Battlefield 4 Premium detailed: five map packs planned through summer 2014
EA has detailed exactly what you'll get with the $50 Battlefield 4 Premium subscription.
EA has detailed exactly what you'll get with the $50 Battlefield 4 Premium subscription. In addition to the requisite map packs included with membership come a number of other benefits, including unique personalization options (in the form of camos, paints, emblems, dogtags, etc), as well as priority position in server queues. Members also receive 12 bonus Battlepacks, which contain random drops of XP boosts, gun attachments, knives, and more.
Of course, while the perks are undoubtedly appreciated, the real reason to buy Premium is to access the game's map packs. As before, Premium members will get a head start over non-members, getting two weeks of early access.
Here's the schedule for the game's five planned map packs:
- Second Assault — Includes four fan-favorite Battlefield 3 maps now re-imagined with the power of Frostbite 3. Available first on Xbox One.
- China Rising — Players fight for dominance across the vast and majestic Chinese mainland. Available December 2013.
- Naval Strike — Experience dynamic ocean combat as the Chinese armada takes the fight to the sea. Available Spring 2014.
- Dragon's Teeth — The US strikes back engaging in all-out urban warfare. Available Summer 2014.
- Final Stand — Bring the war to its epic conclusion. Available Summer 2014.
Finally, the Battlefield 4 multiplayer beta will start in early October, and will be exclusive to owners of Battlefield 3 Premium. An open beta will follow afterwards, closer to the game's October 29th launch.
-
Shacknews
replyAndrew Yoon posted a new article, Battlefield 4 Premium detailed: five map packs planned through summer 2014.
EA has detailed exactly what you'll get with the $50 Battlefield 4 Premium subscription.-
-
Maybe at first glance, but I played Battlefield 1942 for many years and if I like the game enough the additional $50 would be easily worth it. If I don't really care for it, I'll just buy a la carte or not at all.
-
BF1942 had a couple of expansions that were $20 or $30 a piece also if I remember correctly. So the Premium thing is really no different than what they have always done just branded differently.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
I would do this in two seconds.
-
I love Ben's response to this: http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/battlefield-4s-premium-service-makes-us-tired-of-the-game-before-its-been-r
Maybe I’m a pessimist, but my reaction to all this bullshit is to simply skip the game. If you don’t pay extra, you’ll be entering the new content against a crowd of people who already know the maps, have been playing them for two weeks, and get to jump right into the servers instead of waiting in line with those of us who don’t think you need to subscribe to a fucking service to play a first-person shooter.
You’re basically pre-ordering content sight-unseen, and paying for the right to be treated like a paying customer. The game isn’t even out yet, and EA is already pumping players for more money, and creating a tiered system where some people are simply paying for advantage.-
[deleted]
-
I don't quite understand that reaction. If you don't pay extra, you won't see those maps at all, having a two week wait still means you're buying them eventually. They aren't giving those extra maps up for free.
You can still get the base game and ignore all extra DLC fluff if you want. Though we don't know how many maps are in the vanilla game as of yet. Would be unfortunate of there's even less locales than BF3.-
I agree with the hate on promoting additional content before the game is even out, dislike that approach across the board.
Just didn't quite grasp - If you don’t pay extra, you’ll be entering the new content against a crowd of people who already know the maps, have been playing them for two weeks
When if you don't pay extra, you won't be entering that new content at all. -
having a two week wait still means you're buying them eventually
That's his point. Assuming the map is good enough to own (since they killed modding of course), he would like to pick it up, but he'll be weeks behind other players in learning it.
I went with the base game for BF3, once the extra stuff came out, I was pretty alone. It's all a moot point to me right now, I refuse to fund EA anymore, so no BF4. -
I don't understand the negative reaction either. If you love Battlefield, then the expansion packs will be well worth your money. If you don't like Battlefield, don't buy the game or just play the vanilla experience like (I'm sure) many other will. Criticizing DICE/EA for supporting their game with additional content just sounds silly.
-
-
well they are creating this "scarcity" of player space. your favorite server full? only premium members can skip the waiting line... levelling up too slowly? premium players get bonus XP...
regarding the content, that's no different from waiting to play the same base package. if you have two non premium players, each buys the basic game offering, and one plays immediately and the other delays two weeks, you are still going to experience disorientation while everyone else knows the killzones and cover spots.
paying for an advantage? no, not really. LOTS of people I know can use the default stuff, join a month late, and still wipe the floor with most pubbie server scrubs. it's really no different from any other game. in world of tanks you can have a pay-to-get-advantage player still suck horribly, and a normal player can embarrass them with a shitty tank and shitty crew.
the deal is this: if people want to pay for an advantage, FINE. but what Ben needs to not assume is that it actually does anything in practice in the game.-
[deleted]
-
-
He thinks their squad mode is neat: http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/squad-mode-will-let-call-of-duty-ghosts-fan-play-online-without-fear-of-ass
And as there's no early-access to pre-order DLC he thinks Activision is playing better with its customers than EA.-
-
No early access
-
-
It is the entire point to the author, which is what Downforce was talking about. Ben doesn't have a problem with DLC (though he does have a problem with pre-ordering DLC: http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/the-last-of-us-when-pre-order-bonuses-may-hurt-your-enjoyment-of-a-game "Think of all those sad bastards out there with Colonial Marines season passes, just kind of hanging out and hating themselves for wasting the money."). But if it gives 'unfair' access to content before others, he will point that out.
Of course, if you're already in on BF4 then his point is moot to you.-
That makes less sense. If you pay for things and get them immediately (or early access), that makes him MORE mad than if you prepay and don't get it until later?
That's... "unfair" ??? Actually no, Ben, no it isn't. You are actually getting what you paid for... right now. He has a lot to rethink.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Expansions traditionally have way more content than just maps and boosts.
-
Expansion packs used to be ~$20, and there generally was only one maybe two over several years. This is $50 for a single year.
-
I remember buying expansions packs with an SP campaign and MP for like $30 15 years ago. Content is more expensive to make and I never felt like the true cost of of ownership was $50 for the game + $30 for the expansion for a total of $80. What's the difference? You know about the expansion now ahead of time. Look at blizzard and starcraft. People complain that SC2 is a rip off because it doesn't include the expansions they know would cover after the base game ships. Had the game cam out as KometKraft 1 from a different company with no expansion announced ahead of time people wouldn't have been upset.
-
-
-
That is indeed a problem. However BL2 did a good job I thought of capturing customer money up front sight unseen for future content, inflating the base game cost..... but did it deliver the value to consumers?
that's the main issue. is the VALUE there for that money?? in my opinion the answer is yes. same with BF3. it extended the game and added lots of content. it's not like in MW2 where you pay $20 for like 3 maps. That's where we need to focus is when you pay money and it's honestly very little value.
I do agree that $110 is some serious sticker shock up front. however, amortized over the life of the game... is it WORTH it? how many hours do you get out of the base game, then out of each subsequent premium addition? it might be well worth it.-
[deleted]
-
sure it did. I had several coop friends that didn't get it. fractured. and that's been the case since road to rome in BF1942. it will always be that way, as games add more content. some people will get it. some won't.
so do we want shorter games that have no additional content, so the playerbase will never be fractured? or do we want to extend the games as people see fit? some people might have already migrated to another game, and just don't care about additional content. that's fine.
the main thing is that people consume games so quickly now, additional content roadmaps are almost essential. the devs/pubs are saying up front that yes, there is going to be more to this game. is that good, or bad?
-
-
-
I don't really understand you guys. I just buy the base game and don't buy DLC. If I don't feel the base game is worth the price of they sell the base game then I don't buy that either. So basically I pay for stuff that I think is worth it, and then I move on.
I don't understand the whole "true cost of ownership is $110" If you didn't buy the season pass it's not $110. The base price is the same with or without DLC. If they didn't make any DLC ever the base price would still be the base price and the base game would still be the same base game. I don't think they made 32 finished maps and then just removed 16 of them and split the rest up into DLC. And even if they did if the base product isn't worth the base price, do not buy it.
I think what is going on here is people are just broken in a way that is convenient for the seller. When people find out that there are extras, the got to collect them all hack kicks in and they feel they HAVE to pay more to have it all to have a "complete thing" It doesn't really matter what the extras are or how much of the thing they already have. It's the achievement whore thing or the item set thing. Many people just have that gene where they can't help feel compelled to get everything. So when a game has more stuff to buy they feel compelled to buy it, and then complain that it's too expensive and they are being ripped off. Had the extra content never been developed in the first place they would happy as a clam as there wouldn't feel they HAVE to HAVE and BUY something that doesn't even exist and the base product wouldn't feel incomplete because there would be no more content.
16 map base content sound fine to them until there are 16 more maps out over the next year, then suddenly they were ripped off.-
[deleted]
-
But if they never made it I am 100% sure that most people wouldn't say the base price was a rip off for lack of content.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
If games are a service, the person who bought the base game have their experience degraded a little with every map pack (assuming they don't want to add more DLC).
Access to other players is really what you're paying for. Or, at least, that's true for me. If Dota2 had a new queue that only players who'd bought an expansion would have access to, I'd suddenly be getting a way crappier experience on average.-
You're right it does fracture the community a bit. But usually the community for the base game is much much bigger than the community that has DLC.
Still I stand by if the base game isn't worth the base price, don't buy it. I think the base game is worth the base price. (besides all the origin BS)-
That's totally true. I guess I think that expansions should be super generous whenever it's a multiplayer game. Relatively cheap, lots of content, and a low profit margin. It should be such a good deal that anyone actively playing would be silly not to pick it up.
Which isn't really the case with CoD or BF these days.-
I wish they made no extra content so I don't have to hear the bitching and moaning.
-
For games that come out every year or two, that's probably the best option. Stick your new content in the new game, we all know it's coming.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I think it's actually a good thing. It announces transparency as to the total deliverables of the game.
Instead of like MW2 and people getting fidgety and angry, then they announce ANOTHER MAP PACK YAY WE LOVE OUR FANS.... oh ok so you are going to nickel and dime us forever. Great.
no, I'd rather have insight as to the entire deliverables up front. I prefer it now like how BL2 did it. You can prepay and buy the base game, or you can prepay for the extra goodies.
with BF3, we knew what the lifespan was. That's a good thing, in my opinion, as opposed to "surprise! another expansion! hopefully everyone will buy it!" people with the base game can truck right along. people with premium got a ton of extra stuff over time. the choice is up to the consumer, and it's almost refreshing to know that when new shit comes out, I GET IT.
-
-
-
$110+ for our games now. Ouch.
-
That is only the price for those that are impatient or unwilling to wait. More than likely a complete bundle with game and expansions will be released for a more sensible price. About 6 or 8 months after Premium was released there were Premium editions that had everything for $60 and then priced dropped to $39.
-
[deleted]
-
My point is there is nothing forcing you to buy it at that price.
-
[deleted]
-
I get why people don't like it. You have to realize its a perception problem. BF1942 had two expansion packs (Road to Rome ($20) , Secret Weapons of WWII ($30). BF2 had Special Forces ($30) and two boosters $10 a piece. When you look at it this way the game price for the total package hasn't really changed.
-
-
-
-
-
-
If I want everything, do I buy the digital deluxe + premium or will the standard + premium have everything already?
-
-
So basically anyone who buys the base game three months after release will have less people to play with in a multiplayer game. BF3 premium and the separate map packs splintered the pool of people to game with.
-
which is no different from back in the day when we bought expansion packs to our multiplayer games
-
Correct. But you only see metro populated enough from the base maps nowadays. No one wants to play seine, etc.
To be honest the maps in BF3 overall took a step back from prior BF editions.
-
-
It sucks, and I think it's a really backwards looking way to monetize content. Valve does this stuff better. Don't splinter the community just to make a short term profit.
-
I believe the difference here is that Valve is on the PC and rarely has it ported the awesome MP games over to console. When you have a multi-platform game like this is, you have to have it standardized. No longer does the community get to make maps like the did in the Source expansion games with Valve like CS, DoD, and TF. Whenever Valve did release something they made, you paid for it. Why is this a surprise for the Battlefield franchise? You can still pick and choose the expansion stuff later when it comes out, but you can purchase it for less plus a crap ton of other extras for only $50.
BF3 came out in Nov of 2011...still has a HUGE amount of players and many are premium, but many aren't... It's not any different this go around and I relate better to this than I do anything the CoD franchise does as Battlefield actually releases NEW games...not reboots with some different paint.-
You're incorrect about it being only Valve who allows the community to mod their games.
Just from the last year: Shadowrun Returns, Gunpoint, FTL, Natural Selection 2, Saint's Row 4, Dead Island, ARMA 3, Star Citizen (Starting this week!!!!), Trackmania 2, Magica, Torchlight 2
List of games with full community mod support.-
That's fine, but not all of them have console games and the developer is no longer producing maps to release. If they did, they would sell them. Just like Valve did for Half-life.
-
-
-
-
Might be a few less but it's nothing to really worry about. I still see tons of full vanilla servers to this day for bf3
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Exactly what I did with bf3 and its still fun enough for me even though I'm far behind on levels and game experience. But if you're a competitive gamer, you're not going to wait.
-
-
Any info if they improved upon the abysmal admin tools that BF3 had? The fact you couldn't switch directly to a map but had to cycle through them was atrocious.
-
Someone must have improved them already for BF3. There have been servers for a long while now with every map from the game and DLC in rotation and mid-round map voting. Can go directly to the map that wins the vote without cycling through them all.
I assume if that's doable, forcing a specific map is also a thing that can be done now. But I could be wrong!
-
-
EA never stop being EA.
-
-
-
I'd rather they just said it's 110$ for everyone. It's certainly worth it on PC, judging from BF3 anyway.. the only downside is the 'premium' servers that your friends can't join if they don't pony up.
New content every few months helps keep people interested, but what good is it if it fragments the community.
-
