Paying To Win
by Ben Cousins
- 104K views
In November 2009, EA hit the headlines when the BATTLEFIELD HEROES team made sweeping changes to their in-game economy and virtual item catalogue that many felt would completely destroy the game ...
In November 2009, EA hit the headlines when the BATTLEFIELD HEROES team made sweeping changes to their in-game economy and virtual item catalogue that many felt would completely destroy the game Kotaku's headline summed up the feelings of the press - 'BATTLEFIELD HEROES Is Practically Ruined'. A game that had previously been perceived as welcoming to free players suddenly demanded much more grinding to maintain a player's free items, a team that had previously promised they had no plans to sell items that gave an advantage were selling 'super' and 'uber' weapons that many players felt were more powerful than standard equipment, and the Battlefield Heroes forum posters were in uproar with an 'EA Failed' campaign against the changes. Despite the predictions of destruction, over a year on, BATTLEFIELD HEROES continues to be a powerhouse in the free-to-play space, with nearly 7 million registered users, no declining trend in active users, and it long-term future assured. So, what happened? In this talk, Ben Cousins, General Manager of Easy (the EA studio behind BATTLEFIELD HEROES) takes us through the story of this controversy. Through the development of BATTLEFIELD HEROES and the early performance of the title, into the high-pressure environment in EA that forced the sweeping changes and out the other side with detailed look at the games store catalogue and business performance.
Accessibility
Categories
Upload Details
Uploaded via SlideShare as Microsoft PowerPoint
Usage Rights
© All Rights Reserved
Statistics
- Likes
- 32
- Downloads
- 277
- Comments
- 48
- Embed Views
- Views on SlideShare
- 88,630
- Total Views
- 104K
Roland Peters
Apparently jobs were/are on the line and they had spent money on some stupid orange meeting rooms which accomodate less people than my dining table instead of decent games.
Apparently they took advice and inspiration from the Koreans... Because we all know of the high quality games they churn out. They said to sell items that make players better than others, but make sure the losing party doesn’t find out that they cannot win against the player who bought the items.
I like the bit where this condescending prick addresses all the players that have actually spent $20 on his game and labels them as an animal (peacocks). Personally I would have used the term sheep or morons. Oh and this line ’They wanted to create a cool looking hero’... OK if thats not something I can do right off the bat then what does this game offer? I can list 10 games that will let me design a ’cool looking hero’ why do I need to spend extra here?
Why not release a product worth buying instead of a new jumper, scarf and hat combo that will allow me to beat players who arent wearing them.
Personally it’s a hollow victory if I win because all my numbers are marginally higher than yours. Ben you are a cunt mate :) 1 year ago
This is why people call you evil: you're trying to find a better way of getting the customer to pay more, because under the business paradigm and in your mind, you're 'giving the customer base what they want,' but to a consumer, you're a money-grubbing evil genius. 1 year ago
EDIT: This is a real shame too, I was looking forward to BF3 but now there is no way i'm buying it. It's just going to be bastardized, broken down into DLC, and sell an unfair advantage to anyone willing to pay for it. 1 year ago