Why is Battlefield Premium controversial now again?

[GoGoFrenzy]

It's EA. Did you actually expect them NOT to be money hungry whores that screw their customers over?

 

[Wolfram23]

I don't see an issue with it. Back to Karkand was an awesome expansion and the Close Quarters maps seem really cool though I haven't got them (kind of stopped playing BF3 for now). I've got over 70 hours of entertainment from that game, and I know there's people with hundreds of hours invested. I'm sure spending a little for a "premium experience" is a worthwhile thing for them.

The service won't really affect anyone else so I don't see why someone would be upset by it.

Also, DLC isn't the devil. Especially in a game like this, it's a necessity to release map packs.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Man... think of all the hats you could buy with 50 Euros.

 

[Woodsey]

I seem to remember them calling out Activision for doing pretty much the same thing with Elite, and that wasn't even a year ago.

 

[ColaWarVeteran]

rockstar are offering the same thing for max payne 3 with their rockstar pass. so it begins.. pay a fee upfront for an unknown number of DLC that you might not of purchased individually.

It already began sometime ago. Rockstar did this same thing with L.A. Noire.

 

[GoGoFrenzy]

I seem to remember them calling out Activision for doing pretty much the same thing with Elite, and that wasn't even a year ago.

Both EA and Activision games are on my do not buy list. Those companies ruin everything. Too bad Respawn went to EA cause I sure as hell won't be buying their new shooter when it comes out. Plenty of other games out there.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Because people are dumb.

True story.

 

[GoGoFrenzy]

rockstar are offering the same thing for max payne 3 with their rockstar pass. so it begins.. pay a fee upfront for an unknown number of DLC that you might not of purchased individually.

It already began sometime ago. Rockstar did this same thing with L.A. Noire.

That's not a big deal because you are not playing a ultra competitive game online with people. And you won't get locked out of a match because you don't have a map pack. And you are forgetting how much people are investing in the servers. (Which will probably still get turned off within a year when they push out another version of the same game.)

 

[Griffolion]

I got it because it represented a £20 saving. I'm pretty committed to the Battlefield franchise and can almost guarantee i'd get all the expansions that are slated for BF3. Getting premium at £40 instead of each individual pack at £15 each (4 in total) as they come out made financial sense. The other bonus stuff doesn't really make much difference to me.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I feel this is pretty fitting, so I shall share.

 

[Heinrich843]

Why is it controversial? Because consumers would be paying early for an unspecified product. Like a grab bag. Could be great, could be really bad. My money is on the latter.

I don't think it was really hard to understand why it was controversial, because any time there's a pay in advance without receiving the product type model, there's controversy.

But you knew that didn't you? Or if you think you didn't, you were focusing on the optimistic possibility that gamers could be rewarded for shelling out money to EA. (A well established publisher with lots of money that has no real incentive to reward customer loyalty.)

 

[DustyDrB]

Because people are dumb.

True story.

No, it's because you're paying another 50 bucks to get the service you should have got with the 60 bucks you already spent on the game.

Priority when joining servers? What in the actual fuck, EA? This actually goes a step FURTHER than Elite. Remember Elite? That COD service you were flaming around the time BF3 came out?

EDIT: Although I have to say, if anyone buys this shit they only have themselves to blame. I don't know in what fucking alternate dimension you live when you actually think this premium service is worth that much money, but you must have too much of it.

AND they're charging extra to people who bought the game used with the Online Pass that gives them access to the multiplayer. I don't think Call of Duty does that. I could be wrong, though, as I've never played either of these franchises.

EDIT: And if anyone wants to know why I post on this if I don't play the games: It really pisses me off when consumers give the OK to practices like this. It might not directly affect me now, but it could affect me if the practice becomes accepted.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

I dislike DLC. no..scratch that. I hate it.

The whole DLC thing treats games like unfinished services. I like my games to be complete products when I buy them, and I like sequels/expansions to have the same or at least comparable amounts of effort and care put into their design. I do not believe that DLC allows for this. I feel that DLC is greed. pure, undisguised, unabashed greed.

Honestly..I've had enough of EA. After maintaining hope that they'd put out a few decent games for the last few years, these last few months have been my breaking point. I wouldn't have bought this DLC thing anyway, but I'm not even going to 'touch' it now. I'm going to try to never buy anything with an EA label ever again.

I beg to differ.
With BF3 we got an excellent game with an excellent amount of content and that DICE is constantly patching to ensure that it still works and remains fair (even if some fixes are a tad heavy handed).

These are more like old expansion packs. Okay, maybe a tad smaller, but at least there's a very decent amount of content! buying premium has netted me the 4 new expansion packs for less than the price of all of them, plus more content on top of that!

The queue priority thing is a bit of a dick move I'll admit, but I'm not going to refuse to get it on those grounds when I get a staggering amount of content for a much lower price than I was originally going to pay!

I got it because it represented a £20 saving. I'm pretty committed to the Battlefield franchise and can almost guarantee i'd get all the expansions that are slated for BF3. Getting premium at £40 instead of each individual pack at £15 each (4 in total) as they come out made financial sense. The other bonus stuff doesn't really make much difference to me.

Pretty much what this guy said.

 

[CD-R]

It isn't. It's just paying 50 dollars to get all the dlc for a slight discount. As for the priority on joining servers, unless there's some massive server shortage I don't see how that would be a problem. I think it's just another case of EA marketing not use words good.

 

[Talal Provides]

Because the only thing gamers like more than games is whining about games.

 

[PissOffRoth]

I gotta say I really dont see what the fuss is about, priority server access? So what queue's to get into servers are generally only 1-2 people long (on PC anyway) and you get all the DLC by paying 50 pounds, plus a bit more.
It's not a yearly fee or anything its essentially ordering all DLC for the year for 50 pounds.

Queues are the same on consoles, and generally you only ever get into the game at the end, when 50% of the people leave... making queue priority as valuable as free shit. As for the rest... That's pretty stupid too considering 1 of the 5 DLCs has already been released, and at the rate they're going, BF3 will be a dead game before the last one rolls around.

 

[anthony87]

Honestly.....I've no fucking clue.

You pay 50 quid once off as opposed to CoD Elite being a subscription and get all present and future DLC. If Back to Karkland is anything to go by then the DLC will be 15 quid a pop. So if you're into Battlefield 3 enough that you plan on getting all the DLC then you're saving money.

Add onto this a bunch of vanity items (New dog tags, camo, etc.) and I really can't see what the problem is beyond "But....butbutbut EA IS TEH EVILZ!!!! Boo corporations!!!!! etc.".

Again, pointing out that this Premium thing is a once off payment. To the people who keep saying it's a subscription please, get your facts straight.