Battlefield 3 preorder DLC boycott.

SkuLL

SkuLL

Chad McRealman
Orderite
(Stumbled upon this on reddit.)

Turns out that EA is looking to make a few extra bucks by selling parts of the game as 'Limited Edition DLC'.

BF3-Limited-Edition-PWP-News_656x369.jpg


Incidentally, a lot of gamers feel that doing the DLC is an insult to the hard work the creators (DICE) put into the game (the DLC is not DICE's initiative). Not to mention the many fans of the franchise who just feel cheated having to buy weapons extra (albeit for 'measly' $2 at a time) or even feel that the DLC will have unwanted negative effects on overall game balance.

Needless to say, this will make EA a lot of money - it makes sense from a sales perspective. I've seen many posts attacking the EA marketing department for being retards, but let's face it, their primary motivation is to make profit, not to make a few hardcore fans happy (DLC or not, they will buy the game anyway).

So, not surprisingly, there is a boycott mounting towards EA. If you're interested in this, check out the reddit link where it seems to be happening.

Also worth pointing out is the previous boycott of Battlefield: Bad Company DLC by SarcasticGamer, which eventually proved successful in changing EA's marketing strategy for that game. Let's see if the fans manage to do it again, some three years later.
 
BLEEEEEEEEEEEH

I was seriously considering this being the first Battlefield I'd pick up since 1942. O well. This kind of crap is the same reason why I personally refuse to purchase products published by Activision.

Hopefully EA doesn't make a habit of this, because then I'd have to stop buying their products too and I'd be missing out on like 40% of the gaming market (Between EA and Activision total) lol.

notch Markus Persson
When I make a movie, it will have different exclusive scenes added to it depending on what cinema you go to. #subtle
Click to expand...

tweet from Notch (Creator of Minecraft)
 
After a bit of browsing, it is clear that the response is quite overwhelming. A bunch of gaming sites are reposting news about the boycott or directly taking part in contacting EA, more and more people are sending emails, voting and signing petitions...

I'm personally not taking part in any of this - will buy the full game sometime when it's cheap, and I don't much care about bonus guns, whether they're part of the full game, part of the DLC, or not available at all. It's good to see that so many people care though.

Now I wonder if EA will change their minds or stick to their strategy. Either way, the name Battlefield 3 is getting out there a lot these days, albeit with a 'fuck you EA' in the same sentence, but it's still a huge (and free!) advertisement for the game.
 
SkuLL said:
Needless to say, this will make EA a lot of money - it makes sense from a sales perspective. I've seen many posts attacking the EA marketing department for being retards, but let's face it, their primary motivation is to make profit, not to make a few hardcore fans happy (DLC or not, they will buy the game anyway). .
Click to expand...
I hear this pretty often. And I do NOT agree.

I thnk a company can still be profit-orientated and STILL not screw their consumers or treat them like wallets on legs.
 
Crni Vuk said:
SkuLL said:
Needless to say, this will make EA a lot of money - it makes sense from a sales perspective. I've seen many posts attacking the EA marketing department for being retards, but let's face it, their primary motivation is to make profit, not to make a few hardcore fans happy (DLC or not, they will buy the game anyway). .
Click to expand...
I hear this pretty often. And I do NOT agree.

I thnk a company can still be profit-orientated and STILL not screw their consumers or treat them like wallets on legs.
Click to expand...
Umm, yeah - the numbers are on their side. They're making a lot more money if they sell parts of the game as DLC.

And as the poster before you said - the 'outraged fans' are still likely to buy the game and the DLC (or at least the game). So no money lost by angering a few fans.

This kind of behaviour might be dangerous for a smaller developer putting out less-hyped titles, but I seriously doubt that this form of boycott is a real threat to EA.
 
Mad Max RW said:
Every single sheeple angry about it will end up buying the game and all its DLC anyway.

Case in point: the Modern Warfare 2 boycott.
Click to expand...

A bit more accurate now. There are some people who actually DO follow through on boycotts. However most of the people who join a boycott do so based more around peer pressure than truly understanding the core issues. Same reason so many people pay to rebuy the same Call of Duty every year.

I know that the term "sheeple" is one that is thrown around a lot, and many people find it irritating. The fact is, sheeple exist. You can pretend they don't, you can try and mount arguments that they don't. But it is a prove fact that people can be led or misled and that peer pressure is a very real thing and thus, sheeple exist.
 
SkuLL said:
Umm, yeah - the numbers are on their side. They're making a lot more money if they sell parts of the game as DLC.
Click to expand...
*Le sigh*

look. I like you. And I see where you are coming from.

But just because the "numbers" are on their side or because it is "business" does not mean it would be "correct".
 
Crni Vuk said:
*Le sigh*

look. I like you. And I see where you are coming from.

But just because the "numbers" are on their side or because it is "business" does not mean it would be "correct".
Click to expand...
Yeah, Crni, no one was talking about the moral correctness here. I was simply saying that the DLC system works, it makes them more money, and people (hardcore fans included!) still buy the game. It's a viable marketing strategy that's working like a charm and it makes no sense to get rid of it unless the number of people boycotting is high enough to actually dampen the sales. As much as you might not like it, it is the way it is - business, baby.

You may call EA non-gamers, greedy assholes, you could even call them immoral. But they're not stupid. I just wanted to point out the difference there. :shrug:

One more for total understanding: I don't agree with their marketing, I think it's unfair on the fans and on DICE. But I also understand why they do it - it's free money, FFS! And so far, not that many people have complained, so they're getting away with it.

However, if there's enough people protesting, it would be clever of EA to abandon the DLC and think of a different way to make money (like actual new content, not just stuff that got cut out of the full game). And again, they would not be doing this to be nice, to please the hardcore fans, but only to avoid loss of profit from unruly boycotters.
 
Yeah. I understand it as well. Hence why I boykott it since the first day such DLCs have been released.

You know how much I have payed so far for them ?

Yeah. Zero :P
 
UnidentifiedFlyingTard said:
Oh who cares, its just a bonus, no one seemed to care when New Vegas did it.
Click to expand...

You can't see the difference between exclusive content in a singleplayer game compared to a multiplayer game?

You're joking, right?
 
Yup, and the bonus content in pre-ordered copies of New Vegas isn't that great. All I got was three Super stims, a grenade rifle that weighs 0.5 pounds less than the regular grenade rifle, and a metal armor that weighs about 10 pounds less than the regular metal armor. Not that great if you ask me, especially considering that the armor looks retarded.

Proof,

[spoiler:f22b5242a3]
2011-06-13_00001.jpg


That's Boone wearing it in the back.[/spoiler:f22b5242a3]
 
uhhh... what is all this hooplah about?

EA has been saying since like 2008 or 2009 that their intention was to release every game with "day 0 dlc" for their games.

primarily to hurt second-hand sales and game rental services.

they started it with dragon age origins i believe or maybe the game before.

people finally getting upset with EA for doing what they said they were going to do???

i r confoozled.
 
TheWesDude said:
i r confoozled.
Click to expand...

But this is that game that's going to replace Call of Duty as the number one military FPS!

IT CAN'T HAVE THINGS LIKE DLC BECAUSE COMPETITION IS EVERYTHING AND I CAN'T STAY COMPETITIVE IF SOMEONE IS USING A GUN THAT I DON'T HAVE AND WOULD PROBABLY NEVER EVER USE!
 
I've never gotten the big deal about multiplayer in CoD-like FPS's. After you've played all the maps a few times it gets pretty old.
 
I guess people are upset partialy because it is a multiplayer shooter and not a single player game. And people are actually not very happy about gamers which can "buy" them self some advantage. If it is some advantage.

Singleplayer with such DLCs dont really bother me. As long the content is just a few little things like a hat, or like in Vegas with stimpacks and such nonsense you dont need anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top