The Simultaneous Rise and Decline of Battlefield

An anonymous reader writes: Ben Kuchera at Polygon recommends against buying the upcoming Battlefield Hardline first-person shooter. Not because it's bad — in fact, he doesn't really offer an opinion on how good the game is — but because it's time to stop incentivizing poor behavior from Electronic Arts and its Digital Illusions CE development studio. After EA acquired DICE, Battlefield game launches accelerated, and launch issues with each game were hand-waved away as unpredictable. The studio's principled stand against paid DLC evaporated in order to feed the ever-hungry beast of shareholder value. Kuchera says, "EA continues this because the Battlefield franchise is profitable; we as players have taught them that we'll buy anyway, and continue to support games that don't work at launch." He suggests avoiding pre-orders, and only buying the game if and when it's in a playable (and fun) state. "Every dollar that's spent on Hardline before the game comes out is a vote for things continuing down an anti-consumer path. If the game is a hit before its launch, that sends a message that we're OK with business as usual, and business as usual has become pretty terrible."

Comments

Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

They'll keep buying the games as fast as EA pushes them out.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[ZahrGnosis]

I did it. I loved BF3, but I didn't pick up 4 and I won't be picking up Hardline because of EA. In addition to everything the original article mentions, most of which I agree with, one thing not mentioned in the original article is the pay-to-have-everything (which is not "Pay-to-win" only in a very strict sense, but that doesn't make it right).

I don't mind these companies making money, but they do it at the expense of loyal customers, rather than in support of them... I don't think it's a good long-term practice, but that's just me. But it's definitely not nobody.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Mephistophocles]

Roger, same here. I just don't "need" new games bad enough to eat their bullshit, and regardless there are other studios out there who don't practice this screw-the-customer-at-every-turn routine. It's typical corporate greed - yes, they can do everything just short of actually sending a goon to your house to rape you and your dog, and there will still be plenty of people who buy their crap and they'll still make a profit. But I don't have to be one of them.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Penguinisto]

They'll keep buying the games as fast as EA pushes them out.

Only for so long. Crap on your customers long enough with shoddy products, and eventually they avoid all of your products. See also Microsoft Windows in the mobile realm; where once they had a huge chunk of mobile device OS marketshare (viz. WinCE), they now have a share that is barely larger than statistical noise (2.1% by the most charitable metric I could find on short notice).

I can see EA losing their grip in a couple of years. After all, you can only crap out so many iterations of "Madden", no?

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[dow]

I also decided not to buy BF4, and have been playing Battlefield as part of a clan since BF2 was popular, every game and every expansion pack. I joked to my friends that I would be back for Battlefield 5 in around 12 months time. When Hardline was revealed, I realised I would probably never return to Battlefield.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I played a lot of BF1942, BF:V, BF2, and BF3, but by the time BF3 hit, it was clear that Battlefield was heading down the Call of Duty yearly-release-with-day-one-DLC road, and I'm just not alright with that. To wit, I have yet to buy (and will never buy) any of BF3's five(!) DLC packages.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[OakDragon]

If the game is "good enough" (i.e., the consumer weighs the good vs. bad and the good comes out on top), it will be bought. No need to punish EA if you're fine with what they're doing.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[un1nsp1red]

You can shit out infinite iterations when you have exclusive locks on sports leagues (re: Madden).

War-themed first-person shooters, however, are a different story.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[cbhacking]

OT, but you didn't look very hard at all, then. The very first links on Google for "Smartphone Market Share" show WP with 3.2-3.3% for Q1 2014, and on a rising trajectory. (https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Reports-March-2014-US-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share). The top (non-Wikipedia) link on Bing for the same search is less precise but says 3%. (http://www.cio.com/article/751867/U.S._Smartphone_Market_Share_Numbers_for_Q1_2014). Those are US numbers; the European numbers are significantly higher. It's still the third-place platform, but it *is* third place behind the two giants.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I opted out after my experience with BF3. Still haven't bought BF4 and don't plan to. Definitely won't bother with Hardline.

The problem with all the paid map packs is that it fractures the player base and massively lowers the server populations. Even if you can afford everything, not everyone can. So the game quickly segments because not everyone is running the same maps. If you have the vanilla maps and back to karkand, you can play on vanilla servers and b2k servers. But you can't play on servers running the other map packs. And people who don't own B2K can't play with you when you're on a server that runs B2K maps. So no matter where you go, you don't have as many choices as if everyone was part of the same map-owning population.

One other bad idea was introducing such an intense equipment/weapon grind in BF3, because even though it got me to play BF3 a lot more, it also soured me on the entire idea of playing the game going forward. Most of my memories of BF3 are of grinding out weapons on high ticket Metro Meatgrinder servers. In my memory, most of the game was dominated by grinding instead of playing. There was grinding in BF2, but it was a grand total of half a dozen weapons and everyone had them all pretty quickly. There weren't 20 different attachments for each weapon and 30 different subtly different assault rifles, etc. Maybe it made the gameplay less varied, but in BF2 people mostly just focused on playing the game instead of grinding unlocks. The medal grinding in BF2 didn't seem as big an annoyance.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Algae_94]

I don't mind these companies making money, but they do it at the expense of loyal customers, rather than in support of them... I don't think it's a good long-term practice, but that's just me.

Funny thing is your average hard drug dealer does the same thing. They make money at the detriment of their loyal customers. They know they'll keep coming back because they are horribly addicted and have nothing else to do. If they eventually do lose a customer, they find a new crowd of young customers that haven't gone through the cycle as many times to get jaded.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Stan92057]

This cant be 5 insightful is its 100% wrong. and you are. I haven't bought a battlefield game extra pack at all. They took away the people who not only pay for the games but pay for the servers to play the games ability to make user made mods it was a great time. Not only that but the game is getting away from its roots wit the next one a crime fighting battlefield??? HAHAHAHHA they just might as well just have aliens invade the earth. I would love to see them make or even remake the older WW2 battlefields that would be badass with the technology we have now as apposed to what it was at the beginning. But at any rate your hah nobody will do this is wrong.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[demachina]

There is a pretty obvious solution to the steep decline in modern games. Its the same solution that was found to over priced, proprietary, commerical operating systems.

We need an open source gaming system. Its probably the only escape from eternal damnation to over priced, poorly designed, crap games.

Some critical issues need to addressed up front for it to work.

For starters you need to settle on an open source gaming engine. Torque3D would be one possibility, people here could probably name others. It needs to be capable, open source and multi platform, with as few licensing restrictions as possible. You need high caliber game developers, like Carmack to emraced it and work on it, with someone like Linus holding it together.

You need to develop a small number of core games based on the essential archetypes, FPS, MMORPG, Space battle/trading, racing.

You need to create councils for each game selected from game developers and excellent players who set rules, direction, maintain order and hold the game economy together.

As always if a game/council fails to satisfy their constituencey a solution is a fork but you want to ACTIVELY discourage forking when it leads primarily to fragmentation and wasted resources. You want as much wood behind one arrow as possible.

Each game needs to actively support and leverage mods and user developed content. In fact that will be the primary source of content.

The core games need to be designed for extreme longevity, its the content that needs to constantly changing and growing.

Councils need to design intelligent tournament systems and leader boards that actually put the most skilled players at the top, where they belong, not the grinders, scammers and cheats.

I'm a long time gamer who no longer plays games, because the games I loved the most died at the hands of corporate greed and stupidity. In particular they died because decisions were made by executives who were for the most part not gamers and made decisions that were all wrong.

If I could, I would probably still be playing the original EQ, the original WoW and Battlefield 2, Karkand Infantry only.

Battlefield 2, Karkand Infantry only was, in my mind the pinnacle of PVP. If you had evenly matched teams, with evenly matched gear, fighting a battle decided by 1 point there was no better adrenaline rush and it never got old. The map never changed, the rules seldom changed, the thing that constantly changed was the people playing it, their skills, their tactics and strategy. Developing huge maps like PS3 where you can never find an even fight, or in game purchases that allow the fools with the most money to win, developing massively too dense graphics, that are way to expensive to develop, require to much graphics power to run and add no FUN to the game, and adding too many gimicky weapons and gear that cause nothing but unbalanced matches, are just some examples.

If I could have kept the original EQ or WoW and just added a never ended series of new dungeons, quests gear and battlegrounds I would probably still be playing them. The first rule is you NEVER raise the level cap, because as soon as you do the game turns in to a pointless treadmill. New dungeons, gear and PVP is all a game needs to stay fresh.

I'd still be playing BF2 if there were any servers left that didn't suck.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[drkstr1]

Due to the amount of product placement I've seen, I've grown to distrust anyone who cites bing as a source. I'm not saying it's a bad search engine, just that a citation of it in a clearly pro winphone post makes anything you say highly suspect. I would go as far as saying that the shilling is so obvious, I may have been duped into feeding the trolls... again.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[bane2571]

Unfortunately that is not the case, The computer gaming demographic may have shifted somewhat in recent years but it's still approximately a window of 5-10 years. In such a small window you can keep making the same mistakes and people that get sick of it are going to be leaving out the top of the age range anyway. There will always be new, young audiences that come in at the bottom.

Best case scenario is you draw a line for yourself and live happy ignoring companies that aren't doing what you want. The overall landscape of the world won't change but you only need to see the parts you like.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[tepples]

You need to develop a small number of core games based on the essential archetypes, FPS, MMORPG, Space battle/trading, racing.

Who would fund the development of these?

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending a goon to your house to rape you and your dog is day 1 DLC for Battlefield Hardline.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[demachina]

Game engines already exist. People already develop content though you kind of need a working and enjoyable game first, with some content, before people will develop more content for it.

Who funded Linux development in the early days, answer, noone? Would need to be a volunteer effort to some extent.

Hopefully Carmack will be disillusioned with working for Facebook soon and do it for love of gaming and graphics programming.

Kickstarter is the obvious answer if you really want cash.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[ADRA]

I'll wait for EA games on Steam, and I've been quite happy blissfully ignoring any and all new EA releases.

Re: Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought bf3, did not buy bf4, will not buy or play hardline.
You can find me in planetside 2.

JonJonPoPong

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved BF3,

It's this sort of paid shill, disgusting liar that enables EA to continue spewing garbage down our throats. His kind should be banned for supporting stealing from people here and for continuing to support it with his lies. It is his fault. He needs to be put in prison for his fraud. We've all seen racist statements by his kind, and cash from EA just enables their kind to keep promoting not only bad games, but also racism. Not banning his kind is supporting disgusting things.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

... and only available as an opt-out service and you are promptly informed about your subscription upon completion of the first forced download ...

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 Mod Up.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Try Chaosesque:Anthology

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Nyder]

I did it. I loved BF3, but I didn't pick up 4 and I won't be picking up Hardline because of EA. In addition to everything the original article mentions, most of which I agree with, one thing not mentioned in the original article is the pay-to-have-everything (which is not "Pay-to-win" only in a very strict sense, but that doesn't make it right).

I don't mind these companies making money, but they do it at the expense of loyal customers, rather than in support of them... I don't think it's a good long-term practice, but that's just me. But it's definitely not nobody.

I've been computer/console gaming since the early 80's and one thing I learned by the 90's. Never pre order any game. NEVER.

Now as for the BF games, I'm on the Hardline Beta and I find the game sort of enjoyable. Now I only own BF3 because it was given away free a month or so ago. Don't plan on buying BF4 either.

But as responsible consumers, people need to stop preordering games. All that does is make it easier for publishers to give you crap, since you already paid them up front. Make the companies earn your money!

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not this gamer. It's not beyond the bounds of reason that I might buy something from EA - that new IP that Bioware are talking about might be worth a look but anything from them will be very critically examined before purchase. The requirement for Origin is a major barrier to entry.

Still, at least they've got more of a chance of a purchase than Ubisoft. I've refused to even pirate any of their stuff since they started with that U-Play bollocks. I out-and-out refuse to give them mindshare.

Between the steam backcatalogue, GOG, emulators, and all the rest I can live with missing yet another FPS.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[L4t3r4lu5]

They'll keep buying the games as fast as EA pushes them out.

I don't know, boycotting worked well for Modern Warfare 2 (JPEG, SFW)

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Chatsubo]

I wonder whether kids starting to PC game now even know that once-upon-a-time games worked decently out the box. Whether they ever contemplate the possibility of a game working on the first day...

Is that even something they've ever seen before? I've been to the BF forums and from what I saw the answer is "No". There are plenty of fanboys in there who defend EA/DICE in this regard. Since, you know: "We *all* know games always have problems at release".

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Xest]

I think the article misses the way modern economies work too. It doesn't matter if it's profitable, shareholders nowadays want to see increasing profits year on year.

You don't need millions of people to boycott it so that the production makes a loss, you only need thousands like yourself and I that mean it makes less money than it has in previous years.

If there's no profit growth, investors will start to notice and start asking questions and demanding a change in direction.

So yes, absolutely boycott, you can make a different, you don't need everyone to boycott, just enough to give up on it each year that it suffers declining sales.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never purchased another Battlefield title after EA bought DICE.
I thought the Desert Combat mod was the best thing going. After the DICE purchase, I got to try Battlefield 2 and thought the gameplay sucked, the vehicle systems were worse than walking, and the overall feel of the game was like wading through a swamp filled with leeches while having 1000 cuts on your legs. I couldn't believe it was (supposedly) the same people that modded the original game into what should have been an award winning game.
I literally spent hours per day playing DC, only to completely drop it once BF2 was released.

EA screwed the pooch on this franchise.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

BF3 took a DECADE after BF2. i cried, bitched, & moaned about it.

We should still be playing BF3 with amped up graphics. I can not even believe there is a new BF beyond BF4 already. Fawk EA

no other game comes close to touching Battlefield on PC. -it's to bad

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

At least there's no DRM...

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[nabsltd]

I've been computer/console gaming since the early 80's and one thing I learned by the 90's. Never pre order any game. NEVER.

And, if having the game at the same time as other people isn't required for play (e.g., if multiplayer isn't your primary play style), then just wait until you can get the game at 20% of original cost.

I've spent around $110 on the Steam summer sale, but I picked up 17 games, many of them "AAA", and by now I really know if the game stands the test of time.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[stealth_finger]

OT, but you didn't look very hard at all, then. The very first links on Google for "Smartphone Market Share" show WP with 3.2-3.3% for Q1 2014, and on a rising trajectory. (https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Reports-March-2014-US-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share). The top (non-Wikipedia) link on Bing for the same search is less precise but says 3%. (http://www.cio.com/article/751867/U.S._Smartphone_Market_Share_Numbers_for_Q1_2014). Those are US numbers; the European numbers are significantly higher. It's still the third-place platform, but it *is* third place behind the two giants.

What's in fourth place? As it stands today there are only three horses and the other two are miles away.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[Hodr]

So if you could only own one video game at a time (like most people only have one cell phone with one OS), then the market can shift like you propose.

But that isn't the case, and for many a video game (even at $60) is an impulse buy. It doesn't have to be the best, or even all that good, to maintain a decent market share.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[TheLink]

Somehow that reminds me of this: https://xkcd.com/606/

BTW I'm still playing Guild Wars 1 - an old good but dying game...

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[TheLink]

But as responsible consumers, people need to stop preordering games. All that does is make it easier for publishers to give you crap, since you already paid them up front. Make the companies earn your money!

Does that apply to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Some of the prices here look kinda steep: https://robertsspaceindustries... :)

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[bmk67]

"They" might, but I won't. The last EA game I bought was BF2.

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[uninformedLuddite]

I'm still looking for the Wumpus!

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[LordWabbit2]

Ditto, don't play much online anymore, tired of paying for a 6 hour single player campaign, there are better alternatives out there for single player games. Was VERY disappointed in Watch dogs :-(

Re:Haha, nobody will do this.

[nabsltd]

If somebody could tell me how to get Metro 2033 to stop stuttering on a machine that is twice as fast as anything you could have purchased when it was first released, I'd be happier.

I've tried everything on every page Google suggests, but I still get 80 frames per second 95% of the time, with sudden drops to 5fps for about a half-second. I can even drop down the quality and resolution so that the difference is even more dramatic: 140fps down to the same 5fps. Metro: Last Light runs fine, so I suspect the engine upgrade solved the problem. Hopefully, the Redux version using the new engine will drop to less than $10 by the time I've gone through all the other games I bought.

"Inciting"

[XanC]

Not "incentivizing". "Inciting".

Re:"Inciting"

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, incentivising is probably exactly the word they meant to use, and it makes sense.

Re:"Inciting"

[Anonymous Coward]

Only because we believe "incentivize" is a verb, when "incentive" is a noun from the original verb, "incite". This is similar to the word "burglarized", a verb from the noun "burglar", which is from the original verb "burgle". Just as you can always properly use "burgle" when someone uses "burglarize", you can also use "incite" whenever someone uses "incentivize". You'll be "more" proper using the original verb, but you'll be less recognized...

Re:"Inciting"

[pushing-robot]

Perhaps, but we can't incentivize the use of 'incentivizing'.

Re:"Inciting"

[Stormy Dragon]

This isn't true.

Etymology of "incentive":

Middle English, from Late Latin incentivum, from neuter of incentivus stimulating, from Latin, setting the tune, from incentus, past participle of incinere to play (a tune), from in- + canere to sing

Etymology of "incite":

Middle French inciter, from Latin incitare, from in- + citare to put in motion

The two words come from completely different Latin roots and arrived in English from completely different sources.

Re:"Inciting"

[Anonymous Coward]

Semantic drift renders "incite" and "incentivize" to have two different meanings. e.g. You incite someone with emotion, but you incentivize them with cash.

"Burgle" and "burglarize" haven't met the same fate, though.

Re:"Inciting"

[istartedi]

In common usage, "incentivize" is somewhat neutral, wheras "incite" has connotations of hatred and/or violence. Just googling around a bit, I even pulled up an example of somebody using the distinction in a title.

Re:"Inciting"

[EvilSS]

Only because we believe "incentivize" is a verb, when "incentive" is a noun from the original verb, "incite".

We believe it's a verb because it is a verb. What do you believe it is, a suspension bridge? It's in the OED so I'm pretty much OK with it.

VERB
[WITH OBJECT]
Provide (someone) with an incentive for doing something:
this is likely to incentivize management to find savings

In other words, Don't Pay for Promises.

[Thatto]

Pay for Value.

Re:In other words, Don't Pay for Promises.

[sixshot]

I have been avoiding the Battlefield franchises ever since 4 has been announced. So far, I have been happy with the result. So the money I saved from not buying that (and any future Battlefield game in general), it all went to fancy extras in Guild Wars 2. Satisfied with what I got since that's virtually all I play nowadays. That's my value.

I have seen the decline for a while. But BF3 was definitely the last straw. Until EA and DICE straighten up and start making quality games that supports the community rather than themselves, I won't be bothering with any of the Battlefield games.

Re:In other words, Don't Pay for Promises.

[Ralph Wiggam]

And everyone's concept of value is different.

If enough people want to give EA their money, then they will keep doing what they're doing- and not give a rats ass about what every single person on this site thinks.

If enough people stop giving EA their money, for whatever reason, then their games and sales model will change immediately.

Re:In other words, Don't Pay for Promises.

[Anonymous Coward]

What about Kickstarter? Early-access games on Steam? Alpha-funding? etc?

Re:In other words, Don't Pay for Promises.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pay for Valve.

FTFY

EA? Launch issues? Unpredictable?

[Hsien-Ko]

Ha ha.

Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

You say EA pumps out crap games and people buy them in droves anyways? Do tell.

Re:Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

You say EA pumps out crap games and people buy them in droves anyways?

If they keep selling, then they must not be as crappy as a vocal minority makes them out to be.

Re:Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[Mephistophocles]

Riiiiight. 'Cause a hundred billion flies eating shit can't be wrong.

Re:Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[Ralph Wiggam]

You misunderstand. Our opinions are correct, and everyone who disagrees is stupid.

Re:Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiiight. 'Cause a hundred billion flies eating shit can't be wrong.

That's correct. Fly's are not wrong for liking to eat shit.

Just as people are not wrong for liking things you don't.

Re:Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[shoor]

IANAG (I am not a gamer). Also, I did not RTFA, but I did read the summary, where it explicitly didn't comment on the game itself, but on 'poor behavior'. I think there's a difference.

Re:Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[tepples]

The problem here is that if the majority like shit, then only shit gets funded, leaving little for those who dislike shit.

Re:Holy shit, this IS news for nerds

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that if the majority like shit, then only shit gets funded, leaving little for those who dislike shit.

Tuff shit for those people.

Warriors, unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been pirating their games for years. According to industry numbers, I've done millions of dollars in damage. If we all band together, we can bankrupt the company.

Unless they're wholly full of shit about the piracy issue, and we all know that EA wouldn't lie to us.

Re:Warriors, unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem is that so many people confuse not gaining something with losing something.

Re:Warriors, unite!

[Lotana]

Yes. It is called "Opportunity Cost". It is proven and valid.

Here is an extremely simple example: I earn $20 an hour. I can go work for 8 hours or play a game for 8 hours. If I work, I get $160. If I game, I don't get anything (In monetary measure anyway).

Therefore, by gaming I just lost $160 that I could of had.

So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers salivating to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.

However, 500 pirated. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.

So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.

Re:Warriors, unite!

[purpledinoz]

And how much music have you downloaded? You've done even more damage. No wonder the financial crisis happened!

Re: Warriors, unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Salivating to play it !== willing to pay for it. Someone infringing copyright on something they are not willing to pay for is not opportunity cost for the publisher.

By your reasoning someone who plays the game at a friends house has stolen the full retail value of the game from the publisher.

Re:Warriors, unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently I do not have a job. but if I did have a job I could earn $20 an hour.

I could develop a skill or play a game.

If I develop a skill, I would lose the $20 an hour I should be paid.

Or I could game an lose nothing.

So by developing a skill I have just lost $160 a day.

Re:Warriors, unite!

[Lotana]

Come again?

Both those activities will end up with you losing $160. How would you "Lose nothing" by gaming.

Furthermore, gaining a skill (Which I assume you undergoing some kind of training) is an investment in yourself. That skill could potentially be recognized as an advantage over other job applicants or a basis for a promotion. So overall that is a wise expenditure of $160.

Gaming on the other hand is completely worthless market-wise. You spent $160 on enjoyment and relaxation that you get from a game. Which could be a perfectly valid expenditure from your personal perspective.

Re: Warriors, unite!

[Lotana]

As you wish.

So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers willing to pay to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.

However, 500 have found that they can get the same thing for free by pirating it. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.

So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.

Re: Warriors, unite!

[nabsltd]

EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers willing to pay to play it.

This is the problem with all piracy claims. There is no way to verify that those 1000 teenagers would actually pay the money for the game if that really was the only way to play the game. They might say they would pay, but when push comes to shove, that $50 might be too much for them to afford, so they just do without.

Based on all the survey results I have seen, many people who use software that isn't properly licensed do so because the license terms are too painful, not because the actual cash outlay is too much. The biggest issues are DRM and buggy software (often caused by the DRM) that doesn't get patched. When you can download software via torrent and use it 100% of the time without worrying if the license server is available to authorize you, that software is worth a lot more than the version that requires you to jump through hoops just to use it. Add in the price difference (free vs. whatever the retail version costs), and it's really a no-brainer...people will always take a free Porsche over an expensive Yugo.

Re:Warriors, unite!

[stealth_finger]

Yes. It is called "Opportunity Cost". It is proven and valid.

Here is an extremely simple example: I earn $20 an hour. I can go work for 8 hours or play a game for 8 hours. If I work, I get $160. If I game, I don't get anything (In monetary measure anyway).

Therefore, by gaming I just lost $160 that I could of had.

So, to bring it to the issue at hand: EA's game costs $50. There are 1000 teenagers salivating to play it. If they all buy it: EA gets $50,000.

However, 500 pirated. Therefore EA got $25,000 instead. Thus piracy costs them $25,000 in opportunity cost.

So by not gaining, you do indeed lose something.

Maybe I should put in a claim for all the money I've not earned while playing games/listening to music/watching films then.

Re:Warriors, unite!

[GuB-42]

The idea of opportunity cost is valid, however saying that all pirates would have bought the game is wrong, and that's how they inflate their numbers.

If we somehow managed to make piracy impossible, would be pirates could simply not play the game.
- because they don't have the budget
- because it's not easily available
- because of restrictions (invasive DRM, internet connection, ...)
- because the competition is cheaper (Photoshop piracy probably hurt Paint Shop Pro more than Photoshop itself)

Re:Warriors, unite!

[Anonymous Coward]

Except your loss happened by your own free choice. What are you going to do, sue yourself?

Re: Warriors, unite!

[Lotana]

Based on all the survey results I have seen, many people who use software that isn't properly licensed do so because the license terms are too painful, not because the actual cash outlay is too much. The biggest issues are DRM and buggy software (often caused by the DRM) that doesn't get patched. When you can download software via torrent and use it 100% of the time without worrying if the license server is available to authorize you, that software is worth a lot more than the version that requires you to jump through hoops just to use it. Add in the price difference (free vs. whatever the retail version costs), and it's really a no-brainer...people will always take a free Porsche over an expensive Yugo.

I really used to think that as well. What absolutely disgusted me and turned me bitter is when I read about the piracy rate of Humble Indie Bundle:

http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Saving-a-penny----pirating-the-Humble-Indie-Bundle

The bundle came DRM free. You get to decide how much you wanted to pay: Smallest amount you could put in those days was 1 cent (And many did). The proceeds went to charity, developers and further bundles with you able to change how much goes where. Linux, Mac and Windows versions were provided.

There really was no excuse for piracy! And yet piracy was rampant! It was all over the torrents. Just to save a penny?!

So that just proved to me that pirates are just plain dicks. Piracy for piracy's sake.

Re: Warriors, unite!

[nabsltd]

There really was no excuse for piracy! And yet piracy was rampant! It was all over the torrents. Just to save a penny?!

It's absolutely true that some people won't pay for anything, but those people aren't lost sales, either.

Between them and the people who don't like the number of hoops you have to jump through when you do pay (one of the latest Humble Bundles was for Steam keys, which isn't a problem for me, but some people didn't like it), there is a lot of instances of "piracy" counted where the price of the product is completely unrelated to the percentage of unlicensed copies.

Came to read about the decline, was disappointed

[Anonymous Coward]

I was excited because I thought there would be metrics on how Battlefield and (more importantly) EA has been on the fiscal decline but it turns out to just be a link to some guy's butt-hurt rant. EA has been shit for a long time and "gamers" still haven't learned.

Doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

... the majority of the first person shooter buying gamers are morons. When Call of duty type first person games displace the Quake, unreal and the very first few battlefield games in terms of quality. The gaming masses are just too moronic. Once graphics got good enough the non-nerds invaded on mass, hence the rise of all the military porn shooters. There are so many shooters its sick. FPS was a tired genre back when Quake and unreal were milking it in their 3rd plus releases. If you grew up during the 90's you had so many first person shooters you didn't know what to do with them all, but at least there was variety. Almost all modern FPS are military shooters with no creativity to save their lives.

It's all down to that realistic graphics that the retarded gun culture of america loves. The success of battlefield and Call of duty over better first person shooters tells us a lot about the demographic modern battlefields and call of duties cater too.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[Hsien-Ko]

The non modern warfare game's you mention did not get a hi score in game informer. You say your a gamer and u have better first person shooter's... proof it

I bet your not playing it on a xbox 360 which is 3 times more powerful then the current pc so you're argument is invalid.

[/eternalseptember00]

Re:Doesn't matter...

[rgbscan]

"I bet your not playing it on a xbox 360 which is 3 times more powerful then the current pc so you're argument is invalid."

Thanks. I needed a good laugh to end my day :-)

Re:Doesn't matter...

[amicusNYCL]

I'm confused about whether that is a serious post or a troll. It has to be a troll. 3 apostrophes used, all incorrectly. 3 uses of your/you're, all incorrect. And the assertion that a console built on PC hardware is more powerful than "the current PC". There's no way that can be a serious post.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[Hsien-Ko]

It isn't, but sadly this kind of attitude is still reality, especially after those crappy Titanfall/WAtch_Dogs ports which only amplifies this fanboyism further.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a joke.

The EternalSeptember00, which I guess is the Xbox live release date, is a reference to the other Eternal September - where AOL unleashed the unwashed masses to the internet.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[Lehk228]

>I bet your not playing it on a xbox 360 which is 3 times more powerful then the current pc so you're argument is invalid.

top kek.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[amicusNYCL]

My faith in humanity is so low these days.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[cbhacking]

The Xbox 360 isn't built on PC hardware, actually - PowerPC instruction set, a slightly weird 3-core hyperthreaded CPU. Admittedly it has a good clock speed, even today (3.2GHz IIRC) but that's no PC part and you can easily get laptops more powerful than that now (my desktop, which was admittedly built for gaming, blows it away - 8 cores at 4GHz, plus 32GB of RAM vs. 0.5GB). The graphics chip isn't PC-standard either, although it's made by a company that makes PC GPUs too...

Are you thinking of the Xbox One? That is much closer, performance-wise, to a typical PC and is indeed built on near-commodity PC hardware.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you miss the reference to eternal September?

Ah. Seven digit ID. That explains it.

Re:Doesn't matter...

[uninformedLuddite]

My faith in humanity is so low these days.

You actually had some?

I really don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care how many millions of people spend their money to support these shit games; there are still publishers and studios making quality products, and they're not going away.

When you look at the vast library available of indie games, or games from smaller studios, we've probably never had a richer available gaming environment. There may be a few abandoned genres (see city making games. SimCity 5 is an abortion, and Cities XL is garbage. There are some promising indie games coming up though), but by avoiding the major publishers, you can probably find games to scratch any itch. And to be quite honest, indie games of today can surpass the AAA experience of last decade, so they're not all 8-bit retro style.

Re:I really don't care

[mlts]

I would love a spiritual successor to NWN, or a NWN-like RPG that one can fairly easily build player-written modules and other content, with characters that can persist between modules.

This was the nice thing about NWN1 and NWN2. Both had long tails, and had not just single player campaigns, but player-written content that was just as good if not better, as well as persistent worlds which has the long-lost roleplay feel of MUDs gone by.

So far, I've dropped a little bit of cash on a failed Kickstarter, but there just isn't anything in this genre [1]. I would love a spiritual successor to NWN.

[1]: I'm not meaning F2P MMOs like Neverwinter, but a game that focuses on the RPG aspect as well as the player creation tools, as opposed to just buying the latest DLC.

Re:I really don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I picked nwn2 back up about 3 months ago. Played several modules off the vault and started playing on ROT PW. It's been great and hasn't cost me a thing since I still have the install disk from when I originally bought the game.

Before starting back in with nwn2, I was spending a lot of time working with Trinitycore and all the potential there. Unfortunately, it is an immense amount of work to really start creating content because there are essentially no prefabs and everything requires numerous programs to create. By the time you get good at all these various programs, you may as well of gone and made your own game.

Basically I want a nwn3 in full 3d that comes with a the full creation suite. Like all nwn, the original campaign should really just be a demo for the toolkit so the community can pump out the real gems.

You can see MMO companies trying to basically get players to build their good content for them with ideas like the Foundry for EQN and a couple others that I can't recall. It's tempting and I will still probably look into EQN once its live.

The problem with the MMO approach is they want all the control. That was the sheer beauty of what NWN and NWN2 did. They gave central forum support but otherwise really allowed the community to build itself and flourish. Adding extra game objects alongside bug fixes and the lot was really nice. NWN and NWN2 still may snag a sell or two just from the HUGE repositories of modules on ignvault.

Re:I really don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

What would be nice is to separate the graphics from the game engine almost completely. That way, when there is a significant upgrade, a tileset can have a new set of rendered objects, so the game can get a new coat of paint and even better gameplay without affecting scenarios.

The tough part is having a game company willing to allow people to run their own servers. I don't want EQ:Next Landmark or 2L. I want a standalone game that can be played, sans core servers. Sell the client and expansions that add monsters, scripts, tilesets, and functions. Leave a basic server infrastructure with the ability for players to run their own.

I remember tossing $250 at a kickstarter for a spiritual successor for NWN1/NWN2... never got funded... blah.

Re:I really don't care

[Joe_Dragon]

cities in motion 2 was good even when it not a full city sim and train fever looks good.

Re:I really don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

I recommend checking out Shadowrun Returns. Came out last year and is based on the Shadowrun license (obviously). Feels like a cyberpunk version of NWN with a pretty good scenario editor and has a pretty good selection of player-written campaigns. I believe it's on sale on Steam right now.

"After EA acquired DICE"

[Culture20]

Is this the same Dice Holdings Inc. that owns /.?

Re:"After EA acquired DICE"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, one is EA Digital Illusions CE. The other is Dice Holdings, Inc. (I had to look it up. I guess I am not the only one who saw a connection.)

Re:"After EA acquired DICE"

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno. Is Dice Holdings Inc. the same company as Digital Illusions CE?

Can you think before you type?

Re:"After EA acquired DICE"

[UnknownSoldier]

No.

DICE = Swedish Digital Illusions CE

Dice = American Dice Holdings

There's a new battlefiled coming out?!

[darkwing_bmf]

I better get my pre-order in now!

Re:Or Be an Adult

[war4peace]

Adults don't stop playing games. As a matter of fact, humans never stop playing games throughout their entire lives. Haven't you seen old men playing chess or backgammon? Football, soccer, even courting are all games. Even haggling is a game in a certain sense.

More general rule

[istartedi]

A more general rule is simply to never buy a pig in a poke. The origin of that expression is literally from Medieval times!

Re:More general rule

[Threni]

> For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question,
> "who cares"?

Intensive purposes?

Re:More general rule

[tepples]

"Intensive purposes" are purposes related to intensive properties. Here's an example of how it comes into play. Unfortunately, I lack enough knowledge of Battlefield games to tie it into the topic.

Simultaneous Rising & Falling ?

[UnknownSoldier]

So is BF rising or falling? Which is it? Rising in popularity? Falling in quality?

Re:Simultaneous Rising & Falling ?

[desdinova 216]

it's doing both at the same time, it's Schrodinger's Franchise.

Good luck with this

[Crashmarik]

Gamers have always been willing to accept virtually non existent levels of software quality and never seem willing to hold the developers feet to the fire over the issues. If you look at most MMOs they seem to use design flaws as content these days balance problems and re-balancing combat/roles seem to be top design failures with very little legitimate cause.

Re:Good luck with this

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamers have always been willing to accept virtually non existent levels of software quality and never seem willing to hold the developers feet to the fire over the issues. If you look at most MMOs they seem to use design flaws as content these days balance problems and re-balancing combat/roles seem to be top design failures with very little legitimate cause.

I'm just waiting for Diablo 3 to hit the newstands again. I think we're do for another trash article on the destruction of prepaid games.

No thanks...

[Lumpy]

BF4 was completely unplayable. It was early alpha quality that they pushed out. I am NEVER buying another game from that franchise again. EA can stuff it in their rear end.

Re:No thanks...

[im_thatoneguy]

Yeah premium Battlefield 3 and 4 player here too. I give up. I kept thinking the next patch would make it playable. It never was/is.

I don't care about EA, it's not EA's fault per say--EA owns Respawn and the launch of Titanfall was all around quite good. It's just the Battlefield team is incredibly terrible/lazy.

I'm also definitely not buying Hardline seeing as I saw someone play the beta and it even uses all of the icons and sound effects from Battlefield 4. It is Battlefield 4 with a couple tweaks but a full game price. Screw that. If it was a $10 add-on or gift to premium customers who were cheated on BF4's unconscionable launch I would happily take it for a spin but not another dollar to the Battlefield team.

I'm in the beta and...

[Redbehrend]

I'm in the beta and I can see people enjoying it that enjoy games like cs:go, payday, etc... I don't see why people hate, just don't buy it if you don't want to play it. I agree not to pre-order most games since they drop in price usually a couple weeks later. I enjoy the frostbyte engine over most fps, engines. I'm sure it will have its click of players if they support it right.

Re: Came to read about the decline, was disappoint

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't picked up bf4 but my biggest issue is the hacks. Punk buster is a complete joke and EA won't touch the issue with a 10 foot pole.

Re:Or Be an Adult

[JaredOfEuropa]

"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old when we stop playing"

Meh

[ScienceofSpock]

The only GOOD Battlefield was BF 1942 and its expansions. When BF:Vietnam came out and allowed picking any primary class with any secondary class, it just ruined the game, killed cooperation and turned it into a free-for-all.

Re:Meh

[Strahan]

I wholly agree. BF1942 with Desert Combat mod was, IMO, peak of the Battlefields. Yes, it was buggy. Yes, compared to today it was graphically crap and the levels were pretty barren. Still, it was a huge blast to play :) I have many fond memories of LAN parties playing BF1942:DC for like twelve hours straight. Tons of custom maps, easy to modify the files to make custom vehicles and stuff (http://www.nischan.com/crap/AH-6k_1.jpg lol). Helos were my passion. I loved the helo controls in Desert Combat. It was fun to watch newbies hop into a helo then cry about how hard they are to fly after crashing, hehe. I also loved how the collective control in DC was a momentary setup.. i.e. let go of it and you drop. Made nap of the earth flying easy, better than the adjust-and-it-stays type in Vietnam and later.

Re:Meh

[ScienceofSpock]

Yeah, Desert Combat was cool as hell, but I thought the inherent small size limits of the maps made modern jets quite a bit over powered in terms of their ability to move across the map quickly. Most DC maps I played were quickly dominated by the jets. Hell, there are still BF1942 servers up, I may have to dig out my disks this weekend :)

Just make your own shit list

[Anonymous Coward]

Dont let others dictate what you should or should not do, just make your own shit list if you fell it is nessesarry

Sony - Destructive money garbing fucktards, dlc
Ubisoft - root kit distributors and like to shut down there server for games that need always on, dlc
EA - Massivly destructive, uncreative, buys up everything and grinds it in to dust, dlc and so on....
Sega - DLC and the destruction of totalwar.

and on and on...

Re:Just make your own shit list

[Anonymous Coward]

p.s. buy plauge inc and surgeon 2013 on steam summer sales. both are cheap and hilarious

Re:Just make your own shit list

[Anonymous Coward]

Steam - has done more to reduce resistance to DRM and related perversions than the IP MAFFIA could have ever accomplished on their own.

Another lost customer

[melting_clock]

I have bought pretty much every PC release of Battlefield. BF3 was the low point for me, with regular connectivity issues ruining the game, include a long period of EA blaming a DDoS attack. It is painful to be kicked off of server part way through a round because the DRM lost connection to EA servers... There were more in game bugs than an previous release. Origin is an added annoyance. The fact that I had spent $1000 upgrading my gaming PC for BF3 didn't help.

BF4 seems to be been rushed out well before it should have been and was full of in game bugs, like invisible objects, constant crashes under a range of conditions, more connectivity issues. It is only fairly recently that most of these have been fixed.

No release has been immune to aimbots and other hacks but the inclusion of a kill cam did give some amusing views of them in action. I remember being killed by someone shooting from one end of the map to the other in BF3, with their shots needing to go through several walls and floors to get me. This happened many times in several rounds and the useless cheater detection never picked them up. The number of glitches that allowed players to get outside the map to either sneak around or kill those inside the map was amazing.

After two releases I regret wasting my time and money on, I've decided to blacklist EA and DICE on all platforms. The positive side is that it got me to buy several games on Steam, including a few nice cross platform games that I play on Linux. I am not going to miss EA or their Origin crap.

Re:Another lost customer

[UnknownSoldier]

Yeah, lots of my gaming buddies are not bothering with BF4 and EA.

You'll probably want to blacklist Ubisucks, er, Ubisoft, as well after the abysmal Tomb Raider and Thief reboots / remakes / re-imaging / re-cash grabs

Re:Another lost customer

[melting_clock]

Yeah, lots of my gaming buddies are not bothering with BF4 and EA.

You'll probably want to blacklist Ubisucks, er, Ubisoft, as well after the abysmal Tomb Raider and Thief reboots / remakes / re-imaging / re-cash grabs

You are probably right. I did buy BF4 but not premium, There are a lot of Ubisoft games that I have bought but recent releases haven't interested me. Apart from painful DRM and companies looking for more ways to make money, PC games seem to start out broken due to a push for the console market. The result is the PC version is crap and customers are screwed.

Any lost sales will be blamed on piracy which annoys me because I have always paid for my games.

Games for gamers, versus numbers for shareholders

[Onuma]

So long as big, publicly-owned companies are churning out games they are generally only going to consider profit and perception by shareholders as the end goal.

Companies who create a good game for the sake of the game itself can often see profits as a result of their dedication -- the end goal is always putting out a game which is as good as that studio can feasibly put out. $$$ is welcome, but secondary. For this reason, I am an advocate for game developers to stay privately owned. If I hear about a producer/publisher's IPO I will absolutely scrutinize every reason to even consider their products from that point, forward. Can anyone name a publicly-traded gaming company who isn't all jacked up?

I have not purchased or pre-purchased a AAA-produced game since the awful release of Diablo 3. While it did turn out to be a fun game, Blizzard proved to me that they really don't have a clue as to what captured the essence of the first 2 games in the series, nor do they actually give a crap about the people who are ensuring their paychecks. If anything, I will wait for a Steam Summer Sale, Humble Bundle, GoG sale, or something comparably discounted. I end up missing out on the early days of fun where a whole bunch of friends and other players are online all at once, but I save a ton of money and I don't regret my $5 purchases...as opposed to those $50-60 mistakes.

I don't really game but...

[RevWaldo]

...I feel the same way about Ticketmaster.

.

This is good

[StarBar]

the bean counters will never understand how software is developed and I am not talking about inhibiting profitability but how to increase profitability. Instead they compare software development with factories and wants square blocks of 'workload' outlining a project and when that is not working they just add more blocks or extend overtime reducing profitability even more. They hate hearing that software development is an art or like a green house where some pots needs more water than other and some needs fertilizers and other just need a dark corner for a long time to develop loads of flowers. It makes me sad. I say we sack the bean counters!

EA Boycott

[ericloewe]

Join the EA boycott!

What about the good games, you ask?

Look at all the money you would have saved by not buying these pieces of shit:

Battlefield 3 - "You'll have to buy this, or else nobody will be around to play with you" DLC
The new Sim City
The new Sim City - "Expansion pack that adds nothing players wanted and a ton of stuff nobody cares about" Expansion pack
The Sims 3 - "You already bought this expansion twice before" Expansion Pack
Battlefield 4(ever ridden with bugs)

And in the future:

Battlefield 4 DLC - "We promised we'd fix the game first, and with luck, it's now possible to play a whole match without game-breaking bugs, so it's technically fixed"
The new Battlefield which shares nothing with Battlefield other than the name
The Sims 4 - Bend over and buy the expansions you already bough three times before once more!

don't care

[Anonymous Coward]

i just wanted to put my 2 cents in and say that I don't care. I don't even care enough to read the article or finish writing this important

Been "Battlefield Free" since Battlefield 2

[OSULugan]

I spent countless hours playing Battlefield 1942 and its expansions. That game was a favorite at many LAN parties back 10+ years ago, and for good reason. I found Battlefield: Vietnam a little less engaging, but quite interesting for the time period and the addition of Helicopters to the fray.

I pre-ordered Battlefield 2, but when I installed it, I found that the game wouldn't run longer than 5 minutes without freezing my system. I never returned to the franchise.

Re:Been "Battlefield Free" since Battlefield 2

[Threni]

Shame - you missed a good one. Although there was more variety in 1942 and Vietnam.

Me, I recommend that you stop reading Polygon...

[DHalcyon]

...because it's time to stop incentivizing poor behavior from Ben Kuchera. No, seriously.

Payday

[ZeroSerenity]

Just buy this. Currently on sale and probably way more enjoyable than Battlefield: Hardline will ever be.

Re:Payday

[Anonymous Coward]

Payday was easily the worst shooter I've played in the last decade and I've played lots of mediocre ones. Besides, it's not the same kind of shooter at all.

Re:Payday

[Slizzo]

And yet, they're both developed by the same studio...

Re:Payday

[ZeroSerenity]

Payday is done by Overkill software and Starbreeze Studios (published by 505 games on Consoles).
Battlefield is done by EA Digital Illusions and published by Electronic Arts.
No.

Re:Payday

[Slizzo]

Payday is done by Overkill software and Starbreeze Studios (published by 505 games on Consoles). Battlefield is done by EA Digital Illusions and published by Electronic Arts. No.

Battlefield: Hardline is not being developed by EA nor DICE. Please try again.

A bit late

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't bought an EA game since C&C generals.

Here is what I don't get....

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people constantly bitch about how shitty a game is and how EA sucks, and how they never plan to buy another EA game.... while they are playing the game.

If it's so horrible, WTF are you playing it?

Stop playing the game and ask for your money back (you won't get it, but that's another story). Eventually they'll see a problem and either fix it or die.

You're sending the wrong message if you buy the game, HATE IT, but still continue to play it. As far as EA is concerned the game is doing very well because the servers are full and no one wanted their money back. When they see that, why would they change?

I guess people love to bitch for the sake of bitching...Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go play some BF4.

Fool you six times...

[Sarusa]

"he doesn't really offer an opinion on how good the game is"

The game's not out yet. But odds are, based on every other entry in the franchise, it will be terribly broken and buggy at launch and the servers won't stay up. That's the point of the article.

Better Reason not to Buy Hardline

[nealric]

As someone who has played the beta, I would recommend not buying Hardline unless it experiences serious revisions. It is, in fact, bad. The new game modes are half-baked king of the hill and capture the flag variations which do little to encourage rewarding team play. The basic mechanics and graphics are exactly the same as BF4, complete with the same bugs and dodgy netcode. Even if they add more maps, there's no more content than was added by any of the BF3 DLCs.

Gamers and their children

[dave562]

The only way that the studios will ever get the message is if parents refuse to buy this garbage for their children. Older gamers are a minority of the market. There are plenty of gamers in the 18-30 age bracket who will continue to buy this garbage. The only way out is for parents who game, to make wise choices for their children.

It will take a generation to change things, but it can happen.

I finally learned my lesson, but I am guilty of pre-ordering way too many crap releases from EA. BF4 was the last one I will buy. Between the broken at release model, the DLC, and the rapid release cycle that guarantees a game will be dead 12-18 months after it comes out, I am over it.

I think the best that we, as a community, can hope for is that enough people exercise impulse control and wait to buy the game until the price is reduced once or twice. Doing that would communicate two messages. One, we are tired of buggy beta (at best) releases and refuse to tolerate them. Two, the release prices are way too high and we are not going to pay $60+ for crappy code.

Maybe it's my age . . .

[nehumanuscrede]

but it's more likely my experience. :D

I don't buy ANY game at full price anymore. It's not that I'm cheap, I can easily afford them, it's that I'm fed up with games that are effectively Beta II at launch date. Been burned too many times I guess. Within a month of launch, most games will have a Gigabyte sized patch to fix all the crap that should have been fixed prior to release. The world certainly won't end if I don't get to play ( insert AAA title here ) on launch day. Considering the login server issues, DRM and just an overall shitty job ( is there such a thing as Quality Assurance these days ? ) I can wait.

Usually takes at least six months before I would consider the game stable.

By that time, all the bugs have been ironed out, the reviews are in either supporting or negating the pre-launch hype and the experience is more pleasant overall.

If everyone did this, companies would either release a finished and polished product as they are supposed to, or go bankrupt. Simple choice really. I choose to spend my money only on that which is worth it.

Re:Maybe it's my age . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, I don't buy games on release anymore (for full price). Its because I just don't "need" the game RIGHT NOW. I'll wait a few months, maybe a year or more, for it to do on sale for $15 or on Steam for cheap. By then I'll have the most up-to-date version hopefully with all the kinks worked out, plus DLC that will be included ("Gold Package", "Collectors Edition" etc) or cheap to download. I've been buying games like this for years now.

Re:Maybe it's my age . . .

[vux984]

By then I'll have the most up-to-date version hopefully with all the kinks worked out, plus DLC that will be included ("Gold Package", "Collectors Edition" etc) or cheap to download. I've been buying games like this for years now.

Without the release day buyers, there's not going to be a collectors edition at 50% off a year later.

So you should thank the early adopters / launch day lemmings, because your buying habits are only sustainable on their backs.

No alternative

[dirtyapenz]

Until there is an alternative franchise people will keep swallowing EA's bs. Arma III is close, but it misses the target audience by a long shot due to focusing on realism over fun. If there was a real alternative to BF4 I'd switch in a heartbeat.

Re:No alternative

[tepples]

I can see it for Madden NFL, where EA holds exclusive rights to all football leagues. But what exclusive rights keep the open source community from creating its own FPS incorporating the play style of older Battlefield?

Re:No alternative

[dirtyapenz]

Nothing, yet no one has done it.

Doesn't seem to matter

[Anonymous Coward]

My wife plays the Sims series from EA. It's been pretty obvious that they have been the worst about this for quite a while now. What is she going to do though? Quit playing her favorite game because the company that makes it sucks?

Tell people to stop doing something that they enjoy so that they can prove a point? I don't think that goes over very well very often.

Re:Doesn't seem to matter

[Anonymous Coward]

She can keep playing her favorite game, whichever Sims it is. She doesn't need to keep buying the franchise. Much like movie series, they eventually lose their luster and people stop caring.

I've owned every BF Game

[puppetman]

I've played a lot of BF, since owning 1942 on release day. I can't think of a version I've missed (though I've stopped buying expansion packs).

That said, I stopped buying on release day a while ago. My gaming time is maybe 2% of what it was a decade or so ago, so it's valuable and not to be wasted on buggy releases and bad games.

Multiplayer ends

[tepples]

I just don't "need" new games bad enough to eat their bullshit

You do if your machine can't find other machines running the same game because the matchmaking servers have been permanently shut down.

Re:Multiplayer ends

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a point, but it still doesn't rise to the level of "need".

Re:Multiplayer ends

[Mephistophocles]

Eh, no. Not having access to the multiplayer capabilities of any game is not going to change much about my life - EA might wish it did, but at worst it'd be a minor inconvenience requiring the acquisition of some other entertainment (a 5-second endeavor).

The other DICE

[tepples]

I've decided to blacklist EA and DICE on all platforms.

Are you also planning to blacklist DICE on the web?

Re:The other DICE

[melting_clock]

I've decided to blacklist EA and DICE on all platforms.

Are you also planning to blacklist DICE on the web?

Or, you could just look at the bottom of every page on /. "Copyright © 2014 Dice. All Rights Reserved. Slashdot is a Dice Holdings, Inc. service."

Once we are forced into the pathetic "beta" version of Slashdot, it will no longer be a site that I waste time on. I started visiting to read interesting posts on interesting stories. The quality of posts has gone down and the number of trolling first posts is at an all time high. Some days I can't find a single story that interests me. Some of the remaining editors just don't have a clue. Luckily there are plenty of alternatives today.

You'll need to shut down the NFL first

[tepples]

After all, you can only crap out so many iterations of "Madden", no?

As long as NFL players keep being drafted and retiring, and as long as players want to play as the home team as it exists this year, EA will be able to get away with issuing annually updated versions of Madden NFL. If you want to shut down Madden, you'll have to first shut down college football long enough that the NFL loses its farm system. You could try the CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) angle.

Played since 1942

[Anonymous Coward]

I've played the franchise on PC since 1942. I skipped BF3 and then got BF4 for PS4, my first console purchase in forever. It's been great. I waited until January to play it so I guess I missed out on most of the bugs. I've found a few but none too terrible. I've had a pretty good time playing but I think I'll skip hardline.

Except it's not...

[gabereiser]

...developed by DICE this time. If the article poster in question actually knew anything about BF:HL he/she would know this...

Season pass holder

[BrookHarty]

As a season pass holder, I stopped playing a long time ago, what a waste of money. I avoid EA games as far as can, the only one that kept me coming back was BF series. Meh, burned their bridge.

Works fine for me

[zorro6]

I am not supporting the release of crappy software and I didn't buy BF4 on day one. But I did buy it fairly early on and honestly I have never experienced any game or enjoyment destroying issues. Yes there were bugs and yes the servers were down sometimes but I have been playing for many months now with no significant issues at all. As far as I can tell just about everyone else is as bad as EA and yes we as the consumer seem to be willing to accept pretty shoddy product. And I do think the answer is simply to not buy until there is some level of stability.

Inciteful

[tepples]

In common usage, "incentivize" is somewhat neutral, wheras "incite" has connotations of hatred and/or violence.

Hence the joking use of "inciteful" to refer to a comment that is both insightful and flamebait.

RealityMod on stock BF2 is king

[drkstr1]

RealityMod on stock BF2 is the only FPS We will ever need. It still to this day gets updates (v1.2 just got released May-2014), the community based effort has fostered a higher production value than any of the commercial crap getting pumped out (they produce all their own high quality textures, record all their own sounds for every weapon, and had access to military equipment for recording the "big booms"), the gameplay is incredibly immersive, and team based tactics/strategy is the only way to win.

http://www.realitymod.com ...and never look back. See you on the battlefield!

Only if the Mac isn't a PC

[tepples]

The Xbox 360 isn't built on PC hardware, actually - PowerPC instruction set

Then it was built on something closer to Mac hardware. The PowerPC Macintosh computers were personal computers, even though they weren't IBM-compatible PCs. And both Mac and 360 were using ATI (now AMD) graphics. Since then, both Mac and Xbox have moved from PowerPC to x86-64 (Mac to Intel and Xbox to AMD), and IBM-compatible PCs are now Lenovo-compatible.

Windows license and no game subsidy

[tepples]

And the assertion that a console built on PC hardware is more powerful than "the current PC"

I can see a specific context in which such an assertion can be valid, by comparing a console and PC with the same retail price. The price of a gaming PC has to include a Windows license, unlike a console that ships with a homemade operating system. It also has to include more markup because a PC maker can't really sell at cost and extract a continuing revenue stream from a monopoly on application distribution the way a console maker can.

You can disprove this by telling us where to buy a living-room gaming PC for $399.

Re:Windows license and no game subsidy

[Anonymous Coward]

360 Games cost significantly more than the same PC games which generally more than covers the cost of a windows licence.

Re:Windows license and no game subsidy

[amicusNYCL]

You can disprove this by telling us where to buy a living-room gaming PC for $399.

That's disingenuous. Microsoft makes money on the actual games, which allows them to discount the cost of the hardware. They sell the hardware at a loss and recoup the money with games and peripheral licensing. I'll be happy to spec out a computer with the same capabilities that you can build yourself though, since this discussion is about power and not price. And then I'll spec out one with twice the power. Then three times. I've got one in my living room right now, and it can do a lot more than the Xbox One. In fact, it can do everything that a PC can.

Re:Windows license and no game subsidy

[tepples]

a PC maker can't really sell at cost and extract a continuing revenue stream from a monopoly on application distribution the way a console maker can.

[A console maker] makes money on the actual games, which allows them to discount the cost of the hardware. They sell the hardware at a loss and recoup the money with games and peripheral licensing.

Exactly my point. Its cryptographic monopoly on software distribution lets a console maker make money on the games.

I'll be happy to spec out a computer with the same capabilities that you can build yourself though

Consoles offer the convenience of not having to spend hours learning to build a PC.

In fact, it can do everything that a PC can.

Including get a virus. I've watched an inexperienced user surf the Internet on a PC running Windows 7, and she was fooled by the "your PC is running slow" ads before I stopped her. "Where did Google go?" she asked when her homepage was switched to Conduit. I've seen other inexperienced users get taken in by fake antivirus. Slashdot regulars like BasilBrush and CronoCloud can explain how people get attracted to these closed platforms by lack of malware.

Don't get me wrong; ultimately I favor the flexibility of a PC. But I also know there are challenges the PC must face in order to beat consoles in the market.

Re:Windows license and no game subsidy

[amicusNYCL]

I understand what you're saying, but none of that relates to what I originally said:

And the assertion that a console built on PC hardware is more powerful than "the current PC". There's no way that can be a serious post.

I'm talking about computing power. Not price, not convenience, not flexibility, etc. OP said that XBox 360 is more powerful than a current PC, which was what I was addressing. That's the only thing I was addressing.

Valve can't count to three

[tepples]

Sure, Valve fairly consistently produces value. But what do you do once you complete the first two games in a particular franchise?

Re:Or Be an Adult

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Stay at home watching crappy reality shows all night on TV like a grow up instead!

Funnel to death games

[Anonymous Coward]

I loved BF 1942 since I prefer historical titles. That game had so much variety and big open maps. The newer games just funnel players to map camper

Hide & die anyway, or opt out?

[deadcrow]

Duck around the corner. Then thud thud thud, you are dead anyway. And this is the "fixed" code. This article suggests another fix; don't buy the game. I just hope this new fix works better than the prior ones. LOL.

Age of gamers

[tepples]

Older gamers are a minority of the market.

For one thing, that depends on how you define "older". The average age of a gamer is early thirties. For another, a lot of these first-person shooters are rated M by ESRB because they're so violent. This means responsible stores won't sell them to minors and warn parents about buying them for minors.

I think the best that we, as a community, can hope for is that enough people exercise impulse control and wait to buy the game until the price is reduced once or twice.

That doesn't help if the only reason for a discount is that the sequel with an updated roster is out. How many people are willing to buy a sports game whose rosters are outdated and whose multiplayer matchmaking servers are due to be turned off soon?

Re:Age of gamers

[dave562]

That is a really interesting PDF. I never would have guessed that the average gamer is 31 years old.

I was thinking about the multi-player server stranglehold while I was typing my post, so it is interesting that you brought it up. I do not know if anything can be done about it. I cannot conceive of any legal way to obligate companies to keep infrastructure online, and as much as it might benefit me, I would be opposed to governmental intervention in the matter.

While we might rant about these subjects on /., I do not see it changing any time soon.. if at all. The studios are multi-billion dollar organizations that have to keep thousands of people working. The only way to do that is to keep the games flowing, and develop various franchises. Games like GTA are more and more like interactive movies. The production costs are huge. The idea of DLC, on one level, is not a bad one. Develop a compelling game world / context and then sell short stories that add life to the context.

The most legitimate gripe that people have relates to quality control issues, especially around launch. The only way I can see to address that, as a consumer, is to refuse to purchase a game until the publisher proves that it is stable. The only way the publishers will ever be compelled to deliver a solid title at launch is if pre-orders cease. It is a Catch 22. The average American psyche is too hung up on having new things, and having them FIRST. With competitive online games, nobody wants to be left behind. The psychology behind the industry is such that change in consumer behavior is highly unlikely.

Re:Age of gamers

[dave562]

On a related note, I just received an email from Ubisoft this morning offering 20% off of Watch Dogs. The game has been out for a month.

Re:Age of gamers

[tepples]

So it's not about watching dogs play, and it's not about a boy made out of wood subbing for someone's dead pet? I am disappoint.

Re:Age of gamers

[dave562]

Linguistic bot fairy tales defeat Baysean filterings none of the times

Liked BF2, but hated BF3

[coaxial]

I've never been a great FPS player, but I do enjoy the genre, or at least I used to. (Apparently, kids these days think camping at spawn points is cool. In my day, that would get you kicked.) I really liked BF2. I liked hopping in anti aircraft batteries and gibbetting whole groups of people until inevitably someone stuck a bomb on the back on detonated it. Loads of fun. When I got BF3, I thought, "What the fuck is this?" Every gun, every add-on had to be unlocked. It was stupid, and made an already frustrating game, unplayable. I was a goddamn sniper, without a goddamn scope! WTF?

Even the single player campaign was boring and by the numbers. It was almost as bad as a rail-shooter, that I couldn't bother to finish it. And that's when I realized that I'd probably never play another FPS. (Well that, and the stupidity of the COD Black Ops demo where I had to walk to a U2, climb up a latter, turn on the plane, fly up, then watch a cut scene. Pointless.)

Not another red cent !!!

[Anonymous Coward]

EA / Dice are out to make money any way they can. They will lie and cheat their way to profit. BF4 was really just BF3.1. Hardline is just a DLC of BF4. EA can burn for their shoddy business practices. Anyone remember the FIFA mess or how about the SimSity failure. EA needs to burn down with their board of directors in the building.

Ctrl+F "Bethesda"

[Anonymous Coward]

No results. So disappointed. They're quickly turning into the next money-grabbing fuckcicles. Acquiring other franchises' games, often shoving the original creators out of the development loop in favor of some studio who will do their bidding, add-ons, add-ons, add-ons. Fuck Bethesda.

Re:Or Be an Adult

[Anonymous Coward]

Even haggling is a game in a certain sense.

And the Israeli team takes the gold every time.

People could play better games.. like Planetside 2

[Anonymous Coward]

More people, more to shoot, and free to play with no paying to win. Developers who actually listen to the community and are working on the game for the long run.

No other game gives you battles this large: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmWghVjTAFY

Started when they dropped tools for maps/mods

[Deus.1.01]

I had a bad feeling when they announced they were beefing up its rudimentary singleplayer to include full hollywood derp.

They also announced that tools for user generated content was not "planned" for the release, I had a weak hope this might imply a later release but I kept myself from buying it because of a growing cynicism that ultimately was proven correct.

They SIMPLY did not want to give us the same value BF1942 and BF2 provided, I played a lot of the vanilla but ultimately I spent much more times on Desert Combat, Forgotten Hope, Eve of Destruction, Project Reality and often tried tons of other variation to lesser extents.

I still have Forgotten Hope 2 installed, updated ( next version will finally include the Eastern front) and enjoyed.

Offical release can't take the risk to do anything then being clinically balanced, hobby mods can however. Maybe not everyone thinks facing a sherman with a japaneese tin can or being mowed down for the umpteenth time on Omaha beach is balanced gameplay or have the patience for it.
It requires a slew of different tactics and team work for a specific side on a specific map but the short end of a stick can be fun to wield especially with 128 player servers.
If not then there are plenty of other mods to choose form, some with more popularity then others but it provided tons of value.

That extending value meant more people would be content with a BF1942 or BF2 for years and years, can't let new products compete with the old ones can you?

Not EA's fault.

[donscarletti]

DiCE was bought out in 2004, Battlefield 1942 came out in 2002.

Did anyone play BF 1942 when it came out? It was still far buggier than to BF2 or BF3 on release. It's just that people didn't care back then because:

• It was ground-breakingly awesome.
• Computers just crashed randomly anyway back then because a lot of folks were still using non-NT Windows systems.

I think it's been a long standing policy to push forward on optimisation and game refinement at the expence of stability. Which does work for a lot of teams and seems to be standard practice in Sweedish studios, which can be inferred by looking at games like Magica, Goat Simulator or even to a lesser extent Minecraft. You cannot blame EA for this.

Re:Not EA's fault.

[Mal-2]

I think it's been a long standing policy to push forward on optimisation and game refinement at the expence of stability. Which does work for a lot of teams and seems to be standard practice in Sweedish studios, which can be inferred by looking at games like Magica, Goat Simulator or even to a lesser extent Minecraft. You cannot blame EA for this.

It's a fair bit different when you pay $15 for a game that is announced as still being in alpha (or $20/beta, or to a lesser extent, even $25/release) when it comes to tolerating bugs. Paying $60 for a game, and then being forced to buy content on top of it, certainly makes any remaining problems a lot less acceptable. Also, Minecraft has always had an emphasis on privately owned servers that cost nothing to set up, meaning that I'm not the least bit concerned they might "turn off the lights" some day.

Re:Not EA's fault.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Did anyone play BF 1942 when it came out?

Yeap. Played it quite a bit.

I don't remember it crashing -- only long ass load times.

Speak for yourself

[sgtrock]

The last Battlefield game that I bought was BF 2. How about you?

So EA is still EA...

[Undead Waffle]

Nothing new. EA is still being EA. People are still calling for boycotts of EA. People are still getting excited about the trailers and preordering anyway. You have to get the special pre-order items, right?

I haven't bought an EA game in a very long time because their bad behavior has been going on for over a decade. If you think gamers are going to boycott them rather than getting sucked up in all the hype you haven't been paying attention. Don't let that stop you from trying though.

..about as bad as forcing beta on people

[Anonymous Coward]

Trying to read this particular story.

Selecting classic mode and going through the switch 'back to classic mode' box does nothing. All other stories work but this one.. Fuck off Dice/slashdot/whoever.

The other DICE

[Anonymous Coward]

Has this thing terrible thing called beta... which they are only forcing upon viewers of this article (on the main page selection) for some very strange reason.

Never, ever again a game from Electronic (f)Arts

[Anonymous Coward]

I did buy and play Battlefield 2 for half a decade when it came out, skipped 2142 because i did not enjoy the futuristic combat thingy, were pumped about and satisfied with BC2 (including all of the DLCs), bought into Bf3 just to get sorely disappointed by quality of the game and the delivery and forceful push of the "Premium" crap prior to fixing the existing game.

The same day the last DLC for Bf3 had been announced, the news of a near-future release of Bf4 got out and I decided that very instant to throw my money at Blizzard (do not laugh at me! How could I know?!)

Long story short: EA can kiss my ass for having ruined a fantastic franchise (altough the BF2-team did hire a mod team to bring the commander mode to the game just to fire them just before the launch... I somehow knew shit was about to hit the fan at mach 2 for a long time to come... but hey... we're allowed to dream, are we not?)

Christmas present price range

[tepples]

To some people, cost of entry trumps total cost of ownership. The sticker shock of unsubsidized hardware also tends to push a gaming PC out of the "Christmas present" price range where consoles sit.

Ben Kuchera's a little late...

[danknight48]

My last EA game was Battlefield 2142. This was just before the console market of idiots rolled in and changed games for the worse (mass buying DLC/2 hour gameplay titles).
The game was buggy, poor phsyx movement with major inconsistencies. Your typical "lazy production game" for that era. But if you compare it to games out now, you could even class it as "perfect".
Amazing how quality reduces over time when the money keeps flooding in.

But yes, good to know that Ben Kuchera agrees with me, shame hes 8 years late.

Re:Or Be an Adult

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the bottle of wine a night to dull the monotony.

I already stopped buying BF3 and BF4

[Barryke]

For me, BF2 already was on the edge of decency.

I already stopped buying BF3 and BF4, this is why:
- I dont want DLC forced on me. I want to buy it once for 40 bucks and play it forever.
- I dont want to earn better weapons. I want to play it at once, not being able to blame losing on that opponents superior riffle.
- I dont want to have to buy a new computer. I want to play it for 40 bucks.
- I dont want to pay 60 bucks. I want to play it for 40 bucks.

Sadly there are not much vehicle centered first person war games. I dont really appreciate the infantry city maps that BF centers on.

DC...

[whopub]

I bought the original Battlefield 1942, installed the Desert Combat mod and it's still the only game (online or not) that I play. I think I tried BF2, didn't buy it though, and wasn't convinced. As for DC, there's still a few servers around. Unfortunately some of them insist on having crappy maps on rotation. Apart from that, it's still great fun.

Haha, nobody will do this.

[Anonymous Coward]

I never had problems with BF4. Maybe because I'm using a custom built Workstation.

When games become console exclusive

[tepples]

I agree with your point that the most powerful PC is more powerful than Xbox One and far more powerful than Xbox 360. But the most powerful PC is irrelevant in the consumer market, whose behavior helps determine whether major third-party developers make games for PC or not. The most powerful PC isn't worth much for gaming if most of the games you want to play are exclusive to consoles because not enough potential buyers have the most powerful PC to make a PC port viable.

It was all about the mods (BF2142 and earlier)

[Artemis3]

I stopped caring about the Battlefield franchise after 2142, not because of the bundled content, but because of the rich community of modders around it.

I spent countless hours playing fun things like Pirates, or the "starwars" clones Galactic Conquest & First Strike, and even some mods that later spawned official content such as Eve of Destruction (Vietnam) and Desert Combat (2). When you got bored of mindlessly shooting others, you could race with cars in fantastic impossible "stunt" like racetracks with IS1982 which also had a "cars with guns" game mode.

You could also play a better WWII (go figure) theme with Forgotten Hope.

The current BF games are the same thing over and over again. I have been waiting for some killer (open?) 3d engine where a large mod community emerges again.

The source mods community had some nice titles such as the abandoned Age of Chivalry (don't mention the lame retail game).

Interestingly Star Citizen from another genre promises to allow complete and total modding for private servers, which is the exact opposite the "industry" wants to go. $50million crowdfund? Gotta be doing something right...

A good game has to be made away from the large publisher industry. It is seriously a stain to have the EA brand now.

Games are underspecified

[tepples]

Who funded Linux development in the early days, answer, noone?

Linux might not be the best analogy because it had a clear set of requirements to follow, namely POSIX. Video games are far more underspecified unless they are simulations of an existing board game or outdoor sport. The theory of what makes an operating system efficient is far more fleshed out than what makes a game fun. This means there's no objective measure of something being "better" to settle disputes among contributors' competing visions.

Re:Or Be an Adult

[uninformedLuddite]

But you're not allowed to talk about it