For those complaining about SF....

[Slapidus]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

They need to fix BF2 then fix SF,but im sure they wont since they have there money and have a sorry a$$ customer service

[imported_Spuddy]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

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

More like 1% chance of a monthly fee. :laugh:

[^Garf*uk*]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

well if i had 2 start paying monthly then i would NOT buy bf3
i would move on 2 something else,imo i dont think its right buying a game then paying monthly

[rombaft]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

You guys bitch about the fact that EA is charging 30 bucks for this...

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...

Says who ??? think about it man, BF2 or 3 isn't an MMPORG, the big difirence is the fact that you play on servers that are not from EA , the servers are or private or rented from EA (wich makes it your server at that moment) , with an MMPORG you play directly on the servers of the gamedeveloper, this is what you pay for.

And paying mony just to see stats isn't going to pull of

[AlphaNut]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

Monthly fees? How many BF2 players do you think own a credit card?

LOL you must be joking. With a monthly fee they'd have to provide much better end user support, much more frequent updates, additional content almost weekly. A huge community that stands behind its publisher. All this true at the moment? EA likes to develope a game, then move on to the next one. They are not the kind of company that would keep a game up to date for years just for the sake of a monthly fee.
They'd much rather make money by having their customers pay for stat servers. Which is ok I believe. Novalogic for example used to have stat servers , but only NL could host them. The public had to use their own servers without stats.
EA changed this, and gave the consumer the option to host his own server that tracks the players stats in a global database.
BF2 is not an MMORPG, And I don't think that EA is heading that way either.

[Sgt Sly]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

Think about it for one second...

Your are an EA executive and you have to start thinking of the most profitable venue for BF3.

You know you already have a core fan base that will pay anything to play (point and case, how many spent several hundred dollars just to upgrade their PC for BF2!!!)

So what should be the focus of BF3?
Should you go for console only?

The main reason console is on the raise is the simplicity of coding for it. One universal machine!

They don't have bugs in BF2 at DICE!!!
People have bugs because there are thousands of different custom PC's out there!!


If you push the graphic you will need to spend much more on testing and support than for a console game.


So you grab the loyal PC fan you have and create a p2p game to support them.

Who cares if they just have half the client base after... it will still be more profitable!

And it doesn't have to be a mmorpg... mmorpg was the first to do p2p because these are games people spend hundred of hours on therefore making it worth the monthly fee.

Then you can create a watered down version on console for the bitching kiddies...
They work for the shareholders, not you!

[Sir. Shpox]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

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

Remind me again, what "research" was this based on ?

EA already headed that way with Ultima Online or UO.

Was top MMORPG but died miserably after many new expansions. And they were medieval games like most MMORPG's are.

Never seen a war one, don't think I ever will. Ea already have enough trouble with multiplayer and now a rpg ? I don't think so.

[Flares]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

Never seen a war one, don't think I ever will.

WWII Online aka Battleground Europe

It's been around a few years and in constant development. I played it for two years or so. More of a sim than BF and requires a great deal of teamwork. Unfortunately most of the whiners who complain about planes, helos, tanks and anything else which owns them would not find it suitable.

[imported_Gergnoodle]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

screw that , i pay for my internet i pay for my game ill be damned if im goingto give some mega million dollar corp money each moth to play their game

1 million people have this game at lets say 50 bucks per im not that great at math but **** that;s alotta money not to mention all the server rentals

no way in gods green earth do i pay monthly rates to play online that's why xbox also suxxx assssss

[Sir. Shpox]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

Yep, if your "assumption" occurs, most of the current Bf2 players would not play it, I know I wouldn't. I'd stick to Bf2 just liek some are still playing 1942 dc ect..

[Flares]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

Yep, if your "assumption" occurs, most of the current Bf2 players would not play it, I know I wouldn't. I'd stick to Bf2 just liek some are still playing 1942 dc ect..

What if a persistent Battlefield aimed at BF2 players, rather than historical sim fans, was developed and you had to pay monthly? If the price of the boxed product was reduced significantly, and the subscription was in the region of $10 a month, I'd pay to play. So long as the developers endeared themselves to the community by providing regular feedback, updates, events, patches and addons etc.

[[DBD]crowfoot]

Re: For those complaining about SF....

More like 1% chance of a monthly fee. :laugh:

you got it:laugh: