i refuse to buy DLC for games. end of story. it should be free. fuck you EA fuck you M$

nevergod

Oooops, meant to post it under the Fallout3 news.

But crap, no wonder i've "missed", with all those many opened Kotaku browser-tabs! ^_^

neojam

Hmm 200?
I guess it will be like in Fallout 2, a different "ending" for every city/place & etc, depending on your actions there. And the variation of those will make your final ending.

So if you have 2 cities and there are 4 possible endings for each, then you already have 16 different possible endings (only for those 2 cities). So 200 inst that much for Fallout2-like game.

But i would like to know how many of those 200 endings will affect your character directly (aka "a real endings"). If it would be more than 10, i would be surprised.

neojam

If anyone is anyone do NOT buy the gold edition...maybe we can clip this stupid thing in the bud by just not getting it.

Restore some faith in humanity and just show them that this kinda crap doesnt work.

Zenian

LAME. When I buy a game, I want to buy the WHOLE game, period. So I'm being forced to either pay more for the Gold Edition, or get the regular edition and pay more for content that should just come on the disc; either way paying more. They're fucking weapons EA, WEAPONS! Come on! Microtransactions and DLC are for extra's and additions, not things that are integral to the gameplay. Having all the weapons available to me in online play is integral, period. Making it a situation where some players have these weapons and others don't is pure lame sauce. OH but wait, people are going get tired of being killed with weapons they don't have and will purchase them to make the playing field even, so in essence everyone WILL have these weapons..sheesh, give us a fucking break. We're already paying higher prices for new games now and we're in a sloping economy. If I have to start paying 5,10,15,20 dollars MORE after retail purchase in order to get the full game, then fuck you.

Smidget

Yet another thing to add to my reasons for NEVER BUYING AN EA GAME EVER AGAIN. Thanks EA for making it so easy.

Rebelphoenix83

@JustThisGuy: That's very interesting and all, but we play game because it's not real and it brings us enjoyment. If a game is like real life, when you die you die and have to buy a new one, it won't work. No one wants to play that. You have to play all careful, who wants that. You are always the loser. If there was a big fat prize you win for real, then there's incentive to play. What you are saying. I would have to give up gaming and just go enjoy the outdoors.

nxp3

@NateN: @TheEngineer: Rocking the Goggles:

Penny Arcade, the gaming Nostrodamus. I'm sure they are pissed off that their greatest fears continue to come true.

I can't believe they would lock HALF the weapons in the game. Even worse that you can see the locked weapons ingame.

el_rezzo

Unless the single player game goes beyond the 20 hour mark (which most don't these days) I generally won't buy a game unless it has multi-player. And I won't even consider buying Bad Company (despite being a Battlefield fan) if this is the way it's going to be. Not to mention the ethics behind charging money for content that should be in the game from the get-go. Actually it probably is in the game, you'll just buy a code to unlock it. Got to love that.

If refusing to support this kind of practice means I limit myself to the breadth of games available then so be it.

Replica23

speak with your wallet and don't buy this shit

killr_klown

Time for all of us here to commence Operation: Buy as few EA games as possible, fuck up their earnings, and ruin their stock price. That'll teach the bastards. Go support your local game retailer and buy a pre-owned EA game if you really must get your EA sports on. Starve the beast. They deserve nothing less than a brutal death by the hands of gamers everywhere.

Gagamus

Only a dumbass would pay for the weapons along with dumbasses charging for them. If you plan on getting this game get the Gold Version.

Fireblast

Sooo we're getting 5 weapons for free and then we buy 5 weapons? They can pull any variation of "balance" out of their ass they want. EA has never released a shooter game with balanced weapons. It's just not in the nature of firearms. I'm not buying a game that attempts to make money from gamers when it can easily be included in the disc. EA, this is why I don't purchase your games. You rehash, making essential DLC need to be purchased (see: paying to unlock things already on the disc) and squeeze every dollar out of consumers as you can. This is not how gamers want to be treated. I'm surprised you're still one of the leading developers/publishers. Buying T2 won't bring you back into the spotlight. People will stop buying games that were acquired in the T2 takeover the first time you destroy one of their franchises. Which, chances are, will be the first game you release.

bluesquareapple

Ok, I don't care if this pisses people off.
About 90% of you who say you are not going to buy this game....will go right out and buy it regardless if it turns out to be good. So enough with the "I'm not buying this crap."
Secondly, this started a long time ago. I remember reading a book by Bill gates called "the Road to Tomorrow" or some shit like that, and he pretty much laid out his plans for M$ to have control of the home entertainment business by having a central PC-like device that had all the connections; like phone, internet, media, gaming, etc. and one of his ideas was that people could pay to have things like extra content for movies, games, or even new services or upgrades.
This was over ten years ago...I knew this day would come...you have all shown them that you are willing to be paying forever...silver vs Gold Live, proprietary, restrictive add-ons that didn't need to be that way, gamer pics and even something as simple as a theme, this seems to be just the next logical step. You have no one to blame but yourself.
When did we get to the point where someone would buy only the digital version of software. The hard copy used to come free if you requested it along with the download. Think people.
Admit it, you can't even use your legally bought content if somehow your precious system gets fucked up unless your connected to the internet. Brilliant!
And what is M$'s answer to that problem? "We're working on it"
And Sony will be getting these fucked up ideas as well.
These sharks can smell stupid.

Heywoodjabloume

Boycott games exploiting DLC.

Tell someone you know and encourage them not to buy it.

Jimbo4

@TrettOff:

Agreed, I thought it was EA being overly greedy until someone drew the gun/car parallel.

Now it's just EA being as greedy as every other dev/pub.

noire

This should be Dugg! fear the internet EA

KaliKOtt

Hi I'm a gamer. I expect everything to be free. That's why I pirate PC games so much. I understand it's extra content and doesn't affect the play balance, and it's just extra bling in my game, but I still want it for free. Also, I have no problem paying for guitar hero or rock band DLC. Aren't I full of contradictions?

baccardi84

Fuck.This.Game

Pay_Me_Or_Pay_Me_No_Attention

DLC is a great idea: I love the fact that they can afford to consistently pump out more songs for Rock Band, and that we're not forced to buy them in huge, expansion-pack chunks. But multiplayer weapons are NOT the things to be microtransacting. Those are the kind of things to expansion pack.

Imagine if people who bought Brood War could play against vanilla Star Craft players....

But yeah, the solution is to make sure as hell this game bombs by not buying it (or buying it used if it happens to get rave reviews) and making sure you try and keep your friends from buying it new. Hell, this'd do more damage than weed. Friends don't let friends buy Bad Company.

tzaketh

This is what next gen consoles brings to gaming, well this and the almost standard need for a patch straight away after launch, because they wanted to rush it out.Hopefully this kinda thing wont be on BF3 for pc or i would have to reconsider buying it.Yeah i wont get my hopes up.I blame the oblivion players for paying for shiny horse armour.Muppets!

UFO

@3inst3in:

I would pay for new radio stations in GTA4/5. As long as it was legitimate post-production DLC, and not unlockable bullshit.

Fuck EA, I'm not buying this game.

tzaketh

That's even more lame than I initially thought...

Demaar

Now I realize that I am thankful that Nintendo does not have an more developed online system. This is insane. What the Wii's lack of online features creates is the force for companies to put everything they want to be in the game, in the game at launch. Had the Wii been closer to the Xbox 360, Nintendo could have easily made a set of 10 Super Smash Bros. Brawl characters available for download, and justified it by saying that the characters are all balanced. If getting all my game for one price means not being able to buy new Rock Band songs, I think I can live with that.

Narsil

Yeah, I'm definitely not buying this game now ... as has been mentioned, what's the difference between paying for the gold edition or paying through microtransaction -- you're still paying extra for something that's part of the game. People that just buy the game get a gimped version ... people with more money get "more opportunities" -- it's like they're forcing real life on us in games. That's just messed up.

jayntampa

wow. seriously this is complete bullshit. no further comments.

UncleScrotar

Funny thing, at the end of this promo piece at [www.gamestop.com]
after the bs about the beta, the flyer says,

"When you pre-order Battlefield Bad Company online, you will receive a GameStop Exclusive Limited Edition Sniper Rifle."

So I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the EA spokesman doesn't really know what he's talking about and even the FREE PROMOs are going to involve spending money somehow.

tasty%20crabcakes.">coffeeguy

My position now that the full details have been released is clear: BULLSHIT.

Unless there is an in-game unlock path for all weapons, the game can not be considered for purchase.

DannoHung

Anyone for a raid on the EA Offices?

Pieman2

@Eville1: That's a better response, and worthy of a response in kind.

DLC, in theory, is potentially good. It's an efficient means of delivering extra content to consumers. Unfortunately, it's becoming painfully obvious that the likes of Microsoft and EA cannot be trusted to use it responsibly - they abuse the system and see it merely as a means of nickle & diming us. This is perfect evidence that they're testing just how far they can take the piss with us.

More evidence is Microsoft saying if DLC is free on a rival console, it will be free on theirs too. What does that say about the whole system?! "We'll only rip you off if we can get away with it" - it's fucking INSULTING!

Valve and Epic (developers with a PC background) want to release stuff for free on the Xbox - MS, apparently, won't let them. It's obvious why, they don't want to open the floodgates and incite a FULLY JUSTIFIED BACKLASH against the absurd business model (DLC) they've managed to somehow institute in the world of consoles.

Map packs should be free, period. You may not agree, but they should be ESPECIALLY if the fucking devs WANT to give the stuff away for free! Charging for substantial extra content is one thing, but not little bonus stuff like that.

As for server space and the costs etc, don't let them blind you with bogus cop-outs like that. If the PC can manage to provide this stuff for free, there is absolutely no legitimate reason why consoles can't too. Any high costs they incur are a result of keeping control of everything and not letting any third party companies handle stuff like servers. If I insist on eating nothing but caviar for every meal, I'm going to need a massive income to support it, but *there are better ways of doing things*. It all comes down to "We have complete control over this machine and everything that goes through it, so we're going to charge you for it and if you don't like it, tough." Don't whine to me about costs.

So, given the unfortunate reality that we simply cannot trust these companies to resist the temptation of using DLC as a means of exploitation and the dangerous precedents that are being put in place by allowing things to continue as they are, I must once again repeat and insist:

NO DLC UNLESS IT'S FREE!

(sorry, this post isn't as cogent as I'd like it to be, but I'm knackered :P)

ErskinPig

Being a fan of the Battlefield series on the PC I was excited about this game, but this microtransaction reeks worse than horse armor... anyone else?

If you're significantly adding to a game after development it's one thing, but arbitrarily tacking on microtansactions for a game as EA seems to be doing just isn't something I have much interest in supporting. Am I totally off base here did I miss something in the article?

lostalaska

@ErskinPig: I pointed out the reason your mantra is flawed. You don't differentiate "crap" DLC such as this EA debacle vs actual DLC like a map pack or add on to a story like Mass Effect. Most of the DLC you get online is user generated anyway. Why not pay for something a developer took the extra time to create? They have to eat too.

Eville1

@Eville1: Good, I'm glad it's sinking in. You effectively told me to shut up, I refused. Hope that clears things up for you.

ErskinPig

@4sparta: Thankfully, you can't. They're not on the stock market - the right business model for a games company. No pandering to whining shareholders hungry for profit, no suit puppets whose gaming background consists of playing Solitaire a few times. Just a company controlled by gamers making great games for gamers AND making an absolute fortune in the process as an added bonus.

Independence ftw. Stock market ftl.

ErskinPig

@ErskinPig: Yeah, your reply? That made absolutely no sense. Aren't you late posting your, "NO DLC UNLESS IT'S FREE" mantra in yet another thread?

Eville1

No way I'm buying any game that uses a mechanic like this. Expansions are one thing, but initial content for extra $!? That's pissing down my neck and calling it rain, doesn't change the fact they're too lazy/inept to just come out with new/extra content that everyone can choose to ignore/buy.

ugh, I weep for the future.

SinisterSkull

Instead of pointing out the morality of the decisions EA makes, I think I'll just buy stock in Valve.

4sparta

Something no one talks about is how Codemasters charges you for cheats!

I know what your thinking, but I'm not talking about "no damage" cheats.(driving games) No, I'm talking "realistic handling" cheats, the kind I want, but won't pay for!

EA should buy Codemasters out, since they think the same......assholes.

Acute Gamer

@Eville1: Nope, but thanks for asking. Oh wait, you didn't.

ErskinPig

It's just one of the reasons why people should continue to support PC gaming and not leave the future of gaming solely in consoles hands (or leaving it in a select group of corporations' hands, to put it another way). Consoles are becoming the equivalent of Cylon-controlled New Caprica. PC has its problems, but at least it's an open and free platform and companies can't so easily institute shit like this.

ErskinPig

Even I think this is crap.

As for everyone (I'm looking at you ErskinPig you repetitive rhesus monkey with syphilis.) knocking LEGIT DLC I'll repeat myself ONE more time.

If it is actual, legit DLC, you know, extra content not on a disc, an added story, mission or map on XBOX LIVE then you're only ever going to get it free when it's a promo or the developer lets you. I can guarantee you that when it's free to the consumer someone else gets stuck with the bill. Let's go over a little business 101. Someone is paying for the servers hosting the content. Someone is paying for the bandwidth that consumers suck down on a regular basis. Normally that is the consumer as the price is factored in per download. Sure it's free on the pc. Why? Because costs are defrayed to such minute amounts that no single person pays for it. (IE advertising or subscriptions for fileshack etc.) So please, Shut the hell up unless you have a legitimate deconstruction of DLC or at the very least SOMETHING to support your position.

Eville1

Smells like Chromehounds in here....I stopped playing that game as soon as Sega actually released microtransaction weapons. It's bull and completely counter to the nature of microtransactions IF you're going to charge full price for a game.

Sell the game at $30 and make unlocking and buying a TON of VERY CHEAP weapons part of the experience. That's fine. Don't expect me to shell out anything close to full price for a game where the core gameplay mechanic costs money.

Imagine....Mario Universe where you have to pay to butt stomp. $2 for a butt stomp, $2 for a tripple jump. Backflip? $2!

It's absurd.

GorbyGipper

And they wonder why nobody wants them to buy Take Two...

terraform

What kind of bullshit is this?

We are almost paying $100 for a game now a days & now they want to tax us for things like "extra weapons"?

KrylonBlue

anti-m$
anti-m$ live marketplace
anti-m$ supporting companies like EA that share the same principles...

steliosco

Dear EA,

Fuck you.

sincerely

-Cell9song.

Cell9song

FUCK YOU EA, YOU CAN SUCK MY BALLS!

MrSatan

Bad Company just got struck off my 'games to buy list'.

I'm not paying extra just to play the whole damn game EA. Fuck right off.

We need to vote with our wallets here people, and hard. If we don't stop them now others will try this shit.

EdwinJ85

It's like some EA execs were sitting around somewhere and some fucker goes, "what's the worst thing we could possibly do to people who buy our games?"

and some other fucker goes "Army of two?" and some fucker chimes in, "something that we haven't done already."

And then this big fucker in the back goes, "I heard people really hate the idea of paying for better weapons."

And then the mega fucker who started the conversation goes, "Meeting adjurned."

Tylahedras

Fight it with your wallet. Don't buy the game and buy something else. It's about all we CAN do.

SeedyROM

Fucking bastards

Woylez

Multiple editions of games are bullshit. Just put out the best damn game you can and leave it at that. They (mostly all game companies) are putting out a "Special-Ultra-Mega-Deluxe-Magnum-Sized Edition" for just about every game now. They have always been just a bunch of bonus videos, makings of and what not that people MAY watch once and forget about.

Now EA is pulling this fucking shit by releasing what is in essence a GIMPED version and a FULL version that they have the nerve to call "Gold". You can't release 2 versions of a game where the content of one gives you a clear atvantage over the other when playing online. You are saying to everyone who bought the standard or GIMPED version. "If you don't want to get p0wned by someone with better weapons you better pay up."

No matter what someone is getting screwed on this. If the weapons are "balanced" and don't give people an advantage then what are they paying for? If they do give an advantge then everyone else has to pay more just to keep up.

That is why I continue to say:

" Fuck EA! Fuck them up their stupid asses! They are fucking clown shoes...."

Mr.SithNinja

EA, think about the consumer? Funny man.

When this game is released, I'm going to look at the DLC filesizes. I think the DLC that unlocks content already on the disc is 108 KB, so if the guns are all 108 KB each, then they're already on the disc.

Nedus

This puts us one step closer to paying for ammo in FPS.

The day is coming...

Slashlen

Oh well...now I feel better.

I don't think i'll be buying EA games anymore.

temporaryscars

Dear EA,

Fuck You and the micro-transaction horse you rode on.

Sincerely Your pal,
Taggart6

TaggarT6

Everyone here is complaning about EA, well how about finally freeing up the hero and villan packs for Marvel:Ultimate Alliance Activision.

Gex

Expect it to be timed released locked, but that's not the point.

Any CS fans? Or even Battlefield 2 fans? How about just about ANY FPS fans out there. Right now that's just about all of you right? Ok ok good.

Come here, get close now. ok.. Here's a little secret. Don't tell anyone.

No game is ever balanced!

Some games get close, don't get me wrong some games get extremely close. But ever game has an unbalance to it.

If it be the AWP in CS, the Falco/Marth lovers in melee, or the M16 whores in CoD4. Or how about Cable/Magneto in MvC2. The point? Every multiplayer game has something if you aren't playing clones of each other.

Well that's just fine, as long as the inbalance is towards the in game weapons.

WRONG!

To those doofs who paid the extra ten or so for this 'gold edition' I can already see the trolling posts now.

"These weapons do nothing! I'm paying for nothing here!"

Or.. They are simply re-skinned custom weapons. The trolls scream again. "This isn't worth the extra's I paid!"

EA, this didn't work with Madden rosters when it didn't matter in game. Now your making a game changing move here. What if you had to pay extra to get Tom Brady on your team?

Please, EA. Think about this, this is a nightmare waiting to happen.

huginn - thank you xbla for vgcat pictures!

@Modus_Operandi:

That's EXACTLY what I had in mind for an EA-type GTA. Entire city sections sealed until you pay.

I've hated EA since they ruined 007, and this isn't helping. I've said it many times and I'll say it again. Fuck EA and their stupid bullshit.

I try to avoid EA games like the plague. NFS games are the only ones I buy from them, and I seriously doubt I'll buy the next one. In a game like NFS, DLC makes sense, since new cars are always being released, but this is retarded. I seriously doubt I'll buy Mass Effect 2 now. The first one was a disappointment anyway.

Nedus

It sounds like they said that they DLC weapons aren't any good and that you're paying for a cosmetic upgrade and bragging rights.

@DaPress:

Exactly. As I stated previously, if you bought the disc, shouldn't you own (or have license to use) whatever is on it?

Billkwando

I don't pay for DLC and never will, those of you who do are only helping to feed this monster of microtransactions. Make all the excuses you want about what type you find acceptable, but with the exception of GH and RB I see no reason to pay as on the PC all DLC is free.

Gex

"Well that seals the deal. I wont buy the game PERIOD now. How's that for a micro transaction?"

=)

Tylahedras

Fan-fucking-tastic.

I hope EA continues to buy up all the game developers so they can screw us more and more, over and over with micro-transactions in a macro kinda way, in the ass.

Unless you like that kind of thing... Then in the ear. Or something.

dudeman5000

Fuck that! I'm not paying for 80% of a game.

Schoolimangooli

@Akira119:
He said five ADDITIONAL weapons that could be bought from the marketplace. I'm guessing that means that if you don't buy the Gold Edition that there must be 10 unlocked weapons that other users will have access to that you won't.

NegativeGhostrider

Microsoft and EA: Systematically disassembling gaming and selling it back to you piece by piece.

Repeat after me:

NO DLC UNLESS IT'S FREE

ErskinPig

This is low, even for EA.
It would be a different story if it was purely a cosmetic feature, but these are weapons that are probably on the disc anyway. I bet we're just going to be expected to pay for a "key" to unlock them. Making gamers pay for something in a game that was created AT THE SAME TIME AS THE GAME is just wrong.

I was excited about the new Battlefield but not if they're going to start more and more trends like this.

NegativeGhostrider

Yup, I don't care how good the game is, I just won't buy this piece of shit. Charging for guns, screw you EA.

Kyle81

So you can either get the extra weapons by paying more for a Gold Edition, or you can pay more on Live.

Same thing.

imaria

On one hand we have our regular player he has a an assault rifle on the other hand we have our "premium" player with a FREAKIN' DEATH LASER.

Thanks for attending the EA Games Battlefield Bad Company preview.

Crome

How much money for a smart bomb?!

More seriously, online gaming will increasingly reflect society if this kind of thing is embraced as one's ability to succeed will be determined partly by financial wealth.

DreamcastRIP

That response doesn't make sense. I just got into the beta today and was able to look at all the weapons (just stats and names) but there were 5 that were aviable through the Gold Edition (or bought on LIVE) AND 5 that could ONLY be bought on LIVE.

This EA rep doesn't seem to be in the loop.

Akira119

I biggest fear is that they'll pull this shit with Mass Effect 2.

Why did EA have to buy Bioware? WHY?

romBox

@Konchu: Telling them not to put it on the disc doesnt stop the slimy bastards either. Remember I Love Katamari for the 360? They purposefully left off levels on the disc so they could have DLC for the game because they claimed "Americans like DLC". Its retarded. Some people like Capcom get DLC. Look at Lost Planet. The re-release has all the DLC on it but it took awhile for that to come out. EA just doesnt give a fudge because they know there will always be some idiots willing to pay.

Modus_Operandi

@Ghede: ... Why the hell did I say that? Isn't this a console game?

My brain no-worky today.

Ghede

Ok I would not have an issue if 3-4 months after the game released they released a weapons pack that was an actual download code/models that were made and added to the game. But EA has become notorious for the simple unlock this content on the disk BS. We are already paying more for the games this gen EA is working for more revenue through advertising but they still can justify nickle and diming us? Games are getting shorter as it is and maybe that is due to development cost but is this really wise. Do they not realize the that more feature rich content is out of the box the more people view it as a better game leading to more sales.

Just simply do not put it on the disk if you dont want to give it with the game. It only tarnishes your image. I guess the real issue in balancing this is perceived value and it is better to under promise and overdelivier than the opposite, you don't want to say well we have enough so lets cut this this and this to sell seperate unless there is so much in there that it just doesn't make sense to include. I remember I time when games used to use numbers of characters and levels as selling points but now they are being treated as missed opertunities. But BS like this is what will keep this game from being more than a weekend diversion.

Konchu

Considering that people that love multiplayer games want a balanced experience, this doesn't appeal to that crowd at all. I mean what's next paying for using the vehicles (IE buy a key to drive tanks, ect... ). I was excited about this game until I read about this, now I'm not even going to bother picking it up.

All this does is split the user-base from HAVES and HAVE-NOTS, I don't care how they say the new weapons don't effect gameplay (which is bull and everyone knows it). Sure it's cool to include new weapons months after the game came out and I don't mind paying for maps but locking out content that was already made into the game is just wrong.

On A side note this isn't about being too cheap to buy the weapons, it's the principle of it. I don't care if the weapons cost $0.30 it's still stupid and nickel and diming fans.

LordNova

It's bad enough that there's so many models of current systems where some people are left out in the rain if they received a "lesser" system as a gift. Now that same "screw you, give me more money" mindset is spreading to the games? Capcom already broke the ice on large mandatory installs (worst idea ever!) I really, really hope neither of these trends becomes the norm.

Wolfers

Wait? So half the weapons in the game are locked? That's cold.

weasl

There's a limit to pursuing this strategy across all of EA's franchises. What'll happen eventually is if microtransacted "complete" games start costing upwards of $100 each, the software attach rate -- aka the number of games a gamer buys for his or her console -- will begin to decline. This is bad news for the companies, because software is where they really make their money. Basic economics suggests that the incremental increase per game (from let's say $60 to $100) would not be enough to offset a rather large decline in gamer purchases. Call it wallet fatigue or whatever.

Also, retailers could eventually start squawking rather loudly that they're being shut out of the microtransactions, since the "extra guns" content will be and already is being distributed via Live or Home.

DaPress

Can you imagie what these guys would do with something like GTA? I can see microtransactions for purchasing games, clothes, weapons, missions, locations. Youd load up the game and there'd be 2 buildings and the rest of the skyline would be siholettes of buildings with dollar marks in them with a message reading "Download today!"

Modus_Operandi

@NateN:
hmm but then why would they have promotions in the first place then? they might as well just give them for free. in the first place.

and i doubt theyll just make it free after a while. the graw chapter 2 dlc is still 600 ms points.

Xeros606

to start off i am completely against buying weapons or gear through microtransactions but EA is a company whos goal is to make money some how with a great number of people who just simply pirate their pc shooters and the consolegamers who buy used games essentially making a pawnshop one of the biggest retailers of games.....wait i may be sounding a bit anti-communist....why am I standing up for EA while condemning GAMESTOP? im a bit confused tell you what ill stop typing now

JunkersRoyale

Well that seals the deal. I wont buy the game PERIOD now. How's that for a micro transaction?

parad0x360

@manywaters: Theres one key difference. Those songs weren't included on the actual disc. Also i think that EA has to pay for the rights to use those songs in their game.

LowNemesis

Non-purchase confirmed.

Tylahedras

either put it in the game, or don't create it at all.

Kayeliminal Antithesis

What idiots - sure it's you don't have to pay for weapons once you have the game if you *paid more for the game up front*.

Roadkill

@manywaters: Guitar Hero and Rock Band are different since neither game ships with songs on the disk that you had to pay to unlock. Downloading additional content for a price, sure. Paying to unlock content that's in a game I already paid $60 for? Fail.

whiptcracker

It's not so much the microtransactions..it's the balance.Anybody who has ever played a battlefield title knows that they are not familiar witht the concept.

enewtabie

This is not right, there is no spin capable of convincing me otherwise. EA does this, they loose my purchase.

holy_cow

I agree with virtually all of you when it comes to microtranactions in the form of core gameplay mechanics. Point being, I really don't own a lot of EA games...I DO however, own many games from companies they've aquired. I shudder to think that EA is going to try to buy up as much as they can, and make it the norm to charge arms/legs for DLC imperitive to gameplay experiences and have the consumer end up paying closer to $80 for the ACTUAL complete experience.

ThisCharmingMan

@Xeros606: Actually I think the promo weapons are for the beta or just after launch and then are free for everyone some time after launch?

"In addition to the core set of weapons, Battlefield: Bad Company will release five unique weapons free of charge through five different promotional programs prior to launch. EA will again make these weapons available to players free of charge after launch, in case anyone missed the pre-launch promotions." (Bolding of "free of charge" mine if it comes through right.)

I think you are right about the gold weapons. Still confusing!

NateN

why would you buy ea games outside of sports games? don't you realize their only out to steal your money. even with sports games, madden's code hasn't changed in 10 years.

exstrat

not cool not cool not cool

panfriedcharlie

Shouldn't this work just like new songs in GH and Rock Band? Stop buying EAs crap if you don't like it. You complain when they don't let you buy content for Rock Band Wii and again when they try to sell you cool new guns.

manywaters

This is just retarded. As if balancing online FPS' wasnt hard enough. You have people constantly looking to cheat or glitch in games like Halo or GoW now add this to the mix. I mean joining a game like COD 4 late can be a pain because youre out gunned but at least there you have to respect the owners because they put the hours in and they have the skill. This is just ass. To me its fine because these types of things work themselves out. Gamers will gravitate towards other games and not deal with this. Only jackasses will buy into this which is bad because EA wont change its policy but its good also because the game will only be populated with asshats.
I also like their answer to the problem of the microtransactins. "Dont like it? Just buy the gold edition"

Modus_Operandi

@Sundermania: I know you were speaking in jest, but that's actually a rather fascinating idea. True, something as extreme as what you are jokingly proposing could never happen, but it would be kind of neat if an in-game decision had very real, and potentially very expensive consequences. At the very least, it might lead to some interesting Milgram-type observations in both natural human behavior and general game theory.

I'm reminded a bit of PCXL's last issue, when one of the eds proposed that games only come with one chance: you die in game, and that's it. You have to go out and purchase another copy. I really would like to see what type of behavior would be encouraged by that type of model, especially if there was a substantial reward offered for completion. Would you play carefully, or throw caution to the wind? Would you start staggering your play times so that you would only play when you are most alert? etc. etc. etc.

Back on topic: yeah, this fucking sucks. Generally speaking, I think forcing players to pay for DLC is a goddamn sham. I'm fine with plopping down $20.00 for a sizable expansion pack that offers an additional five to six hours of gameplay (HELLO, HALF LIFE!), but charging for minor additions--even if they are additional maps--seems like a fucking rip-off. I guess I'm a bit spoiled, though; being a PC gamer through and through, I'm used to additional content being FREE, as in beer. It helps build community and a good relationship with the devs. Charging for fucking guns? C'mon. They'll probably start charging for fucking goddamn patches next.

In a lot of ways, online access might be one of the worst things to happen to console gaming. Without a vibrant and easily accessible system for modders, there's no compelling reason for the big boys to give out stuff for free.

JustThisGuy

I'm not buying this game because of this.

F8X

Yet idiotic gamers will still buy them...*sigh*
I can see it now
Medal of Honour 7: silver edition! WITH 5 WEAPONS YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR! SHOOP DE WOOP!

excel_excel

I'm ok with Dev's including buy-able content on a shipped game DVD if, and only if, that game is sold for less than the average game price.

That would allow a choice by consumers to purchase the parts/aspects they want.

However if I pay full price for a game and there is instantly upon launch of said game DLC that is expensive (EA's never been cheap) and core (weapons are core) and included on the dvd (hence finished before launch) I'm let down.

I'm all for choice for the gamer, but it seams like this content should be something included with *every* copy of the game dvd. That shouldn't be a gold/collectors edition (EA's done that a couple times now).

Content like this is not what consumers expect from a collectors/gold edition of a game, they expect it to be included on every DVD.

BoredomFighter

I too agree that this is still bullshit by ea. Basically they made a game, with all these weapons, then decided to take it out and charge for it if people want it. That is just wrong. If for some reason, fans cry out for new weapons and they make it, that's fine. But to leave it out and charge for it is bullshit. Imaging future games where some fighters are left out and you can purchase new fighters to play with. How about sports game where you buy credits so you can trade players....this is all bullshit.

nxp3

Let's just hope Crecente doesn't get any ideas:

"Want an avatar? Sure- 10 Kotaku Bucks. Komments are .10 Kotaku Bucks apiece (that's 10 Cre-cents, btw). Avoid the ban-hammer for only 25 Kotaku Bucks per asinine post!"

(For the record, I have no honest belief that our bird-shirted overlord would do this to us.)

Yessir, micro-transactions are the wave of the future. And that sucks.

HootieMac: Thinks Barry Zuckerkorn > Bob Loblaw

They don't INTEND the unlockable guns to create a balance issue, but just look to a game like Counter Strike to see how intentions and reality can differ for guns in a game. If they're really not going to help you, why would anyone buy them? Except for people who are driven nuts by this stuff, they'll just buy the more expensive one and EA wins! (because no one downloads PC games illegally, right?)

So yet again they allow a split between haves and have nots in a shooter. This time not split by experience, but by cash.

To get sidetracked by the online activation issue (since it's like DLC - server dependent) I buy games for the long haul. If I can't play it in 10 years, I don't buy it - although I made exceptions for Peggle and Audiosurf, just to fully disclose here, since I already had Orange Box installed from disc with Steam - but I have no illusions that those will work perfectly after Steam folds in 2025 or whenever. There may be a crack, there may not. I'm fairly certain the only way to get Bioshock PC running in a few years will be third party cracks.

Buy your furniture in pieces and build it yourself - save money.
Buy your game unfinished and buy the rest later - pay now, pay later, pay more.

fuchikoma

Ea crams in game advertising down my throat. Ea charges for cheats in games. Ea charges for items ripped from the completed game.

Why is this not reflected in the price of the actual game? When it comes to certain companies, being a pirate don't feel so bade matey.

liquid_kore

It's only free if it's the same price? How preposterous. Listen. If I charge you in microtransactions, you have the added cost of download time, searching, and the inevitable wait for the 360 "bagook" sound. Aw, you're breakin' my balls, man. Look, if you get the Gold Edition, well, first you have the extra special packaging which we used special paper for, and, well, you know how it goes. So can I sign you up for a crate or are you just gonna sit here breakin' my balls?

dunetiger : apples are red

DLC blows. remove it from the retail release, then sell it later.

what in the fuck.

lasttimeyouaskedme

It would be really cool if everyone just waited until the Gold Edition came out. A unified voice of gamers that says "we can wait".

Tenth

@Daemonati: Sorry, but stupid people will never turn down the opportunity to pwn nubs for a little extra cash.

THE Comatose Turtle

Releasing content six months down the road is one thing but you guys are right this is bullshit. if I remember right Sega did something similar with chromehounds. The AI enemys were running around with DLC weapon's before they were even available on the marketplace. Then they allowed you to unlock them for 1-2 DOLLARS EACH. Total Rip off.

LowNemesis

The only DLC I could get excited about anymore would be GoW or Brawl related, and even in that case, I don't think Nintendo would charge for added Assist trophies (that' would be so sweet...and feasible. I want a Crono trophy!...not that it would happen >.>;).

Although...it makes you kinda wonder if EA will start charging for damn patches at some point. Kinda getting a bit out there, yea, but...damn, things can progress.

diablodevil2

so what exactly is he saying? from what i read he says that you can get 5 weapons for free through some promos and if you miss the promos you can buy them. then theres another set of weapons thats available in the gold edition of the game, and if you dont get the gold edition, you can buy them.

---

so basically your options are:

if you buy the standard ed.:
-you can get weapon set (a) for free through promotions
-if you miss the promotions, you can buy weapon set (a)
-upon release there will be a weapon set (b) that you can also buy

so that means you will be able to get weapon set (a) weapons for free if you participate in the promos. if you don't, you can buy weapon set (a). you will not have weapon set (b) unless you buy it.

if you get the gold ed.:
-you can get weapon set (a) for free through promotions
-if you miss the promotions, you can buy weapon set (a)
-your game includes weapon set (b)

so that means you can get weapon set (a) for free if you participate in the promotions. if you don't, you can buy them. weapon set (b) however, will be free because it is included in your game.

---

which ultimately means the only way to get the full experience is to buy the gold ed + weapon set (a), or buy standard ed and buy both weapon sets (a) and (b). if you choose to participate in the promos, weapon set (a) can be acquired for free.

which is full of bull****.

and confusion.

lol.

Xeros606

@demonknightinuyasha:
"Dear EA,

Please stop sucking.

Yours truly,
Gamers of the World "

THIS^^^^^^^^

I agree!!!!!

axiomatic

Don't be so rough on EA people, they are doing it to recreate the fine "Arcade Experience" at home kind of a thing. You buy a game, link it to your bank account and off you go, adventuring in the wild digital realms. There will be no death or "Out of ammo" until your bank calls and friendly reminds you to recharge your account. Extra life or shiny quest related bauble, only $0.99 per item.

Dekko

Sometimes EA are decent.

Most of the time they are blotches on what gaming is.

flukielukie

Really no different the having collector's editions of games that give you extra maps, cars, etc. Isn't Gran Turismo 5(the non-prologue version) ultimately supposed to be entirely a la carte? Remember Jade Empire had a character, weapon, and fighting style only available if you bought the Collector's Edition.

TrettOff

I can see it now. Just imagine Mass Effect 2, Spectre weapon and armor packs for 5 dollars, Skill point resets for 3 dollars...etc

LxLegend

It really is one of those vote with your wallet situations. If it really disgusts you, pass on the game entirely. It's not like there's a shortage of games to play.

Tetley

Fuck that and fuck Bad Company.

crapsh00t

@Doomstalk: Well played, sir.

DaPress

EA is lying their asses off, those bastards!

"But EA says that you can get those weapons for free if you buy the Gold Edition."

You can only get HALF of those weapons for free if you buy the gold edition!

SycoKiller

Did anyone here ever play Rumble Fighter? That was an awesome game initially, and it even had paid, premium content. The premium content gave extra stats and maybe better fighting moves, but any good player could still keep up without giving in to microtransactions.
But as time went on, they kept needing to top their previous premium content with bigger and better content to keep the revenue coming. Eventually it turned into a simple contest of "who can pay the most money".
The fun? Completely gone. Along with my hopes and dreams for humanity.

Granted, this was a free online game, whose only source of income was microtransactions. But, as we've all seen, EA is completely capable of the same train of thought shown here, even when the consumers had to buy the game in the first place.

My fears are not so much allayed by this announcement as they are confirmed.

Also, EA is, collectively, a jerk.

THE Comatose Turtle

if you're a gamer today, you better get used to in-game advertising and microtransactions. *sigh*

frank0127

The title of the game, "Bad Company", sums up EA nicely.

Doomstalk

Dear EA,

Please stop sucking.

Yours truly,
Gamers of the World

demonknightinuyasha

This is interesting, but obviously not what gamers would hope for. I'm afraid that the course of games as we know it is changing quickly to the "micro transactions" model. EA did something similar with the Battlefield Booster Packs released for BF2 - In my opinion, that was a failure, only because not many people bought into it, and at the time, it was only released through EA's online down-loader. Let's just hope that this is not a continuing trend in games today, or in the future.

B1ooDshOt

Man I cant wait till all companies start doing this. Just imagine the sheer joy of paying for new perks of COD5!

liquid_kore

This breaks the game for me right there. Because in a nutshell it says that all those not buying a gold edition or the microtransactions will be second rate customers who are denied any competitiveness. Even if I do it, I can't trust all in my team to do it so my team might get an unfair advantage. Same if the opposing team does not have it, it's unfair towards them too. So I stopped bothering about that game right here.

Asbestos_Underwear

Haha...EA balancing weapons. Battlefield especially has proven they have no idea how to balance unlocks. Every patch in Battlefield 2 and 2142 that came out unbalanced as many things as it ended up completely unbalancing. It's completely scumbaggy to charge for content that should be included. Why not have an option to pay immediately to unlock guns you'd otherwise have to unlock through ranking up or whatever other unlock system is in-game for everyone to access?

TheBlackWatch

@illmatic291: I was too. But I was very impressed with End War last week and I think this news might have just completely converted me.

slomo788

@Violater:
Well, there's nothing really wrong with micro transactions. I like DLC. I don't like when a developer purposely gimps a game from the beginning just so they can overcharge for content that they could have easily included.

TheEngineer: Rocking the Goggles

@TheEngineer: Kirbytheslayer is awesome.:
[www.penny-arcade.com]

NateN

In before horse armor.

Violater

@fallingdove: You know what? I'm with you. Fuck it -- I'll boycott EA until they drop this or otherwise resolve it so that everyone can have the same gameplay.

Like others here have said, maps are one thing. They (in generic terms) expand the game universe. However, weapons expand core gameplay, and that's not the same thing.

JOIN THE EA BOYCOTT TODAY!

DaPress

@TheEngineer: Kirbytheslayer is awesome.: Those were my thoughts exactly. I hope this game loses money. We need a pre-launch campaign against this game so people refuse to buy into their crap.

Spartan1308

"In addition to the core set of weapons, Battlefield: Bad Company will release five unique weapons free of charge through five different promotional programs prior to launch."

I smell a Cheetos rocket launcher coming out of these "promotional programs." Now my life is complete.

Captain_Goober

This is the completely wrong direction for the business. The fact that they are already creating something for the game just so they can make a special addition and/or charge people for their bottom line is sickening. Even worse is that they're trying to smooth it all over by saying we'll get most of the stuff for free through promos before and after the game is released. WHY ISN'T IT INCLUDED FROM THE START?

jihadjoe343

"I can't help but think that this is just EA testing the waters."
Brian I could not agree with you more and people who support micro transactions are a part of the problem.

Violater

[www.penny-arcade.com]

TheEngineer: Rocking the Goggles

@Jim Reilly: Amen Sir.

TheSmiterer

i was soooooooooooooooooo excited for this game!!! I think i was the biggest fanboy ever actually for this game. Hearing this was the LAST straw. I bet their fucking servers are still going to be as laggy as it was on Modern Combat and full of the same goddamn glitches. I've converted to SOCOM. EA i hate you. die slow u bastards.

illmatic291

This is lame.

darthmole12

My thoughts in an ordered list:

1. Including extra stuff in a gold edition is pretty much standard. After all, if the gold edition DIDN'T have anything in it, no one would buy it. (Look, it's the "We want more money edition"!! I have to buy it!) Normally it's stuff like stickers, a making of DVD, or some other stuff no one but big fans ever give a crap about. So, including actual in-game weapons on the gold edition is an interesting way to try to promote sales.
2. I've had games where I wished I had bought the gold edition after the fact, so allowing folks to buy the stuff that makes it the gold edition is kind of nice. BUT, the only times I've ever had that style of buyers remorse is when the gold edition came out months after the first game with extra maps or something that you couldn't download for free or a fee. (*cough*Thief 1*cough*)
3. I think EA might be facing a bit of a consumer backlash on this one, but if they announced "All of these pay to play weapons AND the bonus weapons that will be out there because of promotions will be free in 6 months", I think it would probably help smooth things over. Folks who want the shiny stuff will pay for it, folks who could care less will wait it out. Heck, it works for Halo!
4. Right now I have yet to see anything that makes me want to run out and buy this game. I'm sure it will be well done, it just hasn't grabbed my attention. Maybe I'm just getting sick of shooters? :-P

NateN

I wasn't particularly interested in the game before, but now I have zero interest. I am not going to get worked up about it. I am simply not going to buy the game. If people continue to pay for stuff like this, it will never go away.

Daemonati

Ridiculous.

Starting now, I refuse to buy a game with the EA logo on it. While it won't effect the bottom line, if more gamers refused to buy EAs shit games, maybe they would wake up, make a decent product, and stop nickel and diming everyone for things that should have been included from the begining.

JOIN THE EA BOYCOTT TODAY!

lol

fallingdove

DLC is a scam. Hurry up and realize it, people. :)

tincow

It makes more sense for EA to charge for new weapons then it does for new maps. The problem with charging for maps is that you fragment your user base into those that can pay for them and those that can't.

I'm not a huge fan of the concept of paying for new weapons however if Call of Duty 4 had come out without the skorpion and at a later date it was made available for purchase would that ruin the game?

Everyone seems to think that having weapons for sale will do two things: 1)unbalance the game giving people an unfair advantage and 2) take some content away from people who can't afford or don't wish to pay extra money for extra weapons.

EA, no matter what you think of them, isn't short-sighted enough to sell a weapon that would unbalance the game; what's the point of making a few sales of new guns if you lose a lot of sales of your actual product because everyone stops playing it? I would be surprised if they were not very careful to make certain that the game remains balanced with or without those new weapons.

We could look at these weapons as an expansion to the original product; is there any difference between buying these new weapons and an rts player who has purchased an expansion playing with a new army against someone who hasn't and who is playing with an old army? You want everyone to have fun and keep it all balanced so the product keeps on living and you keep on making sales.

manusdei

I'm Calling BS

EA Exec: How does this work again?

EA Marketing: sell the gimped regular SKU and Trumped up Gold SKU.

EA Exec:two SKU's

EA Marketing: Yep and after many head shots Plebs playing online will want the cool new guns and pay "a small individualized price per item"

EA Exec: So everyone is Gold!

EA Marketing: Bling, Bling Baby!

PresDNA

I didn't mind when you could pay EA in Tiger Woods to unlock everything in the game. I didn't fully agree with it, but I could see where they where coming from and understood it. This though, this is just plain wrong. I will be boycotting this game for sure, and if EA does continue on this course I will have to boycott them.
I have no probs with DLC, bring on more GR:AW maps/missions, but to not include a gun in a game so you can sell it via a CE, or $5 DLC doesnt sit well at all.

Though now I'm looking forward to the beta. Hopefully it's a shitty game.

AudibleDefect

I can hear the commentary of gamers over the ages, "OMG, it's exactly like the real thing!" starting to ring ring ring in our ears...

Mohican

EA's answer is pathetic. It's almost a disrespectful joke to consumers.

That's why I didn't buy a single game made or even published by EA in 2 years. It's kinda getting hard to do that, as EA continues to buyout other companies thou.

alecpyron

>_>
<_<

(sssshhhhhhhhhh....)
I'm going to post a free Battlefield Beta key in the very next topic Brian Crecente posts.

Lixie

We're on a slippery slope...

NO DLC UNLESS IT'S FREE!

ErskinPig

this is kinda like the 360's Hardrive situation. anyway kinda figured something like this would happen once EA started selling cheat codes instead of having them in the game like ones of old did

Bleentastic sees bandwagon and jumps

This is ridiculous, DLC for more guns? EA and whoever buys this garbage is contributing to a darker future of gaming.

Kadmos

Hmm, I am already dubious of their claims of balance.

I am not going to purchase any version of this game really. I gave up on the series when I discovered auto-update feature of PunkBuster on 2142. If I hear they replaced punk-buster with something less permanently running-ish, I'll give it another look.

Ghede

You know, I don't really care. EA has fucked up so many franchises that Battlefield is overdue. I mean, 2142 was awful already, which is why I don't really care for BC to begin with.

This is just the tip of the iceberg (or shitberg in this case). I'm just glad that publishers which I actually appreciate, namely Ubi, Sony, Konami and a bunch of others, seem to get the hint and don't copy EA's marketing strategy.

Candlejack

I found this last night after downloading the beta off of XBOX Live. While it does stink, it isn't anything new. EA did this with every expansion to BF2 and while they didn't affect gameplay, folks still paid into worthless expansions that offered little more than new guns, and grappling hooks. It pissed me off then and it pisses me off now.

Funny thing is that back when EA did it with BF2 there were a lot of players shouting about it on the forums. One of the big complaints was not to allow EA to set a precedent, that if you didn't by it, they wouldn't try that BS again.

That said, at least the diehards that have been looking forward to this game can get this stuff for free through the promos if they are interested. However, as any good BF player knows, its not the gun that makes you good, its your squad.

tasty%20crabcakes.">coffeeguy

@Sundermania: new maps is something (while it took me a while cause i figure you should put the bloody map in the first place before releasing the game) i got used to. it's not so bad considering the maps can be huge, ala Warhawk. But for weapons...that shit is wrong in my eye. Next, it's gonna be for the latest armor, while supposedly balancing the game. Eventually this might lead to a point where you 're gonna have to pay in order to advance to the next level.

you know what, if you're gonna do that, how about EA something about thier madden series. Pay one time and after that, for every where, charge a small amount for the updates...since they are essentially updates.

jun581

oh yah, wouldn't it be awesome if the game they released was actually "microtransaction:the game" and instead of shooting guns you spent money, and instead of your bullets hitting aliens or nazis, your money went straight into EA's bank account. god. that would be awesome. just what us consumers want.

listen up EA: make a good product and you will attract more consumers and make more money. produce inferior products, and no amount of tomfoolery will yield you the sweet sweet dollars.

3inst3in

@3inst3in:

You'll have to pay "tolls" to get to new areas. And use the "ATM" to get money to buy weapons.

Shit, why stop there? You enter your credit card info at the beginning of the game and it deducts payments whenever you get arrested. You can use your real life health insurance at the hospitals.

Sundermania

You know, I was really looking forward to this game as well, and no I have almost no desire to buy it.

Nirolak

The Godfather. Hmphh. I was so bitter about that. I didn't spend a cent on that malarkey. I did the entire game with just the money I earned from rackets. And that game sucked.

Who's the fool?

~
Go CJ!

octoSink

New Ultimate Jesus Bloody Christ EA.

Bal-Cleric

i still don't think you should charge for extra weapons. I don't like where this is going. It's going to give them a reason to half-ass on a game and complete the bloody thing later on. In addition, i find it crazy to charge for a weapon. EA...you are something.

jun581

I could care less about this game with everything that has come out recently and will be coming out soon.

Anyways, I say anyone who buys this should pass on the added weapons and send EA a clear message about microtransactions.

New maps are fine additions to pay for. Weapons that were developed at the same time as the game and could easily be included are not.

Sundermania

after EA aquires take two, gta 5 will require you to pay in order to open up new map areas and radio stations.

3inst3in

So, they're reacting to the outcry over having to purchase weapons by....confirming that we will have to purchase some weapons?

Where does this make sense?

Unknown-User

Unless the response is "Sorry, we're getting rid of that," then fuck them.

Reading...

Fuck them.

TheEngineer: Rocking the Goggles

Seems EA loves charging for downloadable content and usually overpriced. I'm guessing we all know about the Godfather game which costs almost double or so if you consider all the downloadable content.

Chybi

I remember back when you bought a video game and didn't have to worry about stupid bullshit.

Jim Reilly

This doesn't look to good for balance in gameplay

lifeinthefridge

This is rediculous, make some actaul DLC that we can pay for, not an extra gun with a scope or some