For those complaining about the cost of SF...

[Sgt Sly]

I know many didn't buy SF because they say it wasn't worth $30.

But I hope you realise that 99% of the chances are that BF3 is going to be a monthly fee like a MMORPG!

So 30 bucks is still better than a fix 15 bucks a month regardless of having any new content or not!

Deal with it, it will happen...

[imported_Psycho]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

For one it won't be an MMORPG as it isn't a damn RPG, it will be a MMOFPS.

For a second point people didn't buy it not because of the price it because it was **** and all the features in it were suppost to be in the original game.

And for a third point does this look like BF3?

[vbl]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

I know many didn't buy SF because they say it wasn't worth $30.

But I hope you realise that 99% of the chances are that BF3 is going to be a monthly fee like a MMORPG!

So 30 bucks is still better than a fix 15 bucks a month regardless of having any new content or not!

Deal with it, it will happen...

Yea, well it's still not worth $30.

I'll happily pay a reasonable monthly fee if it means ongoing support and new content.

[JarEme]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

But I hope you realise that 99% of the chances are that BF3 is going to be a monthly fee like a MMORPG!

How do you figure?

[unlimitedmp]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

Pay 2 play FPSers? It will be a sad day when that comes.

[BurnTheWeed]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

I doubt they will adopt a Planetside-esk model for payment. People just don't want to pay a monthly fee for a FPS.

[vbl]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

I doubt they will adopt a Planetside-esk model for payment. People just don't want to pay a monthly fee for a FPS.

Are you serious? Planetside is still immensely popular, even after what, 3 years? Check out the usage statistics.

[imported_Psycho]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

I doubt they will adopt a Planetside-esk model for payment. People just don't want to pay a monthly fee for a FPS.

So your saying you woudn't pay £10-20 a month to play an FPs on a server with like 500 people, it would be like a real war.

Edit: Actually i wouldn't pay but thats beside the point.

[BurnTheWeed]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

Are you serious? Planetside is still immensely popular, even after what, 3 years? Check out the usage statistics.

Interesting, but it seems like it's dropping in the last month.

So your saying you woudn't pay £10-20 a month to play an FPs on a server with like 500 people, it would be like a real war.

Edit: Actually i wouldn't pay but thats beside the point.

No I wouldn't, mostly because I would pay in $ not £ (lol) j/k. I'm against pay-per-month. I'd like to see a game BF game with at least 128 people, but I have yet to see it. I've played a few other games (like Tribes) and the more people doesn't necessarily make it more fun. If anything it just means you die more from people you never even saw.

There are tournaments that support "war" like battles, where each battle makes a difference in the overall "war". But it's not something you need to pay for. Also with a monthly fee you pretty much have to play on the companies servers, which might or might not be good.

[Jesse]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

But I hope you realise that 99% of the chances are that BF3 is going to be a monthly fee like a MMORPG!

If that happens, then EA basically wants to drop their responsibility of having to further publish the Battlefield series. There's no way Battlefield will survive as pay-to-play. There's no way the MMO perspective could be implemented without serious balance issues to new comers shortly after the release. Not to mention, EA would actually have to make sure the game was nearly bug free as no one with more than a few functioning brain cells is going to pay money every month for something in the state BF2 is in, especially with all the other games out there that will be FREE per month to play online. And don't even start the "it'll get rid of all the kids" arguement with the pay-to-play stuff. If anyone hasn't noticed the spam of "OMG GHEY ADMIN" threads that have occured here, it's fairly obvious these kids can talk their parents into helping pay for a clan server, so they could just as easily get on a pay-to-play service as well. (And are on plenty of others, they're everywhere)

Fairly pointless thread. I see no proof of any statements made in the first post, all speculation.

[imported_Anzen]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

I know many didn't buy SF because they say it wasn't worth $30.

But I hope you realise that 99% of the chances are that BF3 is going to be a monthly fee like a MMORPG!

So 30 bucks is still better than a fix 15 bucks a month regardless of having any new content or not!

Deal with it, it will happen...

Hey...little fellow, you're full of ****. I'm not interested in your based on nothing statements. BF2 (or whatever version) is NOT World of Warcraft. Just so you know; also, WoW is NOT the only MMORPG.

My advice is: seek help.

[imported_Psycho]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

If that happens, then EA basically wants to drop their responsibility of having to further publish the Battlefield series. There's no way Battlefield will survive as pay-to-play. There's no way the MMO perspective could be implemented without serious balance issues to new comers shortly after the release. Not to mention, EA would actually have to make sure the game was nearly bug free as no one with more than a few functioning brain cells is going to pay money every month for something in the state BF2 is in, especially with all the other games out there that will be FREE per month to play online. And don't even start the "it'll get rid of all the kids" arguement with the pay-to-play stuff. If anyone hasn't noticed the spam of "OMG GHEY ADMIN" threads that have occured here, it's fairly obvious these kids can talk their parents into helping pay for a clan server, so they could just as easily get on a pay-to-play service as well. (And are on plenty of others, they're everywhere)

Fairly pointless thread. I see no proof of any statements made in the first post, all speculation.

Indeed all the little kids just go "mummy mummy can i have this, i wannt this" bítch, bítch, bítch for long enough and they get it for them just to shut them up.

[Sgt Sly]

Re: For those complaining about the cost of SF...

Hey...little fellow, you're full of ****. I'm not interested in your based on nothing statements. BF2 (or whatever version) is NOT World of Warcraft. Just so you know; also, WoW is NOT the only MMORPG.

My advice is: seek help.

What is your obsession with WoW!?
I'm talking BF3 probably sometime in 2007 or 2008.

I'm just saying... consider yourself lucky with BF2 because the amount of support a cry baby community like BF needs will push EA to make it a pay per month.
It makes good business sense since they know they have a core community that will pay.
Even if it cut the community in half it will still be more profitable for them...

And really where do you go after BF2... I'll bet heavily that is what they'll do (it is what I would do if I was them)
It is pure speculation it this point but consider youself warned.
It is just common sense really...