"Pay to win" and Battlefield 3

[Sarge034]

I know it's a little late, but I just found something interesting. For those of you who don't know, it was announced that if you pre order Battlefield 3 from specific retailers than you would receive several guns and weapon mods not available to the general public. Many gamers viewed this as a "pay to win" system. That is you must pay extra to have access to more powerful weapons to stand a chance to survive. Many people feared that this would be a convenient place for the industry to continue down that path and chose to be very vocal about it. EA heard the concerns and then decided to make the weapon pack free to everyone later in the year, although EA did not give a more specific timeframe for the release. I was checking the available DLC for my library and that is when I found something very interesting. There is a DLC pack in Medal of Honor that grants you the highest level and access to all weapons in multiplayer. This has been available for a while and is, in my opinion, much more of a "pay to win" issue than two weapons and two attachments.

The majority of the community, including myself, had an issue with the "pay to win" system creeping into our games so I thought I would bring this to light.

My question is why did people go to arms over Battlefield 3, where you get two guns and two weapon mods, and not Medal of Honor, where you get access to the highest level and all weapons?

Or if you need more to discuss so we can keep this thread alive. Is "pay to win" a bad thing?

I personally think that Medal of Honor was able to fly under the radar because relatively few people pay attention to it at this point, and I think "pay to win" is a very very very very bad thing.

EA tryin' to be sneaky me thinks....

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/713644/battlefield-3-physical-warfare-pre-order-bonus-controversy-dice-responds-to-consumer-outrage/

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/06/battlefield-3-preorder-bonus-to-be-free-to-all-later-this-year.ars

http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/Product/Medal-of-Honor-Multiplayer-Shortcut-Pack/08c6c091-cbf2-479a-8e05-93c7c6d9dd3a

 

[Saelune]

Cause no one noticed? I know I didnt know...but Medal of Honor just dropped off the radar (for me anyways) after day 3 of release.

 

[80Maxwell08]

People are bipolar and miss stuff? Honestly when you bring that up I don't know. Maybe they all played the beta and thought it wasn't going to be that good in the end and didn't care anyway?

 

[Awexsome]

People are really hoping for BF3 to blow MW out of the water that they're willing to just turn a blind eye to stuff like this that people would normally rage at if it was in a CoD game or something.

IMO although that the PC version will be better than anything CoD puts out (assuming you can run it) the console version is looking like the same boring thing Bad Company 2 was. Maybe the campaign will change my mind but I'll take the imbalanced action packed CoD over the wide open emptiness of Battlefield.

 

[RuralGamer]

Battlefield Bad Company 2 allowed you to unlock all the gear for any class through DLC packs; so you could be level 1 and have access to the best weapons available to each class. They also released the Specat weapons; unique variants of the final tier unlocks which are horribly overused. Ultimately though, the advantage is slight, but still annoying. Some of the DLC items for BF3 sound strange and perhaps unfair, but ultimately I guess it'll come down to how they actually play in MP.

 

[Sarge034]

People are really hoping for BF3 to blow MW out of the water that they're willing to just turn a blind eye to stuff like this that people would normally rage at if it was in a CoD game or something.

IMO although that the PC version will be better than anything CoD puts out (assuming you can run it) the console version is looking like the same boring thing Bad Company 2 was. Maybe the campaign will change my mind but I'll take the imbalanced action packed CoD over the wide open emptiness of Battlefield.

Wait. What?

Did you read my post? People raged at BF3 for that content, but did not rage at the MoH DLC. I didn't even mention CoD.

 

[Awexsome]

People are really hoping for BF3 to blow MW out of the water that they're willing to just turn a blind eye to stuff like this that people would normally rage at if it was in a CoD game or something.

IMO although that the PC version will be better than anything CoD puts out (assuming you can run it) the console version is looking like the same boring thing Bad Company 2 was. Maybe the campaign will change my mind but I'll take the imbalanced action packed CoD over the wide open emptiness of Battlefield.

Wait. What?

Did you read my post? People raged at BF3 for that content, but did not rage at the MoH DLC. I didn't even mention CoD.

People have raged at the BF3 thing? Huh, haven't heard much of it at all.

MoH got more of a free pass though because compared to the 'buy to win' thing there were problems much worse with the game itself.

 

[haddaway234]

Maybe the campaign will change my mind but I'll take the imbalanced action packed CoD over the wide open emptiness of Battlefield.

This is exactly how I felt about BC2 vs MW2.

 

[NickCooley]

Until we actually see the weapons in action I'll reserve judgment. But at this point it appears to me more "pay for a minor advantage if any" than "pay to win". It's hardly the great sin forum goers are declaring it.

 

[Arcticflame]

People have raged at the BF3 thing? Huh, haven't heard much of it at all.

BF3 got bashed so often when this news hit, I saw it everywhere in hot topics and highest commented article feeds everywhere for a few days. Trust me, it got flamed.

 

[Awexsome]

People have raged at the BF3 thing? Huh, haven't heard much of it at all.

BF3 got bashed so often when this news hit, I saw it everywhere in hot topics and highest commented article feeds everywhere for a few days. Trust me, it got flamed.

Yeah I remember that too when it first came out but it blew over awfully quick.

 

[Griphphin]

I have not played MoH, but from your original post, I can only surmise that people were raging hard because the pre-order bonuses for BF3 are something exclusive that couldn't be unlocked later in the game, whereas the MoH one was more of a "shortcut," so to speak, and probably shifted a lot of potential rage to an indignant "well I'll just unlock it without paying and then they'll sure feel stupid!" attitude.

 

[Sarge034]

Until we actually see the weapons in action I'll reserve judgment. But at this point it appears to me more "pay for a minor advantage if any" than "pay to win". It's hardly the great sin forum goers are declaring it.

Agreed that the BF3 thing is probably not a game breaker, but I was worried because it was an easy way for EA to justify more and more of this type of content in the future. You know what they say about an ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure and the like. I can only speak for myself, but it would not be a stretch to assume this is what worried the other people as well. To find out about the DLC in MoH was more than a little worrying to me especially since EA was involved in both of them. That is really why I made this thread. It worried me that EA would back off of the issue in BF3 and have a similar system in MoH because no one really pays it much attention nowadays. I wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way.

 

[NickCooley]

Until we actually see the weapons in action I'll reserve judgment. But at this point it appears to me more "pay for a minor advantage if any" than "pay to win". It's hardly the great sin forum goers are declaring it.

Agreed that the BF3 thing is probably not a game breaker, but I was worried because it was an easy way for EA to justify more and more of this type of content in the future. You know what they say about an ounce of prevention versus a pound of cure and the like. I can only speak for myself, but it would not be a stretch to assume this is what worried the other people as well. To find out about the DLC in MoH was more than a little worrying to me especially since EA was involved in both of them. That is really why I made this thread. It worried me that EA would back off of the issue in BF3 and have a similar system in MoH because no one really pays it much attention nowadays. I wanted to see if anyone else felt the same way.

Yes I suppose it could be a slippery slope kind of deal. But as long as they keep it balanced, or keep the items as a minor advantage only I think we should be ok. I guess it depends if EA carry on being somewhat decent or if they slip back to "Old EA" style money grubbing empire. If it's the second then I'll certainly be joining in with the torches and pitchforks.

 

[Griffolion]

It's the same ridiculous issue as people raging because the Back to Karkand map pack is day 1 DLC that comes free with pre-ordering. You'll mainly find the people complaining of 'pay to win' as the people who can't afford it or just have a chip on their shoulder about life in general. AFAIC, vote with your wallet, not by whining on a forum EA will take no notice of.

There are some genuine instances of pay to win, like the MoH one. But for two weapons and two attachments, unless they are like an ultimate ninja nuclear flame thrower with unlimited range type of gun, then I'll still beat their asses down with the standard M4.