would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

**TrooperJac** · 05-02-2008, 12:24 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

When I got 2142 and found out about the ads I was against it. Up until that point I had never played a game for more than a month or two yet I'm still playing 2142 about a year and a half later.

With a game with that kind of longevity you need new content coming through and I guess DICE need a reason to provide it. I bought the NS expansion and would buy more map packs if created. I have turned the ads back on and don't mind them at all, in fact the ones I have seen lately have been cool. Films mostly.

If the new games have revenue generating elements that ensure fresh content then I am for it.

**hooahguy** · 05-02-2008, 12:27 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

i wouldnt do it. not ever. i would either stop playing or play with the default weapons, if available, or just play another game.

**Fingulfin** · 05-02-2008, 12:30 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

For me, its what Jac said... Booster Packs? I'll buy them. Expansion packs? Why not! Pay-for-Voss-usage-rights? Now you are going somewhere I don't want to be.

I am going to play BFHeroes (or at least try it), but there is NO way I am going to pay for weapons.

**AvalancheDiode** · 05-02-2008, 12:55 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

In some way, NS is kind of cash-for-weapons. You pay extra $10 to get some gimmicks, some weapon upgrades and a grenade launcher that almost none uses.

**d10sfan** · 05-02-2008, 12:57 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

I would probably not buy weapons. Especially if the game was something I had to pay for I wouldnt want to have to pay again for better weapons.

**JunoPPCLI** · 05-02-2008, 01:01 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

Keep in mind BF:H is free.

So paying for weapons just offsets the cost you woulda payed for the game anyway.

WOnt happen in BF3

**Minmaster** · 05-02-2008, 01:04 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

i also tend to agree with trooperjac and fingulfin, but the problem is they might lose a lot of potential customers. i know so many people who didn't bother with BF2142 because of the in-game-advertising calling it a "spyware" among other things (go read the reviews on amazon.com if you don't believe me). The BF series depends on and thrives on a large # of gamers because of the big environment so they shouldn't scare off the potential gamers like they did with 2142.

come to think of it, Northern Strike was sort of paying for equipment in addition to few maps. i didn't care for the maps, but equipment like the IDS/PDS are game changing items that only came with shelling out $$. if you really think about it, cash for weapons isn't that much different from booster packs in that regard.

the more i think about it, i don't think they would dare do cash-for-weapons (or something named so bluntly as that) with BF3. from the interviews on BF:BC, they tend to differentiate the console gaming market as more casual gamers and have stated that it takes a different system in that market than the hardcore PC sector. they know PC is the home for BF, they wouldn't dare messing with the PC gamers where even 2142 didn't live up to expectations for many.

**ZinZ** · 05-02-2008, 01:53 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

Thats why I no longer play Soldier Front or Warrock. Eventually you have to use your moolah to get the guns, its just dumb. I liked both those games, but since it was $ for ingame junk I just gave up.

**Killerus** · 05-02-2008, 03:55 PM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

i would not pay for weapons either. game basics like that should always be free. If they wanted to charge for things like custom skins and other non game play affecting items then i would not object. Of course I would not pay for that either but i feel it is the lesser of 2 evils.

As far as NS, that does not fall into the same category because you can get all the weapons and doodads from field upgrades without paying for them.

**jackal22** · 05-03-2008, 04:31 AM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

Hear me out before para-phrasing the hell out of this:

I would pay to play, but only for bullets. If they charged £1 per 1000 bullets.

That is it, I would not pay for any weapons them selves because that gives unfair advantages to those with money. However I am sure that £1, ~€1.4 ~$2 for 1000 bullets is not that bad a cost.

PROVIDING all the money that is generated goes into maintaining official servers, of which there should be at least 50 per continent, always up, and with the proper rules, none of this " I AM ADMIN YOU WILL OBEY ME, ALL VEHICLES ARE MINE, NO KILLING ME OR KICK" BS that private servers tend to run.

*of course the £1 per 1000 bullets could be tweaked, maybe 2500 or something?

**TrooperJac** · 05-03-2008, 04:50 AM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

£1 per 1000 bullets. Are you insane!

**jackal22** · 05-03-2008, 04:53 AM

Re: would you support BF series if they went cash for weapons?

Yeh I wasnt quite sure on the figures so of course they are adjustable

any little price to keep EA official server would be worth it imo, fed up of all the crappy servers out there. (infact if all servers were EA, the k&p stats padding would be gone in an instant)