<![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge - Kotaku Comments]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge - Kotaku Comments]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I Love shooters but Im also a father of 3. Buying the game is hard enough to talk my wife into, let alone paying extra or pre ordering the damn thing. Get bent EA

MrLavaLove

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> lol

Benski

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Uhhh I've read reports that the final 5 weapons that must be purchased via DLC are also available for free to people who reach the final rank of 25. I'm not sure how true these allegations are, but if they are then it should definitely reduce the anger level of this thread.

Benski

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> muffinsyay: Sure you can pick up a dead player´s "premium" gun - just run over it, enter your card details, wait for authorisation, and off you go!

beejamin

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Plain and simple:

It works.

I hate this as much as the next guy, but consoles were developed for the essentially non-internet crowd. People w/o computers and not used to user-based content or free downloads.

They are trying to make a system where a successful franchise can continue to make money for them long after the initial sale is done. The only way to do this is to make people feel like they aer missing somethnig by not having it. The extra map pack in R6LV is a classic example. I felt very left out when playing online and the "host" would switch to a map I did not have.

But look at it this way. You pay for EVERYTHING on the box. Cheap little 10kb icons will cost you a buck or two! Every frigging little thing. Do I want to pay $10 for Gauntlet? GAUNTLET??!? I mean, i like the game, brings back memories, but who thought that, what was it, $10? $8? was a good price for a game that can fit on a floppy! A game that is olde than most of the subscribers to XBL?

Anyway, back to original topic. I think they are mis-stepping here. The purchasable cheat codes was one way to make $$, but rather difficult to control. What they should really think about doing is what people have been doing for a while. Find a way to make it easier for lazy people to unlock everything from the start.

You want every car available at the start? Every costume? Every character? Fine. Pay $10, $20, whatever the market will bear, to save you 10-20 hours of gaming time and allow you to play with every character from Virtual Fighter 19.

Pay $5 to unlock all the cutscenes from Final Fantasy 97.

Make them all downloadable unlocks. All things that you can get if you just PLAY the game for a while. We all know how people get lazy and want all the stuff up front, so why not give it to them!

Also, as others have said here, the "premium" service is another way to go. Get your stuff, for a price, before everyone else. 2 months? 3? Just enough to get most of the impulse buyers and people who demand this content immediately. Just look at your sales chart and add a few weeks to the point where content sales start to slump. Then make it free. You will lose a small # of sales, but you gain the possibility of people staying on and purchasing the next batch on early release rather than waiting a second time.

This game is not just about making money, but keeping the gaming community happy, and hooked, on your product.

Ninjahedge

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @Pronomancer: If I may ask, what do you mean when you say "BF2, although fun to play, was a piece of shit" ?

(I'm not meaning offense; I'm just wondering how exactly you plan to reconcile those two statements.)

dracosummoner

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> well at least theyre honest..unlike ufckin UBIsoft saying "oh we fixed the respawn bug in Vegas 2"..

I haven't had any trouble with EA's Army of Two..

akmarksman

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I'm going to steal every ea game I want from now on. They make games I want to play untill I actually play them. BF2, allthough fun to play, was a piece of shit.
EA please die. I want people who actually like games to make them.


Pronomancer

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Personally, I don't see what the problem is. I pre-ordered BF: Bad Company from GameStop and got some type of special sniper-rifle or some such. So right there, does that make the game unbalanced because I will have a sniper-rifle that others who didn't pre-order through GameStop's promotion do not? Seems to me that every game coming out has some type of DLC that people will either buy or not buy. If you don't care to buy extra guns, then dont! Also, I highly doubt that any of the guns included in these "microtransactions" will help the skill of a poor player. This game is all about the squad. After 2 days of playing the beta, I have already seen that. Without a good team, your weapons don't do a shit bit of good.

If you dont want to buy these "golden guns" then don't.

Gopherboy128

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Ahh, what ever happened to the good old days, when special editions of games came with cool memorabilia, "the making of..." videos, and even the occasional T-Shirt? I always enjoyed that stuff. This is a rocky road we're heading down, and I don't like it.

Spartan A24

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Not the smartest comment ever, but get bent EA.

mrrobsa

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I can't stand this new generation of paying for digital crap!

First, it's maps and modes, then it's extra songs for GHIII etc., and now weapons?

What next?! I think I have an idea:

- Buy the game (In this case RPG)
- Go home, put it in, you have to pay to play the game on different difficulties
- Then you have to pay to choose awesome characters, instead of the lame free characters they give you
- Then, you have to pay to to cast magic/attack/defend/etc. pretty much any move costs you money

WHAT THE HELL?!

I think it's bad enough that companies are charging for maps, etc. I think DLC is a bunch of BS to begin with.

I was really looking forward to this game....but I'm not so sure anymore.

Machzy

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I've got no problem paying for map packs for Halo, or expansion sets for Diablo or Mass Effect. I'll gladly pay extra to download the latest music tracks for Guitar Hero. If a developer comes up with something to expand my experience with a game, as long as the content is made after the game has been released (with a few exceptions), then I have no problem with it. If the company couldn't fit the content onto the storage medium for a certain system (eyes his 360), or if integrating it meant putting off the release date, then sure, I can understand that.

What I can't be understanding of is a company releasing DLC that was made at the same time as the rest of the game. It's ridiculous. You can fit it on the disk (hell, it's probably on there already), it won't cost you anything to do it, and you don't piss anybody off.

I mean, if you are gonna do that, at least have the decency to lie to us and tell us 'the new weapons haven't been made yet but once they are they will be released.' Right?

Metalhead842

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Maybe I'm making an erroneous appeal to logic, but this is the way I see it.

EA is one of the biggest companies in this industry. And yet they're charging gamers for something as simple/integral as extra weaponry. Redundant? (i.e. do they really need to do this?)

I never liked Bad Company's premise, so for me, I suppose this is just as well.

dracosummoner

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> What the hell is EA thinking? They're releasing five additional weapons completely free of charge so everyone can download them. If everyone can get them for free why not just INCLUDE THEM IN THE GAME! That way everyone doesn't have to go through the hassle of downloading something that should have come on the disc they bought. Regardless of how the other pay-to-use weapons work there's no reason not to include the five free weapons with the game.

I really dislike how EA is putting out content for purchase that should be in game in an effort to make more money. Eventually they'll just sell half finish games for full price and you'll have to pay extra to get the second half of the game.

Reddington

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Okay if you kill someone that has downloaded the weapon pack and you haven't can you still pick up their gun?

muffinsyay

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Actually, this is the most brilliantly conveived plan to squeeze every last MS buck out of the consumers pocket.

1] You make sure everyone starts out in the game world perfectly balanced.

2] You sell a license to use certain already implemented features (don't bother telling people its not actually 'Down Loadable Content' since the content is already present on the game disc)

3] Make sure the downloadable DOES unbalance the gameplay, it doesn't have to be much, but enough that either A: hardcore gamers can keep up or B: regular but persistent gamers get frustrated enough so they get tempted to buy those new weapons too.

A lot of human psychology comes into play here, regular Joe buys the license, sorry, DLC, because hey, it's only 2 dollars/euros, and the hardcore gamer gets a real run for his money.

In the end games and matches tend to balance them selves, not because of the rules set by the designer or greedy pocket filling publisher exec, but rather by the rules that gamers tend to create themselves.
Sure, there's always the cliche 14 year old that somehow needs to prove himself somehow online by ruining others games, but that's what a friend list and banning/voting is for.

Long story short, EA has some very very clever folks running around that are there just for one select group of the people, the stock holders.
Besides, if it doesn't work out the way they plan, or the game starts loosing players because of balancing issues, there's no rule or contract preventing them from releasing an update that either shuts down all those weapons or just unlocks them to everyone else aswell.

red_oddity

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Yeah, Tycho has a pretty good (if wordy) write-up on this over at Penny-Arcade. Well worth the read and summarises just why this sucks ass.

splines

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> EA has done it again--one of these dqays, they are going to hang themselves and I hope gaming in general gets better because of it. I wish enough people would stop buying their product to make a point.

oldbenway

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> i refuse to buy DLC for games. end of story. it should be free. fuck you EA fuck you M$

nevergod

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> this is sad.....good thing i don't p[lay online. Looks like I'll be burning this one. Thanx Blockbuster!

cutthroat209

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Yet another thing to add to my reasons for NEVER BUYING AN EA GAME EVER AGAIN. Thanks EA for making it so easy.

Rebelphoenix83

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> speak with your wallet and don't buy this shit

killr_klown

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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.









who cares

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Boycott games exploiting DLC.

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

Jimbo4

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I hate it when people whine about capitalism.
If it really bothers you the just don't buy the game and/or the weapons.
EA is doing exactly what they should do, marketing premium content to those who choose to buy it. If no one buys they will get the message, if lots of people buy [which is how this has gone thus far] then they are makeing money and every one wins.

It's really no different then having cable and having to pay extra for Showtime...



D1Tremere

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> This should be Dugg! fear the internet EA

KaliKOtt

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Fuck.This.Game

Pay_Me_Or_Pay_Me_No_Attention

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> That's even more lame than I initially thought...

Demaar

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> So what's it gonna cost ya?! an extra 10-15 bucks?! What is that two cups of whatever at Starbucks? luxury items people. Complain about the price, accessibility, availabity of AIDs/HIV medication in developing nations not optional game content (or gas, take the bus).

This is an issues? Please! if you are that broke you shouldn't be breakin' the bank for video games in the first place!!! Much less the additional content. They, along with the entire past-time are completely OPTIONAL. I absolutely HATE how cheap the gaming community tends to be. So many of want something for nothing. You want more content, but don't want to pay for it. Really?! Come On! Games. Cost. Money. If you don't have any then you can't play. EA (along with every other gaming company) markets and sells games to people with enough disposable income to buy them

It is a company's per0gotative to package and sell a product anyway they like, it is yours not to buy it. If you don't like how EA does business buy stock, go to a shareholders meeting and complain. If you can't afford that then don't purchase their products. Look, the only reason companies engage in microtransactions is becuase the gaming consumer overwhelmingly supports the practice (with microtransactions, not rhetoric). I for one find the idea very interesting and can afford to participate, unfortunately, most companies are stingy on the post-release content and support. Of course at today's development costs (human and monetary) who is surprised?!

dunanknute

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I have to agree too. I mean, I pay for a game, I shouldn't have to shell out a few extra quid to get all the "extras" that should be included in the game.

It wouldn't be so bad if they released the game slightly cheaper, and have the Gold edition at regular price, it wouldn't make DLC/micro-transactions seem so bad at all. But no, they'll release it at normal price with the Gold edition being more expensive than the normal version.

I hate Micro-transactions. Companies who use them should take a look at Valve's strategy. I love how I don't have to pay for updates/extras for any of their products. (apart from the console versions, but thats out of their ghands really.)

As long as EA don't try do this with Battlefield 3... I bet they do. :(

My first comment here, btw, be gentle ;)

r3n

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> wow. seriously this is complete bullshit. no further comments.

UncleScrotar

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Anyone for a raid on the EA Offices?

Pieman2

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Instead of pointing out the morality of the decisions EA makes, I think I'll just buy stock in Valve.

4sparta

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @Eville1: Nope, but thanks for asking. Oh wait, you didn't.

ErskinPig

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> And they wonder why nobody wants them to buy Take Two...

terraform

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> anti-m$
anti-m$ live marketplace
anti-m$ supporting companies like EA that share the same principles...

steliosco

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Dear EA,

Fuck you.

sincerely

-Cell9song.

Cell9song

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> FUCK YOU EA, YOU CAN SUCK MY BALLS!

MrSatan

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Fight it with your wallet. Don't buy the game and buy something else. It's about all we CAN do.

SeedyROM

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> another reason to stop buying EA games

secretcode

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> complete crap

bling1202

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> This is absolutely ridiculous. I am in the beta and if it is good, I will most likely buy the game, but there is no way in hell that I would pay extra for a weapon that was created at the same time as the game. I might pay for a pack of maps though, but not weapons.

bling1202

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Fucking bastards

Woylez

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> if you disagree with this,as i and most other people here seem to, don't buy the game. This crosses the line between harmlessly stupid microtransactions and those that compromise the integrity of the game. You wouldn't charge money for baseball players to be allowed to use more kinds of bats, would you?

Zimmbous

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> What next? Individual rounds of ammo?

Cathosach

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> This puts us one step closer to paying for ammo in FPS.

The day is coming...

Slashlen

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Oh well...now I feel better.

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

temporaryscars

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Dear EA,

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

Sincerely Your pal,
Taggart6

TaggarT6

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Everyone here is complaning about EA, well how about finally freeing up the hero and villan packs for Marvel:Ultimate Alliance Activision.

Gex

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> "Well that seals the deal. I wont buy the game PERIOD now. How's that for a micro transaction?"

=)

Tylahedras

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Fuck that! I'm not paying for 80% of a game.

Schoolimangooli the doogie mag goosie!

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> The game is free, so charging for a few guns IF you want them is no big deal.

BrainEater

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I biggest fear is that they'll pull this shit with Mass Effect 2.

Why did EA have to buy Bioware? WHY?

romBox

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @Ghede: ... Why the hell did I say that? Isn't this a console game?

My brain no-worky today.

Ghede

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Wait? So half the weapons in the game are locked? That's cold.

weasl

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> DAMN!!! just another way for EA to get that extra money

TheSlayerIsBack

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Well that seals the deal. I wont buy the game PERIOD now. How's that for a micro transaction?

parad0x360

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Non-purchase confirmed.

Tylahedras

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> either put it in the game, or don't create it at all.

Kayeliminal Antithesis

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> This is not right, there is no spin capable of convincing me otherwise. EA does this, they loose my purchase.

holy_cow

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> not cool not cool not cool

panfriedcharlie

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> I'm not buying this game because of this.

F8X

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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: Section 9 Reject

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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 reads kotaku, seems pleased

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> DLC blows. remove it from the retail release, then sell it later.

what in the fuck.

lasttimeyouaskedme

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @Daemonati: Sorry, but stupid people will never turn down the opportunity to pwn nubs for a little extra cash.

Comatose Turtle

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @demonknightinuyasha:
"Dear EA,

Please stop sucking.

Yours truly,
Gamers of the World "

THIS^^^^^^^^

I agree!!!!!

axiomatic

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Sometimes EA are decent.

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

flukielukie

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> Fuck that and fuck Bad Company.

crapsh00t

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @Doomstalk: Well played, sir.

DaPress

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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!

Syco Killer

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> @coffeeguy: But people with those additions couldn't use the things from them against people that don't have them. This just flat out unbalances the game.

uranutan

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> if you're a gamer today, you better get used to in-game advertising and microtransactions. *sigh*

frank0127

]]> <![CDATA[EA Responds to Bad Company Weapons Charge]]> 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,