I can't see that future games like BF(3) will be subscription free. The Longevity of the titles will put an end to that I think
Last edited by slaata (2007-07-01 02:17:39)
EA makes a frigging killing from the Battlefield series. Has anyone here actually bothered to look at their stock? Their annual reports? They have the money, trust me....
noice 
The only reason people find more bugs in BF2 than other games is because more people play BF2...
Yes actually and if you had invested in EA over the last 2 years them you would be down 15% compared to the DOW +30% and NASDAQ +25%KuSTaV wrote:
EA makes a frigging killing from the Battlefield series. Has anyone here actually bothered to look at their stock? Their annual reports? They have the money, trust me....
http://finance.yahoo.com/charts#chart6: … =undefined
or look at the EA investors page http://investor.ea.com/phoenix.zhtml?c= … quotechart
They are a huge company so the earnings are huge (Gross profit for the year 2007 was $1.879 billion) but as a company they aren't doing that great, and the battlefield series is not on the games pushing sales.
EA 2007 Q4 wrote:
Sales were driven by Command & Conquer 3 Tiberium Wars™, Need for Speed™ Carbon, DEF JAM: ICON™ and The Sims™ 2 Seasons.
EA 2007 Q3 wrote:
Sales were driven by Need for Speed™ Carbon, FIFA 07, The Sims™ 2 Pets and Madden NFL 07
EA 2007 Q2 wrote:
Sales were driven primarily by Madden NFL 07, NCAA® Football 07, FIFA 07, NBA Live 07
The PC battlefield series hardly get a mention apart from pointing out the EA only became the owner of the series in Q3 2007EA 2007 Q1 wrote:
Sales were driven primarily by 2006 FIFA World Cup™, Battlefield 2: Modern Combat™, Need for Speed™ Most Wanted, The Sims™ 2 and EA SPORTS™ Fight Night Round 3.
EA 2007 Q3 wrote:
EA completed its acquisition of Digital Illusions in the quarter – bringing the critically acclaimed Battlefield franchise to EA.
nice one thanks for the financial info
EA probably understands the value in software sales over monthly fees. While I don't understand that math, I'm guessing they figure the sales of the game, and it's expansions are enough to profit and hook people because long term investment from monthly fees (and providing continual support) isn't as lucrative?
I know I'll never pay a monthly fee for a game again. I put in my 6 years playing a couple popular online games and it was a waste of money for the most part. I play BF2, Guild Wars, and America's Army online, and anything else I play is single player.
I know I'll never pay a monthly fee for a game again. I put in my 6 years playing a couple popular online games and it was a waste of money for the most part. I play BF2, Guild Wars, and America's Army online, and anything else I play is single player.
Any boosterpack you buy on EA store you will only have about 6months on it. If you want longer you need to pay for it. Don't know about the rest of EA store if it goes for those game to but only having the right to download a game for 6 months and the being taken away the rights to download it fucking sucks.
The fact is EA is a fucking multi billionare company, the richest one among game companies, that it took them 5months to release a patch is really weird.
The fact is EA is a fucking multi billionare company, the richest one among game companies, that it took them 5months to release a patch is really weird.
Bare in mind the revenue that EA generates from ranked servers ...
I'm willing to bet all that was factored into their business case, setting the price on the game at a level such that it would pay for its development, advertising, and support for a given period of time (most likely the period of time expected for the development of the next version). It's also entirely possible that they are working on the patches via "overhead", which is the money a company invests to keep/develop business. It would be bad business if they started charging for online play and/or patches.slaata wrote:
This might sound like madness but please forgive me...
If you gave EA £30 or equivelant when you first bought bf2, that payed the wages for all the people for the initial developement and you would hope good patches to keep the game sweet.
However there must come a time when the money payed doesn't "balance" the wages of the people patching and still developing the game.
The usual games I bought cost the same as BF2 but I only played for at most 30 hours before shelling out more cash for the next game .
I have played BF2 for over a thousand hours . Perhaps if I had "devoted " more money over that period of time for BF2 e.g subscription (small) they would have the inclination to take it further. Still have the inclination to develope the game and keep us happy.
They are in business after all and have to show profit to develope the next game. They aren't actually here for our enjoyment although that is an essential part of it if they are to remain in business.
I am interested to hear what you think . Please keep it at an adult level
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well I tried downloading Special Forces but couldn't install it, their support sucked so badly I've given up and asked for a refund.
I'm not giving them more money.
Actually I never gave them any, I got BF2 free with Dominos Pizza
I'm not giving them more money.
Actually I never gave them any, I got BF2 free with Dominos Pizza
Fuck Israel
So, what about Valve and Steam? To this day, they continue to patch and update their games that were released what, over 2 years ago? (some of which are based on games that are nearing 10 years in age).Schwarzelungen wrote:
i hate to use the example but look at how much WOW gets updated. they pay monthly and there are almost monthly patches *from what i know..i dont play it but friends do*
They arent monthly fees, they are a one-off fee for what are great games.
Valve were shit at first with patches and updates, but over time, they have become the best.
I would never pay a monthly subscription charge for any game. Which is the only reason I never went to play Planetside.
I like to dig up old games and give them a go again, such as Red Alert (if Vista would let it...), BFV or Doom. I dont want to have to pay to play those games again, after having payed to purchase it in the first place. Yes, support ran out a looooong time ago, but so what? Its not as if they are going to be played competitively, or even online.
The more complicated a game is, the more bugs you'll find.
I love EA's Battlefield series, but $60 a pop (when they first come out) is quite enough to be paying, thank you very much....
I love EA's Battlefield series, but $60 a pop (when they first come out) is quite enough to be paying, thank you very much....
You forget that EA collects billions from the thousands of games companies they 'publish'.slaata wrote:
This might sound like madness but please forgive me...
If you gave EA £30 or equivelant when you first bought bf2, that payed the wages for all the people for the initial developement and you would hope good patches to keep the game sweet.
However there must come a time when the money payed doesn't "balance" the wages of the people patching and still developing the game.
The usual games I bought cost the same as BF2 but I only played for at most 30 hours before shelling out more cash for the next game .
I have played BF2 for over a thousand hours . Perhaps if I had "devoted " more money over that period of time for BF2 e.g subscription (small) they would have the inclination to take it further. Still have the inclination to develope the game and keep us happy.
They are in business after all and have to show profit to develope the next game. They aren't actually here for our enjoyment although that is an essential part of it if they are to remain in business.
I am interested to hear what you think . Please keep it at an adult level
It's not EA your paying, its Dice. Dice pays EA to publish them.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Exactly. They dont need to charge you monthly, since they already do in a way.liquidat0r wrote:
Bare in mind the revenue that EA generates from ranked servers ...
Valve/Steam/EA are partnersSnake wrote:
So, what about Valve and Steam? To this day, they continue to patch and update their games that were released what, over 2 years ago? (some of which are based on games that are nearing 10 years in age).Schwarzelungen wrote:
i hate to use the example but look at how much WOW gets updated. they pay monthly and there are almost monthly patches *from what i know..i dont play it but friends do*
They arent monthly fees, they are a one-off fee for what are great games.
Valve were shit at first with patches and updates, but over time, they have become the best.
I would never pay a monthly subscription charge for any game. Which is the only reason I never went to play Planetside.
I like to dig up old games and give them a go again, such as Red Alert (if Vista would let it...), BFV or Doom. I dont want to have to pay to play those games again, after having payed to purchase it in the first place. Yes, support ran out a looooong time ago, but so what? Its not as if they are going to be played competitively, or even online.
http://www.info.ea.com/news/pr/pr651.htm
The game designers(DICE) would love to make a perfect game... the bean counters at EA rush out titles to make money for investors...
I am blown away at how much work goes into designing and testing a game... The fact that BF2/2142 or any other game works well on so many computers is wild...
Love is the answer
This is madness. There is no reason to pay on a regular basis unless the game actually requires work on a regular basis. Games don't. Yes, they get some support, but its nothing like the effort that goes into originally creating them. The cost should be built into the initial cost of the game since relative to the initial purchase, it shouldnt be more than an additional $10. If its a game that sets out to constantly release content then there is a legitimate reason, but i wouldnt even say that blizzard has the right to ask for more money every month considering that their main expansion of content was actually an expansion for $$. Why would you give a corporation the right to continually tax you when you know they aren't actually putting regular effort into helping you or providing something to you? If all the services we used (and they are increasingly) taxed us with subscriptions rather than specific services, then life would be expensive regardless of our personal consumption choices.slaata wrote:
This might sound like madness but please forgive me...
If you gave EA £30 or equivelant when you first bought bf2, that payed the wages for all the people for the initial developement and you would hope good patches to keep the game sweet.
However there must come a time when the money payed doesn't "balance" the wages of the people patching and still developing the game.
The usual games I bought cost the same as BF2 but I only played for at most 30 hours before shelling out more cash for the next game .
I have played BF2 for over a thousand hours . Perhaps if I had "devoted " more money over that period of time for BF2 e.g subscription (small) they would have the inclination to take it further. Still have the inclination to develope the game and keep us happy.
They are in business after all and have to show profit to develope the next game. They aren't actually here for our enjoyment although that is an essential part of it if they are to remain in business.
I am interested to hear what you think . Please keep it at an adult level
I am personally sickened by blizzards monthly fees for WoW. They realize they have a potent drug, and like any sleazy pusher, artifically inflate the price to constantly just meet demand, even if they are simply inflating prices for their own greed. Needless to say, I won't touch that game.
Slip into a coma for 5 months and 4 weeks did we?slaata wrote:
nice one thanks for the financial info
Anyways, this suggestion that we should give DICE more of our money so they can "fix" the game is nonsense. If they drop support for a game too hastily, then that will leave a bitter taste in their customers mouths, which could affect sales of future products.
Consider it their customer service responsibilities.
EA isn't close to running out of money, they stay alive by constantly releasing new games, so why should we pay them more when they have a constant stream of revenue?
Besides, your premise is that if we payed them more they would work on the game more. I played BF2 my fair share through the good and the bad and the last thing I want is for them to work on the game more.
Besides, your premise is that if we payed them more they would work on the game more. I played BF2 my fair share through the good and the bad and the last thing I want is for them to work on the game more.