EA Outs Battlefield 4, Plans To Charge $70 For New Games

Justus writes "Posts at NeoGAF and IGN show that a quickly-removed Origin advertisement for Medal of Honor: Warfighter reveals plans for Battlefield 4 and a new-game cost of $70. With Battlefield 3 DLC promised through 2013 and PC games cheaper than ever with things like the Steam Summer Sale, are gamers ready to buy Battlefield 4 at next-gen pricing?"

Comments

Re:No, no no

[O('_')O_Bush]

I play on PC and on PS3, ~300 hrs between them... and I haven't seen any of what you experienced. Sounds to me like you are just a whiner.

Remember when Street Fighter II came out for SNES?

[the_humeister]

It was $70 at Target. That was almost 20 years ago. Now games have better graphics, better replayability, on-line multiplayer, etc. and they sell new from $40-$60. That's not bad given the progression since then. I'd ask you to get off my lawn now, but it's been paved over with concrete.

My 16 bit games cost 50 bucks

[Osgeld]

that was 20 something years ago, and hell if you dont want to pay 70 2012 bucks for a game that has higher production quality than most movies from 20 something years ago and gives you months of entertainment, wait

yea OMFG wait, by Christmas it will be in the sub 30$ bin at walmart and still have thousands of players.

of all the things people can bitch and whine about new games, cost is not really one of them

a 2600 game would cost you 77 bucks today
a SNES game would cost you 79 bucks today
Metal Gear solid would cost you 84 bucks today

(and we haven't even left the 90's yet)
so please STFU that game prices have not inflated equally with everything else, they have actually gotten cheaper!

Re:My 16 bit games cost 50 bucks

[JDG1980]

I paid fifty bucks for NES games, even though they didn't have much gameplay in them.

NES games, at least the good ones, had a lot more real gameplay in them than the cookie-cutter FPS shit that passes for "A-list games" today.

Re:My 16 bit games cost 50 bucks

[thegarbz]

so please STFU that game prices have not inflated equally with everything else, they have actually gotten cheaper!

While I agree, I hate the trend of the games today.

- Most modern games have zero replay value.
- Most modern games come with nothing, a DVD in a case and if you're lucky there's a one page card inside with a link to a website which may show you how to play.
- Some modern games come feature incomplete. Here's your new game. Oh what you wanted that bit of the story too? Well you can have that as soon as you send us yet MORE money.
- A 2600 or SNES had actual cartridges which cost actual money to produce. They were a significant portion of the distribution costs. Todays games come on a flimsy 20c sheet of plastic (if you're lucky) and sometimes you don't even get that instead option for some download effectively cutting distribution costs out completely.

I look at the costs of games today and I don't think much about it, but when I look at what I actually get, what I hold in my hand and the entertainment it (sometimes very briefly) provides I fell ripped off.

Re:My 16 bit games cost 50 bucks

[LandoCalrizzian]

Of all the examples you listed, how many of those ~$80 can you still play 20 years later after the studio is gone or no longer supporting the game? The way EA is setting up Origin, you are just renting the games and they only guarantee access for 2years in the Origin TOS. With DLC and in game ads, they are overcharging for the game.

Re:My 16 bit games cost 50 bucks

[drinkypoo]

please STFU that game prices have not inflated equally with everything else, they have actually gotten cheaper!

Wages aren't keeping up with inflation, neither minimum wages nor typical wages. Unemployment is at levels not seen since the great depression. STFU that game prices have gotten cheaper, they are now a larger percentage of the typical disposable income.

Re:No, no no

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the community: the biggest problem I have with companies like EA is that they support draconian nonsense like DRM. I can't support them in good conscience.

Re:Yawn

[quantumphaze]

It's even worse when they charge those insane prices for downloadable copies. With online downloads they no longer have the bullshit excuse of more expensive distribution in Australia yet still geo-discriminate (it's totally a word) to not undercut the physical copies. Skyrim was $89 on Steam at launch.

Then they wonder why piracy is so high.

Re:Remember when Street Fighter II came out for SN

[jhoegl]

Your argument is flawed. Back then, games were a niche market. Less people were buying them, the industry was just getting started, and games came with manuals.
Today, games are prevalent, the market is understood, and the industry has been around a while. They also have no manuals.
However, cost is going up because industries are getting greedy and are creating a false environment of "games are in trouble thus we must raise prices".

Is this a rhetorical question?

[Lose]

Of course I'm not ready for "next gen" prices. I'm not even willing to pay the current gen prices. If I can't wait it out for the price to come down by at least 50%, I won't buy it.

It doesn't help that almost all commercial PC games come in the form of sloppy console ports these days. I wouldn't even consider pirating them. If there wasn't such a strong indie game market I probably wouldn't buy any new games at all.

Re:Remember when Street Fighter II came out for SN

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever heard of this thing called "inflation"?

If your statement is true, how come stuff like food and cars are not getting cheaper, although I'm pretty sure their market is also quite understood?

Re:Yawn

[Fjandr]

Well, you're trolling, so that explains why you aren't aware that the Australian dollar is worth more than the US dollar.

Re:uBI and aCTIVision do it too

[KDR_11k]

I'd suggest Binding of Isaac, that's GREAT value for the money. It's like $3 and I've played it for 40+ hours while others have gone past the 100 hour mark!

Re:Games are already too expensive

[MacGyver2210]

As a professional video game developer on the same platforms, I have to ask: why are you charging more? The cost of bringing games like this to the market has plummeted for large dev houses compared to their retail cost. Their labor is at a fixed rate and has an easy transition to existing properties like this, leaving just content development and level planning for a "new" rehashed game from one of their franchises.

If they were rewriting the graphics and physics engine each time, I would believe it and say it's a fair price - those parts of a game are a lot of work when done from scratch. However, I would guess they're just using Havok or Unreal or something of that nature instead, which just costs them a small licensing fee and not a shit-ton of programmer time. That alone should knock some of the game price off.

They have a subsidized online subscription service. On top of the already-too-expensive game purchase, they want you to pay a 'premium fee' to play online? Hell no. You get one or the other, trying to collect on both is far too greedy and people just aren't going to buy your steaming pile of rehashed done-and-done-again shit.

I still play Counterstrike / Condition Zero / Day of Defeat / HL2 Deathmatch which ran me about $10 years and years ago. Those are some rock-solid classic shooters, and I find the community supports them even more now that the gawkers and "ooh, new shiny" players have moved on to other games.

EA is just in this for money - don't let anyone tell you otherwise. They don't have their staff or customers' best interests in mind, and they never will. Don't believe the hype, and don't feed the trolls.