Battlefield Heroes Modifies Item Prices
lolfighter
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Snark, Dire Join Date: 2003-04-20 Member: 15693Members
Article: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/12/ea-restructures-battlefied-heroes-pricing-fans-enraged.ars" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/12...ans-enraged.ars</a>
To summarize (though I urge you to read the article): The for-cash currency has been made more valuable (through slashed prices) while the earned-through-play currency has been devalued (through increased prices). You can still play the game for free, but you most likely won't be able to buy any items other than the ones you are given by default, giving players willing to pay for them a very clear edge.
Now the obvious lines of argument here are:<ul><li>obvious cash grab</li><li>it's their game and you could and still can play it for free</li><li>they heavily implied they wouldn't do this and they broke their word</li><li>they said they wouldn't turn the game pay-to-play and they kept to that.</li></ul>However, I'd like to set those aside for the moment (I'm sure we'll get to them eventually anyway) to ask different questions: Why'd they do this? Because they can? Too high freeloader:payer ratio? Is the game not generating enough revenue? Is this move a consequence of the game's reception(good? bad?), or did they plan to get people to play first and then up the fee?
Speculation and argumentation please!
To summarize (though I urge you to read the article): The for-cash currency has been made more valuable (through slashed prices) while the earned-through-play currency has been devalued (through increased prices). You can still play the game for free, but you most likely won't be able to buy any items other than the ones you are given by default, giving players willing to pay for them a very clear edge.
Now the obvious lines of argument here are:<ul><li>obvious cash grab</li><li>it's their game and you could and still can play it for free</li><li>they heavily implied they wouldn't do this and they broke their word</li><li>they said they wouldn't turn the game pay-to-play and they kept to that.</li></ul>However, I'd like to set those aside for the moment (I'm sure we'll get to them eventually anyway) to ask different questions: Why'd they do this? Because they can? Too high freeloader:payer ratio? Is the game not generating enough revenue? Is this move a consequence of the game's reception(good? bad?), or did they plan to get people to play first and then up the fee?
Speculation and argumentation please!
Comments
Well, we screwed up, aren't making any/enough money, and don't want to get fired, so cash weapons it is, sorry.
Right, here it is:
<a href="http://www.battlefieldheroes.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=88636&pid=939699#pid939699" target="_blank">http://www.battlefieldheroes.com/forum/sho...39699#pid939699</a>
BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH
Reading through the thread is wonderfully funny.
hehehehehe
Seriously, it is worth reading, or at least searching through for posts by GameofDeath.
He basically has tirades against Ben Cousins for being a rich junkie. It took me a page or 2 too find out that there is a Ben Cousins who plays Aussie Football :P
Still, funny as hell.
All the arguments the developers have posted seem to boil down to 'What you thought it would be free forever? We have to feed our families!' To which the obvious response is to vote with your money and go to a game that isn't suddenly going to jack up its prices in order for you to keep playing the same game you're used to. (Laughing while their children starve is optional, and may make you evil.)
(Formerly) paying customers seem to view this as a particular slap in the face. They paid money to customise their avatars, and now they will have to pay further just to stay competitive.
I also wonder what those who pay for the new guns to continue playing will think. The non-paying players will gradually filter out due to the disadvantage they have, lowering overall player numbers. Will the game stay interesting for those who remain, or will it turn into a ghost town?
The way they've done it is pretty stupid, though. You used to be able to rent a gun using the in-game (free) currency for an entire month for fairly cheap (I can't remember what the price was tbh but I managed to buy two of them after about a week's worth of very casual play). Now it's 150vp for a single day. You earn 10 or so vp per match, if you *win* it. So... yeah. And that's one of the weaker guns. The new super gun I just noticed after logging in for the first time in forever is 450vp for a single day.
Add in to that the fact that bandages (the only way to regain health in the game without a friendly soldier who happens to be standing nearby, and they put out fire) are now 120vp for 10 uses (last time I played you bought them in batches of 50 and they were used up pretty quick) and it's essentially impossible to play the game without spending money. Which probably means an awful lot of people aren't going to play the game any more.
Also I just noticed when logging in that I was forced to "associate a real life gender with this account," which is pretty odd. Maybe they're seeing if it's worth creating female avatars or something.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The smarter thing to do would have been to keep the current model as is and instead slowly phase in newer, shinier guns and tools and funny hats and vanity pets etc. while calculatedly increasing the cost for the newer items.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You would never make it as an executive at EA, that plan requires doing actual work and investing in the long term success of the product.