• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

EA and Visceral Games Announce Battlefield Hardline Premium

I'll probably get lambasted for saying this but considering how weapons have been added for BF3 and 4 via post release DLCs I would have no problem if Hardline Premium offered exclusive weapons for those willing to pay for it.
I would be ok with this as well if the weapon is a concept and the game has plenty of choices even without it.
DBZ: Xenoverse's first DLC pack is three characters and GT events. You still get all the DBZ characters and events on disc. Having future DLC to support different story arcs and characters is totally fine to me.
I see it much like Mario Kart 8's first DLC pack: you lose nothing with them adding karts and tracks.

I think the main issue is they should have announced this after the game has came out.
Announcing it way before makes it seem like they planned this in advance.
Please people play the game first before purchasing this. You do not want to get stuck with it if the game turns out bad.
 
Maybe I missed it being clarified in this thread, but they said those premium exclusive masks have unique gameplay benefits. Who cares about locking away cosmetic stuff, but stuff that impacts gameplay? Boo.

I wish one of the benefits was just 'Unlock everything'. If you're going to spend extra money, it would be nice if they didn't still waste your time.

Oh, and Server queues? What the hell is that?
 
Why is the idea of brand loyalty sad? A company puts out a product you love, so you're more likely to be more interested or more trusting in their next one. I have friends who have said as much re: BF, but it applies to electronics (hello, Apple), movies, cars, etc.

You're assuming that, because people have preordered this or are interested in premium, they have done zero research and are blindly throwing down money. There is at least some level of calculation involved, especially given that we've now had two betas and a lot of players have gotten their hands on the game.

Lots of people know about the server issues, but lots of people also know about DICE/EA's efforts to make amends with their customers, as well. For some, it's not enough--I'm still doubtful and this is the first BF game I haven't preordered in a long time. But for others, who STILL play BF4 today, it's perfectly understandable and not "sad" that they feel like the risk is worth the reward.

Do you really think any corporation, especially EA, deserves brand loyalty? Isn't this the same company that has been caught not paying employees for overtime and been listed as one of the worst places to work in America year after year? Yeah, it makes total sense to blindly purchase their games without question especially when a broken entry in the Battlefield franchise was recently released. These corporations don't care about you, just your wallet, so I find it odd that people are willing to lay down and take whatever they throw at their feet. EA doesn't deserve my trust and neither does Activision with all the shenanigans they both pull.

Every retailer you go to tries to force pre-order crap on you so don't give me the 'every consumer has done their research' argument because for every neogaf member that reads up on games, there's 10 soccer moms being exploited by what I personally see as shady business practices. DLC in itself isn't bad, however, I have a HUGE problem with announcing content before the game launches which essentially tells the consumer they need to pay $100+ for the full experience. I also wouldn't be surprised if most, if not all, of this planned DLC could be fit on the disc and shipped out at launch but is instead being held back to increase sales due to rising development costs. You can call me paranoid/delusional, I don't really care.
 
I would be ok with this as well if the weapon is a concept and the game has plenty of choices even without it.
DBZ: Xenoverse's first DLC pack is three characters and GT events. You still get all the DBZ characters and events on disc. Having future DLC to support different story arcs and characters is totally fine to me.
I see it much like Mario Kart 8's first DLC pack: you lose nothing with them adding karts and tracks.

I think the main issue is they should have announced this after the game has came out.
Announcing it way before makes it seem like they planned this in advance.
Please people play the game first before purchasing this. You do not want to get stuck with it if the game turns out bad.

Eh, that's exactly what a season pass entails.
 

Tubie

Member
I do agree this was a wasted opportunity by EA on gaining a lot of goodwill from the costumers. They could've just taken the hit and made Premium free for current BF4 Premium users or something similar.

As of right now, my biggest fear and reservation with Premium is the game dying off population wise before the later DLCs arrive.

I know a lot of friends who will just stick to BF4 till Battlefront.
 
I just don't see Hardline having much in the way of a "thriving population" once Battlefront comes out. True, they aren't quite the same game. But how many Battlefield fans are going to forgo playing DICE's Battlefront and instead stick with Hardline this fall? Or plunk down $220 to fully support both titles? Is the pool for "people who like Battlefield games" big enough to support both games at the same time? I don't really doubt Visceral's commitment to supporting the game, I just doubt that the audience will stick around long enough to make that extra premium content worth it.

I do think this is a legitimate concern and one that has not yet been tested by EA's business model. No BF games have ever really had a chance to cannibalize each other, and Battlefront most certainly could do that to Hardline.
 
Maybe I missed it being clarified in this thread, but they said those premium exclusive masks have unique gameplay benefits. Who cares about locking away cosmetic stuff, but stuff that impacts gameplay? Boo.

I wish one of the benefits was just 'Unlock everything'. If you're going to spend extra money, it would be nice if they didn't still waste your time.
Indeed. I think the reason why I got tired of Monster Strike and Puzzles and Dragons was because things were locked behind a paywall.
Good games can be brought down by IAPs and locked content.

Eh, that's exactly what a season pass entails.
Yeah, but I like it more when they go Gold and then plan out the DLC instead of having all the DLC planned even before release.
Just my opinion though.
 

Dysun

Member
BF4 premium was my first "season pass", and probably my last. Played 150 hours of vanilla BF4 and China Rising but by the time the other DLC's came out I wasn't very interested.
 

Fury451

Banned
I'm sure some code was on disk but that's not what I'm saying. Both DLCs were clearly done when the current gen versions launched, and close to completion when last gen launched. They could have been included in the full game(at least on current gen) but were held back as dlc. That argument has merit with those DLCs. Now everything past CR was clearly fresh development.

Not saying it's without merit, but wasn't CR included with a new BF4 purchase for free? That means it was just Second Assault that was probably finished, but reserved for Premium already. I get your point now more clearly, sorry I missed the initial one.

I guess in that case they could've included it, but it was already announced as part of Premium, so why would they? If that's the case I get the upset, but at the same time, being done and announced as DLC right at launch is still different than it being in the actual disc code and then locking it like Capcom has done.
 
I do agree this was a wasted opportunity by EA on gaining a lot of goodwill from the costumers. They could've just taken the hit and made Premium free for current BF4 Premium users or something similar.

As of right now, my biggest fear and reservation with Premium is the game dying off population wise before the later DLCs arrive.

I know a lot of friends who will just stick to BF4 till Battlefront.
Yeah. I'm not getting Hardline because I don't see the point. SWBF is coming out this fall and BF4 is getting support with free maps and guns this summer as well.
 

JJD

Member
Maybe I missed it being clarified in this thread, but they said those premium exclusive masks have unique gameplay benefits. Who cares about locking away cosmetic stuff, but stuff that impacts gameplay? Boo.

I wish one of the benefits was just 'Unlock everything'. If you're going to spend extra money, it would be nice if they didn't still waste your time.

Oh, and Server queues? What the hell is that?

Visceral was really vague when they talked about benefits. We don't know what they are going to be. The didn't say gameplay benefits. Maybe some masks act like boosters? Something like the dino mask has a 2x EXP effect. This is a valuable benefit, but not directly a gameplay one.

If visceral are smart they are not doing anything direct like faster running speed, higher mags or anything. It will break the game.

Plus the masks are going to occupy a gadget slot so there are big, considerable downsizes to running with one. And they are supposedly very hard to get.

I just hope we can turn off visualizing other players masks in the options menu. I don't want to see the entire enemy team running as dinos, zombies etc.

I think it's too soon to be outraged about this. Let's wait for more details. ;-)
 

forms

Member
God I am fed up with schemes like this. Yes, you should get money for the work you put in. No, I do not think the "agggressive DLC strategy" is worth it.

Wallet voting time.
 

JJD

Member
I do agree this was a wasted opportunity by EA on gaining a lot of goodwill from the costumers. They could've just taken the hit and made Premium free for current BF4 Premium users or something similar.

As of right now, my biggest fear and reservation with Premium is the game dying off population wise before the later DLCs arrive.

I know a lot of friends who will just stick to BF4 till Battlefront.

This is my biggest concern and the reason I don't know if I'll be getting Premium for Hardline.

This is not BF5. The game's longevity is a big question, specially if you consider how packed this year is going to be.
 
BF4 premium was my first "season pass", and probably my last. Played 150 hours of vanilla BF4 and China Rising but by the time the other DLC's came out I wasn't very interested.

That's too bad, the last two DLC packs have some of the best BF4 maps to date.
 
Wait wait wait wait wait wait hold on goddamn second. Are they seriously charging the same price for 1 less expansion pack? If there isn't an extra map in each I won't(wouldn't) buy this on principle alone.

I do think this is a legitimate concern and one that has not yet been tested by EA's business model. No BF games have ever really had a chance to cannibalize each other, and Battlefront most certainly could do that to Hardline.

Yep. Which is why I was a tad surprised at a premium announcement. If they keep in line with BF4s release schedule the last dlc will release in 2016.

It might sound harsh, but almost no one will care about Hardline in 2016.
 
Hahaha.

4241033-3886633-2559988948-37837.gif

I just want to see what will happen when Battlefront releases, it will be such a clash of emotions that I'm already getting my popcorn ready.

Hint:
it will also be $110, probably even more.


Net neutrality lives on in Redwood City...

 
Wait wait wait wait wait wait hold on goddamn second. Are they seriously charging the same price for 1 less expansion pack? If there isn't an extra map in each I won't(wouldn't) buy this on principle alone.



Yep. Which is why I was a tid surprised at a premium announcement. If they keep in line with BF4s release schedule the last dlc will release in 2016.

It might sound harsh, but almost no one will care about Hardline in 2016.

I'm not sure that many people care about Hardline in 2015 ;)
 
Do you really think any corporation, especially EA, deserves brand loyalty? Isn't this the same company that has been caught not paying employees for overtime and been listed as one of the worst places to work in America year after year? Yeah, it makes total sense to blindly purchase their games without question especially when a broken entry in the Battlefield franchise was recently released. These corporations don't care about you, just your wallet, so I find it odd that people are willing to lay down and take whatever they throw at their feet. EA doesn't deserve my trust and neither does Activision with all the shenanigans they both pull.

Again, I don't think EA deserves my trust, which is why I'm not preordering...but I can understand that the value proposition here is good enough for customers to put down money.

EA has a lot of shitty business practices but they have added more consumer-friendly practices recently, as well. Customers know this. The "you must have this much goodwill for me to trust you" line is arbitrary, by its nature, and for some customers, its lower because they have hundreds, if not thousands, of hours dumped into these games, and all their friends play them.

For you, the line was drawn a while ago. For me, the line was drawn last year. For others, they still have enough fun with the games to look past the rest. I don't feel it's right for me to condemn them for that. I sold Destiny because Bungie/Activision was instituting some straight up shitty DLC practices that, at times, made the game worse for non-DLC players by actively taking things away. That is offensive to me.

And, for the record, I do have companies (or corporations, if you will) that I am more loyal to because of past experiences with their products or services. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn't make me blind to quality issues, nor make me less critical.

Every retailer you go to tries to force pre-order crap on you so don't give me the 'every consumer has done their research' argument because for every neogaf member that reads up on games, there's 10 soccer moms being exploited by what I personally see as shady business practices. DLC in itself isn't bad, however, I have a HUGE problem with announcing content before the game launches which essentially tells the consumer they need to pay $100+ for the full experience. I also wouldn't be surprised if most, if not all, of this planned DLC could be fit on the disc and shipped out at launch but is instead being held back to increase sales due to rising development costs. You can call me paranoid/delusional, I don't really care.

I still fundamentally disagree on this "full experience/game" narrative. With the exception of the Day 1 DLC packs, I don't see how anyone can argue that Premium is content that should have been in the full game, especially when it more than doubles the amount of certain content pieces. Announcing it ahead of time is no different, for me, than announcing it closer to the actual release IF no content was held back and repurposed as DLC.
 

bombshell

Member
And once again I repeat, if it offered no benefit then why is it there? Why not just drop that "feature"? There is obviously a perceived benefit to it and because it comes directly at the expense of non-premium players, it makes their game worse. There should be no paid perks that behave this way.

It's there because there is indeed value in the feature, but not anywhere remotely resembling the impact on non-premium members that you were trying to assign to it.
 
It's there because there is indeed value in the feature, but not anywhere remotely resembling the impact on non-premium members that you were trying to assign to it.
My main point is that any value above zero is wrong. This is directly harming one player's experience to benefit another based on fact that one player paid more money. That is a horrible path to start to go down.

And I'll keep repeating this until I get an answer. If the percieved value is so small, then why is it listed as a feature?
 

Netprints

Member
Wait wait wait wait wait wait hold on goddamn second. Are they seriously charging the same price for 1 less expansion pack? If there isn't an extra map in each I won't(wouldn't) buy this on principle alone.



Yep. Which is why I was a tad surprised at a premium announcement. If they keep in line with BF4s release schedule the last dlc will release in 2016.

It might sound harsh, but almost no one will care about Hardline in 2016.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Also bf4 had a limited edition copy that came with the first dlc for the same, now they are selling a deluxe version on bf hardline for 10 bucks more that comes with battlepacks.
 
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.
Also bf4 had a limited edition copy that came with the first dlc for the same, now they are selling a deluxe version on bf hardline for 10 bucks more that comes with battlepacks.

Yeah, I'd personally want more info on what's in each of these expansion packs, as they're following a similar but not QUITE the same model as BF3/4, it seems.

However, I am pretty sure that BF4 had both a limited edition (which really wasn't limited, at all, just an incentive to preorder) AND a digital deluxe edition, right?

I could be wrong, can't keep track of all this shit.
 
Wow you're really going to use the 'u have an anime avatar shutup' argument. Time to go on ignore.
Good. My pointing out argument was basically laughing at your "adult" reasoning. But good job reaching for that shutup argument.

-Your Fellow Anime Avatared GAFfer


Wait wait wait wait wait wait hold on goddamn second. Are they seriously charging the same price for 1 less expansion pack? If there isn't an extra map in each I won't(wouldn't) buy this on principle alone.
Interesting, this completely went over my head.

It might sound harsh, but almost no one will care about Hardline in 2016.
Sad but its true.
 
My main point is that any value above zero is wrong. This is directly harming one player's experience to benefit another based on fact that one player paid more money. That is a horrible path to start to go down.

And I'll keep repeating this until I get an answer. If the percieved value is so small, then why is it listed as a feature?
Because it's still a feature nonetheless?

I don't see what you don't see here.
 
Day 1. Premium and game on the X1
all for half the price
.

Although, generally, premium has been the only season pass model worth the asking price IMO.


Elgar why you say dumb thing?

Borderlands 2/presequel is far better and it's not the same price as the game.
 

Tubie

Member
The real outrage should be directed at this:


Apparently those packs have 3 guns (ACE23, ACW-R and the L85) you have no other way to get in game.

And wow, I just noticed it's 4 DLCs for the same price as before (which had 5 DLCs).
 
Apparently those packs have 3 guns (ACE23, ACW-R and the L85) you have no other way to get in game.

And wow, I just noticed it's 4 DLCs for the same price as before (which had 5 DLCs).

Pretty sure this is not true--there is a way to get them in-game, it's just arduous. Like, shitty, difficult assignments.

Your second point is correct and troubling.
 

JJD

Member
My main point is that any value above zero is wrong. This is directly harming one player's experience to benefit another based on fact that one player paid more money. That is a horrible path to start to go down.

And I'll keep repeating this until I get an answer. If the percieved value is so small, then why is it listed as a feature?

Most times people get into server queues they just quit and join another one. No harm done.

If I want to join a specific server or to join a friend and get into a queue and someone else gets priority over me then yeah, there is a perceivable benefit but you should consider that:

1 - It's a 64 player game meaning people quit matches ALL the time. I have never been in a queue for more than 2 minutes. People quit to answer the phone, if they are having connection problems, a lot of then obviously quit when the match ends not to mention all the people that just quit because their team is losing (this a huge BF problem by the way. Team balance at least on consoles is non existent, you're either steam rolling or getting steam rolled. Finding competitive games is hard right now).

2 - Server Queues and priority have been part of Battlefield for a long, long time now. Way before EA came up with Premium. On PC servers are maintained by the community. If you help maintain a server chances are you're getting priority. This is nothing new and people playing BF are used to it.

Are you a BF player? If so feel free to post your impressions but from mine (1200 hours plus on BF3 and 600 hours on BF4 until now) queue priority is a non issue. And they were a reality on PC before Premium existed.

So yeah it does have a value. But it's negligible.

I hope this explains it.
 

fedexpeon

Banned
The real outrage should be directed at this:



Apparently those packs have 3 guns (ACE23, ACW-R and the L85) you have no other way to get in game.

And wow, I just noticed it's 4 DLCs for the same price as before (which had 5 DLCs).


Tsk tsk, you are not loyal enough to the brand.
Just buy both edition.
Problem solves.
 

gafneo

Banned
Yeah, I'm not reading that. Too much talk about packs. I could not give a shit about changing colors on my guns if that's what this is all about.
 
Why would ANYONE even bother with this?

With Star Wars Battlefront coming later this year, who will still want to play this after that drops? Battlefront sounds like it is going to be straight up GOAT material.
 

DenogginizerOS

BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
If there was the most minimal of embers left burning in my interest in this game, this press release fully extinguishes it with a geyser. Battlefront Premium will be fun...
 

brennok

Neo Member
Why?

Should there be no plans for additional content until after the game releases?

Pretty much. Stop trying to sell me on additional content before you release your game. All it does it make me wait on buying the product. If instead they said they are focused on launch and will visit the idea post launch, I would be fine with it. Show me a successful launch and then worry about selling me content that is months off.

At this point I will just wait for the combo edition or until I can get both for $60 or less just like I did with BF4. By then we should also know how popular the game truly is since some of the servers I play on currently have no plans of running BFH servers.
 

Yoday

Member
Why would ANYONE even bother with this?

With Star Wars Battlefront coming later this year, who will still want to play this after that drops? Battlefront sounds like it is going to be straight up GOAT material.
Honestly, Battlefront is the only reason I don't plan on getting Hardline and Premium. I just can't justify dropping money on two Battlefield style games and their season passes in one year, and Battlefront wins out by a mile. Part of it is also the fact that I am still catching up on a few of the BF4 premium expansions, and that will easily last me until Battlefront. Premium has been a damn good value, and I will drop money on the Battlefront version of Premium without a second thought.
 
Pretty much. Stop trying to sell me on additional content before you release your game. All it does it make me wait on buying the product. If instead they said they are focused on launch and will visit the idea post launch, I would be fine with it. Show me a successful launch and then worry about selling me content that is months off.

At this point I will just wait for the combo edition or until I can get both for $60 or less just like I did with BF4. By then we should also know how popular the game truly is since some of the servers I play on currently have no plans of running BFH servers.

And would really have believed Visceral if they made that comment about focus on launch only and nothing else?
 
The problem with premium is the price. How hard could it be to churn out some more maps when the hard work of making the game is already done?

A reasonable price would be 30$
 
Again, this really just sounds like semantics. You're saying that this:

"Publisher announces full game but doesn't announce payment plan for DLC until closer to DLC release date"

is better than

"Publisher announces full game and announces payment plan for DLC that is far from DLC release date"

All they're doing is announcing planned content/price ahead of time. The game is no less "complete" either way, it's just how you're perceiving it. In either situation, it's not content they could have packaged into the base game, although that MAY not apply with Day 1 DLC.

It's more than enough for me and many to not support this game, so it means something.

110 bucks that I won't spend on this game, I'll take my business somewhere else.
 
Honestly, Battlefront is the only reason I don't plan on getting Hardline and Premium. I just can't justify dropping money on two Battlefield style games and their season passes in one year, and Battlefront wins out by a mile. Part of it is also the fact that I am still catching up on a few of the BF4 premium expansions, and that will easily last me until Battlefront. Premium has been a damn good value, and I will drop money on the Battlefront version of Premium without a second thought.

I can justify getting Hardline. Battlefront is still a good ways off.

However, Hardline AND Premium? By the time the Hardline Premium stuff drops. Battlefront will be nearly here.
 
Top Bottom