?


No thanks. Plenty of other better options this year

johnny_ultimate

It isn't expansion packs that are the problem : they provide a reasonable amount of new content that expand the game's lifespan, and are priced accordingly. These are fine additions. 7 or 8 new maps, noticable gameplay tweaks, significant new singleplayer content: totally worth it. The developers deserve to make their money back from this kind of expansion.

It is the tiny little subtransactions which build up, and should have been included in the game in the first place. Horse armour? The levels in the new Katamari game which were released as DLC within days of the game's release, raising suspicions that they were on the disc all along? In fact, I remember a game being announced that was just a bare bones package, and to get any use out of it, you would have to buy accessories and weapons etc.. seperately. Whatever about developer's needing to make their money back, they should have been included in the game in the first place. So us suckers end up paying extra for content we already should have (note: I rarely pay for this extra content).

I'd rather buy a full game and get everything with it, rather than paying ****ty little microtransactions which build up and could in fact ultimately cost more than the game itself. A worrying precedent is being set by many games. As said, since this game apparantly is completely playable without paying a cent, I have no problem at all with it. But the increasing amount of minimal content being releases as add-ons isn't going to go anywhere good. Only a few recent Xbox Live games have had content worthy paying for: Crackdown, for example, added massive amounts of gameplay through it's packs (and released one of them free, too). But map packs which on the PC were traditionally free are a bit of a disgrace.

Genghiz Cohen

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

In fact, I remember a game being announced that was just a bare bones package, and to get any use out of it, you would have to buy accessories and weapons etc.. seperately. Whatever about developer's needing to make their money back, they should have been included in the game in the first place.

Well that game can't have done very well

Micro payments will only last as long as they are profitable, if a game like the one you mentioned comes out, how many people are going to buy loads of stuff to make it enjoyable? Not many. As KoKane said there are plenty of better value games coming out, (Looking forward to Gears of War 2 + Project Origin myself).

So these pay to play games will get the back seat, unless they have something very good about them, in which case it should be worth buying.

Either way, people demand value, if a game needs unreasonable amounts of money pumped into it to make it good, it's going to fail, but if it's good to begin with then maybe 25% of the people that play it will buy extra content, but the people that don't will still have a good game.

The bottom line is, people aren't going to pay more than they have to, if game A needs €100 to make it good, and game B is decent for €60, game B will sell. If game B has extra content, fine some people will buy that too.

Meanwhile:
I was annoyed to hear that Valve may charge for the new TF2 maps, can anyone confirm this?