EA considering adding Battlefield Premium-style service to more properties

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?

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

Oh, wait…

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 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.

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

@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?

#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

@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, 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 Lawl @ format snobbery.

@10, Oh snap!! *munches popcorn*

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

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.

@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.

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.

EIGHTEEN HOURS!?

LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!

@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.

Sooooo….

What does that have to do with hours played online?

@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.

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.

Hmmm…

Doesn’t Battlelog have all the accurate stats?

@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.

“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 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.

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.

And yet clearly I have.

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

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

I enjoyed the bad co games more then BF3.

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

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.

Someone has serious superiority complex issues.

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??

Such a hate filled, ego driven human being.

So sad.

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

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

“…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.’

he probably plays support, so what.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

@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!

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/

“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.