Sections

EA considering adding Battlefield Premium-style service to more properties

Friday, 29th June 2012 16:58 GMT By Stephany Nunneley

EA Labels boss Frank Gibeau has said Battlefield Premium is just the start when it comes to bringing premium services to other IPs.

Speaking with GI International, Gibeau said the launch of Premium wasn’t in response to Activision’s Call of Duty: Elite, as the firm has launched subscription services through other titles as well – most notably it’s EA Sports subscription.

“We had EA Sports subscription before Elite came out, so adding that component to the design is not a reaction,” he said. “It’s something we’d always been considering and we had been looking at. We didn’t have it ready for launch and it took us some time to get it prepped. Having said that, they [Activision] did something really innovative and if your competitor does something innovative and you think it applies to what you can do, then there’s no harm in doing that.

“This is an industry where people have a lot of oneupsmanship and if somebody innovates, you match it or you exceed it.”

Gibeau said EA’s Premium service is superior to Elite, and the firm is researching other properties where the service may be a good fit.

“We actually think our Premium service exceeds what Elite does – from a value standpoint, from a content standpoint, and longer term we think that we can bring more properties into that offering and that’ll be great for the business,” he said.

Latest

61 Comments

  1. Giskard

    For what it’s worth, Premium for Battlefield 3 is quite nice. Gives me all the DLC (which I would’ve bought anyway) for a reduced price in total, as well as some other bonuses. For avid Battlefield players, it was a great addition.

    However, since they have already added this premium service to their 2 major franchises, what else can they add it to?

    #1 3 years ago
  2. Fin

    Man Activision just want to suck the money out of everyone don’t they. They suck. CoD sucks. Etc etc.

    Oh, wait…

    #2 3 years ago
  3. freedoms_stain

    tbh, if I was EA I’d be looking to getting some customer confidence back first and foremost.

    They promised so much with BF3 (really to the point of lying) and failed to deliver, thus I have not purchased BF3 Premium, and will not be doing so until I know exactly what is going to be in the remaining 3 expansions, because tbh Close Quarters looks like garbage and another 3 expansions like that I may as well use the £40 as toilet paper.

    #3 3 years ago
  4. Ireland Michael

    @3 1) Just because you weren’t impressed with Battlefield 3 doesn’t mean they “failed to deliver” for most fans. Considering the number of custom servers running right now and premium accounts sold, the customers seem perfectly happy.

    2) So you haven’t actually played the maps, yet you think they’re garbage? I’ll admit promotional videos haven’t done much to show off their strengths, but they’re pretty huge maps, and just as enjoyable as the existing ones.

    3) You do realise the other expansions are going to have different themes to them, right? Armoured Assault, for instance, will be focused on vehicle warfare and large, outdoor maps. So comparing them is kinda redundant.

    #4 3 years ago
  5. ManuOtaku

    Well i will get all the maps, but i dont plan to get premium i dont know why?, i did purchase close combats and back to karkland when they did release, but not this package, maybe is because i was under the false asumption that it will be something like COD elite, which i dont own either, because for me both are schemes to get more money without little or not value added at all, at least in my eyes.

    #5 3 years ago
  6. Ireland Michael

    @5 The cost of the maps combined is significantly lower than buying them individually, even if you don’t included Back to Karkand.

    #6 3 years ago
  7. freedoms_stain

    @4, they claimed BF3 would be a true successor to BF2, this is clearly false. They claimed PC was the lead platform then kept it quiet that the focus had been switched to console until after the game came out.

    Those figures represent <10% sellthrough from BF3 total sales – and that's going on an old figure of 10M.

    I haven't played the maps, but I'm subscribed to plenty of BF3 YouTubers and seen enough footage to have formed a perfectly valid opinion. The fact that they haven't bothered to fix the horrendous random spawning system that has been the subject of complaint since SQDM in BC2 is also pretty high on my list of reasons to avoid CQ.

    I don't see how it is redundant, I think if they can release one completely uninteresting expansion pack they're perfectly capable of releasing 3 more. I'll admit Armoured Kill looks reasonably interesting, but the details on Aftermath and End Game are practically non-existent. If one or both of those ends up being primarily or completely infantry focused then they are of minimal interest to me.

    @6, is £8 significant?

    #7 3 years ago
  8. ManuOtaku

    #6 Ireland i know that, but when i first heard of this package i had the false idea that it was like COD elite, therefore i dismiss it, now that i got the two expansions i think is not worth it to get it, but i got the wrong idea since the very beginning

    #8 3 years ago
  9. Ireland Michael

    @7 “they claimed BF3 would be a true successor to BF2, this is clearly false.”

    An opinion isn’t a fact. It can’t be true or false.

    #9 3 years ago
  10. freedoms_stain

    @9, And I’m not sure how much credence to give yours on this matter given your 18 hours 9 minutes of BF3 game time, especially since it appears you spent most of that on the spawn screen, and on xbox at that.

    #10 3 years ago
  11. Ireland Michael

    @10 Lawl @ format snobbery.

    #11 3 years ago
  12. OrbitMonkey

    @10, Oh snap!! *munches popcorn*

    #12 3 years ago
  13. Ireland Michael

    @12 Not sure where he’s getting his numbers from, but they’re wrong.

    #13 3 years ago
  14. roadkill

    And why not? It’s a good type of product. It offers all the DLC at a lower price. For those who wants to buy all the DLC of course.

    *for the record: I do not own Battlefield Premium nor do intend to buy it.

    #14 3 years ago
  15. Giskard

    @10 I have 200+ hours played, and I consider this to be a very good followup to Battlefield 2. Just because they released a DLC with infantry based maps, does not make it less Battlefield. I love blowing off some steam on the smaller maps, like Scrapmetal, and then just go back to the bigger maps for some vehicle mayhem. To each his own, I guess, but Dice did deliver what they promised.

    #15 3 years ago
  16. DSB

    I’d give them a B.

    BF3 is a great game, but the focus seems to have been to switch to DLC as fast as possible, more than polishing the game to a standard of something like BF2.

    That’s something that really matters to me, and I think that’s part of what freedoms_stain is getting at too. If you invest yourself in a competitive shooter, then even the tiniest flaws become pretty apparent, and those really matter in the long term.

    The most long lasting shooters also tend to be the best polished ones. I think they could’ve done a much better job of that with BF3.

    #16 3 years ago
  17. G1GAHURTZ

    EIGHTEEN HOURS!?

    LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

    #17 3 years ago
  18. Ireland Michael

    @17 Like I said, I’ve no idea where he’s getting his figures from, because they certainly aren’t accurate.

    http://raptr.com/MichaelOConnor/wall – Most Played > All (15 of those hours were in this month alone)

    And that’s with roughly 5 month gap of not playing between most of January – May, because of lolrealliferesponsiblities.

    #18 3 years ago
  19. G1GAHURTZ

    Sooooo….

    What does that have to do with hours played online?

    #19 3 years ago
  20. Ireland Michael

    @9 Okay, you can take about 4 hours off for the single-player.

    I don’t play the game unless my fellow squad members are online.

    Edit: Actually, looking at the achievements, none of the single-player ones are time-stamped.

    #20 3 years ago
  21. JimFear-666

    that was something to expect. EA are a bunch of scumbags who want so much our money that they sell us unfinished shity game with tons of dlc.

    #21 3 years ago
  22. G1GAHURTZ

    Hmmm…

    Doesn’t Battlelog have all the accurate stats?

    #22 3 years ago
  23. Ireland Michael

    @22 Apparently not, because it’s wrong. I’ve played 15 hours this month alone.

    Mind you, my Battlelog in-game wasn’t updating on new unlocks or anything for the last month either, until yesterday when it magically started working again. Buggy piece of shit.

    #23 3 years ago
  24. roadkill

    “Doesn’t Battlelog have all the accurate stats?” “Apparently not” Sure Michael. Sure.

    edit: You must be getting really bored. I mean why else would you be here? Don’t get me wrong, we don’t expect everyone to have hundreds of hours game time (I’m on 477 btw) but 15 hours? Really?

    #24 3 years ago
  25. Ireland Michael

    @24 15 this month (mainly thanks to the new DLC). 61 in total. That’s in about 3 months of potential playtime (was out of the country for half of this year without access to the Xbox), so I’d average it out at about 2 hours every 3 days.

    My Battlelog says 31 hours, but that’s even more confusing, as freedom said it was only 18 hours. No idea where he got that number from.

    Win ratio is about 0.8 to 1. We’ve had some pretty bad form the last month especially. One of our best squad players has been off playing SWTOR, the traitor. Before that it was around 1.5 to 1.

    Not really sure what the obsession with my scores has to do with anything though, to be honest.

    #25 3 years ago
  26. freedoms_stain

    I got O’Connors stats here http://bf3stats.com/stats_360/Words%20of%20Ivory and at that time it showed 18 hours, rank 15, it appears to have updated now to 31 hours rank 21.

    Battlelog will only not update if you play on unranked servers.

    And the initial point was that you appear to have barely played any BF3, therefore what do your opinions of it mean to me? The fact that you’re not very good at the game didn’t come into it.

    #26 3 years ago
  27. Ireland Michael

    And yet clearly I have.

    #27 3 years ago
  28. freedoms_stain

    Clearly you have what? 31 hours is still not a lot, and mentioning xbox was no kind of snobbery, you have no direct comparison to BF2 because you’re not playing the relevant version of the game.

    #28 3 years ago
  29. Ireland Michael

    @28 The “relevant” version of the game? What does that even mean?

    Again, 31 hours isn’t accurate. My play time is at least double that. Apologies for having a life and responsibilities outside of video games that don’t allow me hundreds of hours of free time to play one single game.

    Though I do have to laugh at the suggestion that someone can’t make a valid assessment on a game without a few dozen hours of playtime. Heck, someone can make a valid assessment of something’s quality within a few hours. That’s exactly,how they judge whether it’s worth continuing with or not.

    #29 3 years ago
  30. freedoms_stain

    @29, never said anything about the quality, I said they made promises they didn’t deliver on.

    Yeah, you can’t make an assessment of BF3 in a few hours because it takes many hours to unlock enough stuff to enable you to actually experience anything like enough of the game to actually build that assessment.

    That’s partly why I have 161 hours on the game. I bought it based on the history of the brand and the promises Dice made to deliver a direct sequel to BF2 and not another Bad Company game. It hasn’t lived up to those promises in my opinion.

    #30 3 years ago
  31. Ireland Michael

    @30 > Thinks game is of inferior quality
    > Plays 161 hours of it

    Lawl.

    Continuing to support a game you think is worse than the previous ones isn’t going to send any sort of relevant message to DICE or E.A. If anything, that’ll just encourage more laziness.

    #31 3 years ago
  32. freedoms_stain

    @31, have you forgotten how this conversation started? Looks like it.

    #32 3 years ago
  33. OlderGamer

    Only 161hours! Pft. Over 300hrs here, and I am not even a big fan lol.

    I enjoyed the bad co games more then BF3.

    #33 3 years ago
  34. Lounds

    BF series is a PC game, wish xbox/ps3 users stay out of this.

    #34 3 years ago
  35. G1GAHURTZ

    LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!!!

    Some highlights from O’Connor’s BF3 combat stats:

    Kills 742
    Deaths 1802
    K/D Ratio 0.412

    Shots 84 254
    Hits 5 115
    Accuracy 6.07%

    I’m not quite sure why anyone would want someone as abysmal at the game as this as a squad mate, other than out of pity.

    I’d have thought that SIX POINT ZERO SEVEN PERCENT accuracy would be very difficult to get without actually spending time intentionally shooting into the sky or something.

    And according to that page, 98% of people who’ve played the game have a better k/d!

    Top (more like bottom) 89% for ‘Skill’ as well, eh?

    Oh dear…

    31 hours (and 29 in the SP or in the menus) of complete uselessness.

    #35 3 years ago
  36. Ireland Michael

    Someone has serious superiority complex issues.

    #36 3 years ago
  37. G1GAHURTZ

    You’re useless at the game, O’Connor!

    Even the game is telling you that you have no skill!! LOOOOOOL!!!

    You’re no authority on this game, whatsoever, because you’re clearly completely pathetic at it.

    How in the world did you manage that accuracy stat??

    #37 3 years ago
  38. Ireland Michael

    Such a hate filled, ego driven human being.

    So sad.

    #38 3 years ago
  39. G1GAHURTZ

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

    #39 3 years ago
  40. OrbitMonkey

    Well in all fairness to Ireland, even though his stats may not be the best, he still defends the game. Anybody else would have quit long ago, saying how crap the game was…

    Obviously his a huge masochist… Probably plays in a gimp suit ;-)

    #40 3 years ago
  41. G1GAHURTZ

    …even though his stats may not be the best, he still defends the game.

    Well, you know how the saying goes…

    ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend.’

    #41 3 years ago
  42. Lounds

    he probably plays support, so what.

    #42 3 years ago
  43. OlderGamer

    How bad are my stats? I tried to make the website find my stats, but all I got where anoldergamer 360 found, please wait type thing. It looked like it hung on me, because it just sat there for 10 – 15 mins. I would like to know how bad I was at the game. I mean I played a lot of hours, and once in awhile I even won a round. But mostly I was middle to bottom.

    At this point I am tired of the genere. No, not because I suck. I played the same way when I bought Battlefield Modern Combat, BF Bad co, and BF bad co II. And I still bought BF3. That was the trouble tho. I have already played these things to death. I just can’t do it any more. Gets old ya know?

    But if anyone can link my page/stats let me know. thnx.

    #43 3 years ago
  44. G1GAHURTZ

    Your stats are there, OG.

    No matter how bad you might think you are, your stats are obviously much better than O’Connor’s in just about every category.

    http://bf3stats.com/stats_360/anoldergamer

    #44 3 years ago
  45. OlderGamer

    When the game first launched I played with Mike, and yeah he did run a lot of support. But even if he completly sucks…so what? If I recall, Mike was about my skill level at the time. His friend on the other hand was a freaken machine… insane skill.

    But just throw out the notion that a player has to be good at a game to enjoy. And also that if a player is bad, he/she automaticly hates the game too. I have games I stink at and love em(like 2D fighters)(I look and feel great in the training room!). I also don’t like games that am very good at(I can play Astro-Pop with the best of em, Zuma too), but I don’t particularly enjoy those games. I play em with my wife when she sits down to play.

    To be honest, it kind of speaks volumes about a gamers core if thier skill at a game determines the games value to them. Would they rather play a bad game where they could dominate or instead a great game that they were dominated in? Kind of piety.

    A good game is a good game me thinks. And my skills ain’t what they used to be.

    #45 3 years ago
  46. OlderGamer

    Great G1GA, thnx.

    Not as bad as i would have guessed.

    Two things that stand out:

    Vehicles destroyed 53 108 27%. I am in the top 1/3rd at taking out vehicles, nice. I hate those damn things, hunting them were half the reason I played.

    and secondly, it clocks me in at 171 hrs played. but my system, the last time I checked(admitedly months ago) was 321 I believe.

    Amazing amount if stats on those pages.

    #46 3 years ago
  47. G1GAHURTZ

    I don’t know how they work out the hours played, but it could simply be the hours actually spent in-game, as opposed to in he menus.

    I know that there’s a difference like this on CoD. On the main menu screen, it has one number of hours played, but in the stats menu, the number is almost always less.

    I can only assume that one timer is recording in-game time, and the other is recording being in MP mode altogether, including being in menus and lobbies.

    They need the in-game timer for things like when you get a 2 hour double XP token or something. If you left your game on in the menus, and it disappeared, I don’t think many people would be very happy about it.

    #47 3 years ago
  48. Ireland Michael

    @45 1) I know I’m not bad at the game.

    Until the recent horrible custom server focus, we were winning twice as many matches as we played, frequently near the top of the leaderboard, and consistently winning the Ace Squad ribbon

    The new setup is horrible though, and people are abusing the fuck out of it with ludicrously high ticket counts that make certain game modes completely unbalanced to one side. They really need to get that shit sorted out soon.

    2) The stats on that site are completely innaccurate. My personal battlelog is showing a 25% accuracy. Not spectacular, but then again, bullets don’t magically stick to people in Battlefield like they do is certain other FPS games…

    3) That beast was probably Stan. He’s Asian. Gaming stereotypes for the win!

    #48 3 years ago
  49. Christopher Jack

    I like BF3, but the servers are so fucking awful it’s fucking ridiculous, I’ve had about a dozen games & maybe only one allowed me to play all the way through, & according to my Battlelog stats, I have a K/D ratio of 0.36 & 0.0% accuracy, which is just not true… http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/IAmChris2Pher/stats/206792268/

    #49 3 years ago
  50. G1GAHURTZ

    My personal battlelog is showing a 25% accuracy. Not spectacular…

    Wow, you really don’t have a clue, do you?

    If ever a stat was wrong, it’s one that says that you, O’Connor, are 25% accurate. No one who regularly uses any sort of automatic weapon is going to get much more than 20%.

    That would mean that one in every four bullets that you fire, hits the target.

    The only people with that level of accuracy are pro players who only ever snipe, and boosters who spend hours headshotting each other to unlock a cammo.

    This guy is one of the best FPS players that I know, and look at his stats compared to yours: http://bf3stats.com/stats_360/Tam1

    Indeed, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a legit accuracy rating that high, so try again, O’Connor.

    #50 3 years ago
  51. OrbitMonkey

    I haven’t played BF3 in awhile, but here’s my stats anyway :-P

    http://bf3stats.com/stats_ps3/OrbitMonkey

    #51 3 years ago
  52. freedoms_stain

    Battlelog shows O’Connors Accuracy at 10.9%, I dunno where he got 25% from. The difference between BF3stats and Battlelog will be that one includes vehicle accuracy and one does not.

    Anyhoo, since we’re waving our E-peens around http://bf3stats.com/stats_pc/freedoms_stain

    A suggestion to other players, the reason you’re getting owned is probably down to not using everything BF3 gives you to your advantage. Pay attention to the minimap, pay attention to the 3D spotting, pay attention to where friendlies are dying and use your ears – if you can hear gun fire or tank fire off in one direction and there are no smurf indicators over there, chances are: bad guy.

    If you look at my stats you’ll see I didn’t get them by being a camping little shit, I’m an active player, my objective score is plenty healthy and I got more Flag Attacker and Defender ribbons than O’Connor and OG combined despite the fact that OG actually has 10 hours of game time on me.

    #52 3 years ago
  53. G1GAHURTZ

    Freedoms, you’re the antithesis of O’Connor, being in the top 2% for skill, and the top 4% for k/d.

    Some pretty solid stats there…

    #53 3 years ago
  54. OlderGamer

    Freedom, lol, I play on Hardcore mode friend. None of that 3d rader/motion tracker mini map crap for me. Just saying. I also focus on Vehicles. I have an explosive fetish! C4 sticky bombs, mount them on a Jeep and hunt enimy tanks, loved doing that. Not to mention the whole Mine/Rocket thing.

    Meaning I prolly play different then most. That was one of the things I enjoyed about the franchise compared to other OMP shooters. The game felt like an active battlefield. I had the freedom of choice on what to do and how to do it. I didn’t often follow the pack roaming from cap point to cap point. I just didn’t enjoy that.

    Its prolly why my win/loss was so low. That and my games also often included a couple of kids that were nearly clueless with the strategy. I was the best player in a group of 6 or 7 of us. That didn’t help, as i am not a great player. Average at best.

    Bagh, lol, I am not gonna sit here and make excuses for my stats in a video game. Crazy. :)

    It is what it is. I got my moneys worth out of the game. I enjoyed it for a long while. Not every game can you get that many hours out of.

    #54 3 years ago
  55. Giskard

    Freedom, chillax.

    http://bf3stats.com/stats_pc/Edeene

    I still love the game. Even CQ.

    #55 3 years ago
  56. G1GAHURTZ

    Erthazus?

    Stats.

    #56 3 years ago
  57. Ireland Michael

    @52 That’s just what I see on my screen. My battlelog has been fucked for weeks, like I said. So if people see 10%, fair dues to them.

    Although now I can definitely say I understand what my parents were talking about when they talked about the egos of children regarding adults.

    #57 3 years ago
  58. G1GAHURTZ

    Good argument, O’Connor…

    If I ever decide to pretend to be some sort of expert on a subject, and someone points out that I’m actually one of the worst practitioners of that subject that ever lived, I’ll just claim that they’re being egotistic.

    …or maybe not.

    No.

    That’s actually a stupid argument.

    #58 3 years ago
  59. Ireland Michael

    I never pretended or even claimed to be any sort of “expert” on anything, you conceited moron. I just shared my opinion of the maps.

    #59 3 years ago
  60. G1GAHURTZ

    Oh yes you did, you great big two left thumbed, hypocritical, barefaced lying noob.

    ‘Oh, look at me, I’ve got a measly old 25% accuracy because BF3 is much harder than CoD.’

    What a clown.

    Got any more lies for us today?

    #60 3 years ago
  61. Christopher Jack

    Ppl going crazy over stats, gaming is for entertainment, not flexing your E-peen…

    #61 3 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.