Battlefield 3 is about taking market share - Moore

Q&A: Electronic Arts' new COO Peter Moore on EA DICE's shooter coming in a successful second, the necessity of a hit-driven industry, ongoing Valve dispute, and more.

Peter Moore's purview at Electronic Arts expanded recently, as the executive stepped up from his old gig as EA Sports president to his new role as the COO of the entire company. At Gamescom 2011 this week, GameSpot sat down with Moore to get his take on some of the broader industry trends he must now concern himself with. Along the way, Moore weighed in on the hit-driven nature of the gaming industry, the apparent decline of the traditional brick-and-mortar gaming business, and whether Battlefield 3 needs to topple Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 for EA to consider the shooter a success.

Peter Moore, recently appointed Electronic Arts COO.

GameSpot: Is the industry becoming increasingly hit-driven? And what's the likely outcome when every publisher is making fewer bets and pushing each one harder to become a blockbuster?

Peter Moore: I think the industry has to become hit-driven. We're not different than Hollywood, which relies on its big hits to cover its misses a little bit. That doesn't stop a company like us from trying different things with new intellectual properties. But at the same time, it's still a business so you need to put some bets where you feel really good, whether that's a FIFA, or obviously a big bet like Battlefield 3 or Star Wars [The Old Republic]. I'd argue in the case of Star Wars, that's new IP because we've never seen the Star Wars universe brought to life in an MMO like this that we're proposing here.

I don't know if that's any different. I've been in the industry 12 years, and we've always relied on the big hits to cover those little mistakes that didn't quite land like we hoped they were going to land. I think you're seeing more and more polarization on the big hits landing well, anything in the middle hitting the ground with a thud and not doing anything, and then a strong catalog business, interestingly. We're seeing in the past few months, games that are £10 you can pick up that were £30 or £40 six or nine months prior, so gamers who have waited have an opportunity to save a lot of money that way.

Should this be considered a new IP?

GS: The packaged goods market has been shrinking in recent years, offset somewhat by the tremendous growth of digital revenue streams. Do you expect boxed retail sales to make a comeback, or are that segment's brightest days done for?

PM: I don't think it's done for. And you're right that it's starting to decline, but not massively. This is not 20-30 percent per year. This is not the music industry, which went in about two years from a powerful CD-based business to quite frankly one that was about digital downloads. Retail around the world and particularly in the UK has learned the lessons of music. They play a very important role still in bringing consumers in and educating consumers. And most importantly, they've embraced digital. If you go into any major game specialty retailer, whether it's Game in the UK or GameStop in the United States, you see the ability to buy digital download cards--what we call poster cards--that are a major part of the revenue now. They have figured out how to play in this ecosystem.

Look, we're still going to sell tens of millions of discs this year, and so much of our digital business still springboards off those discs. In that particular respect, I think it's a nice blending. The packaged goods business will decline over the years as we've ultimately seen with music and even movies. More and more people simply stream a movie to their home. In the US, Netflix is what we typically all use. But at the same time, I still have my Netflix DVDs there. I don't think we're anywhere close to there yet in games. It's a hybrid almost, right now. It's a very strong packaged goods business that will over a period of time start to slow down, but you've got digital picking up very nicely to pick up the slack a bit there.

GS: With EA Sports, you emphasized a service-oriented approach to the games to keep players regularly engaged with updates, the Ultimate Team modes, and spin-off releases for your main franchises. How are you changing that approach to apply to EA as a whole?

PM: I think the idea of a game being a 365-day-a-year experience is something we certainly got going with FIFA Ultimate Team. If you play FIFA, you know we're always looking at throwing new players at you and encouraging you to play and check into Ultimate Team every single day. The other thing we learned in the past year was that if we had a Web application that would allow you to manipulate your team, even though you had to go home and play on your Xbox 360 or PS3 to bring it to life, we think that's incredibly important.

When you look at the broad portfolio, you apply that across all games, and many games are already there. I think the biggest difference that I've seen in the industry in the last few years is this is not now shipping a disc and saying, "That's it. We'll move on to the next one." Now you're looking at live operations teams that stay with a game as long as the consumer's there, and that might be two years after the game is shipped. So that's a big difference now: a game as a service rather than a game as a hard-coded disc that you just move on from. It's a whole different story.

GS: The big holiday fight is shaping up to be Battlefield 3 vs. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3. How are you going to measure whether Battlefield 3 was a success? Do you have to outsell Call of Duty, or is simply selling a truckload and coming in a lucrative second place good enough?

PM: No. It's less about being second place. This is about taking market share. This is really about a long-term strategy in what we think is a very important shooter segment that has driven over the last few years multiple billions of dollars of revenue into the industry.

Battlefield 3 is EA's bid to carve out a bigger foothold in the shooter genre.

If you look at last year, you might argue that Call of Duty took maybe 90 percent of the market share. We think we can knock that down to 70 percent this year. We don't have to outsell Call of Duty to have a very successful year. This is a long-term strategy to be a major player, if not ultimately a dominant player in this industry. But it starts this year.

Again, we've got a precedent. If you remember, FIFA and Pro Evolution Soccer used to be, as recently as three or four years ago, head-to-head in a lot of markets, with PES as the dominant brand. We invested enormously in both the quality of the game, the marketing, a real focus on getting the game right, and being there for gamers and building a community around it. It's no different than what we intend to do in the shooter category.

GS: Is the role of EA Partners changing in the company? Is it in danger of falling to the side in order to focus on higher margin businesses?

PM: Not necessarily. I think you saw two titles [earlier this week] from EA Partners that allowed us to be able to invest with independent developers to give them a platform for their IP. I haven't had a chance to go in yet and see Secret World, but I intend to do that with the guys from Funcom and see where we're at there.

We've got a very vibrant ecosystem, and we're always scouring the world for content in development that we really like, that we can make an investment in, help that developer get it over the finish line, and provide them a publishing engine. That has never changed from when it was EAD, EA Distribution. I don't know how many years the company has been doing this, but it's something we're very proud of. You have the big hits, the Rock Band type thing or Kingdoms of Amalur, and then we've got stuff we enjoy bringing to market.

We work with developers we like, and we work with IP we think is very interesting. And we're a big company that can put that stuff in the mix pretty easily and get after it. To your point, it's not as high a margin as something we develop ourselves, but that's not really the point. I think we have an obligation at times to give some of these great developers an outlet, and that's something we need to do.

GS: Is there any update on the negotiations with Valve to get games like Battlefield 3 on Steam?

PM: It's pretty simple, and I think we've said it pretty consistently over the last few weeks. If we're allowed to deal with our consumers directly, being able to transact directly with our consumers, fix issues directly with consumers, then we'll be happy to sit down with our good friends at Valve and resolve some of those differences. But if their terms and conditions and policies don't change, then we'll focus on the other hundred download retailers we see in the marketplace and our own platform of course, Origin. It's important for us to have a direct conversation with our consumers, particularly on the PC platform, which is an open platform and should be kept that way.

Written By

Want the latest news about Star Wars: The Old Republic?

Star Wars: The Old Republic

Star Wars: The Old Republic

Follow

Discussion

144 comments
TonnFool23
TonnFool23

@Rocker6 Origin is infested with spyware? So i'm going to be playing BF3 with a spyware program? hmmmm...Well I do agree with you the point you made about steam, 90% of the PC games I own are on steam the other game is Starcraft 2 which isn't available on Steam.

Rocker6
Rocker6

@TonnFool23 EA could make much bigger profits if they werent actively working against their customers with Origin spyware and Steam removals(doesnt bother me too much,but a lot of ppl use Steam and dont want to switch to inferior and spyware infested program).Just see how Valve is very profitable,and most ppl love them.As for Activi$ion,lot of ppl hate them,but they know how to run a buisness by exploiting their brainwashed audience who will buy anything labeled CoD.At least they dont force you to use spyware and keep their games on Steam,ensuring solid PC sales.My point is,companies can make good profit without treating their consumers like $h!t.After all,we can live without them,but they cant exist without us!

TonnFool23
TonnFool23

@Rocker6 That's how the world works mate, if you are running a business to make profits..then what's your point exactly??

ckynick254
ckynick254

@tachsniper when i first learned about this 1 year limit i was told that you are able to burn the files to a dvd that are located in Program Files (x86)\Origin Games. But this is not an install backup it is only the files. you will need to install orgin and past the files into the orgin games folder if you put it on a new computer. You will also need to know the product key so wright it down on the dvd.

lewishim666
lewishim666

@N07H1NG I meant what I said. I really like how people make a comment about your comment like it will somehow change your mind about what you said. The whole warfare setting is over done. There is nothing new or original being done. This IS most definitely subtracting from the creativity of games as a whole because if all EA has to do to get people interested is give them a short campaign that can be beaten in a day then why would anybody make anything else? It IS robbery to pay for a game that only gives you a max of 10 hours of gameplay and then your stuck with the multiplayer. I don't care about multiplayer because i grew up playing games on a commodore 64, when all there was is singleplayer. I don't like multiplayer. i don't care what my rank is. I want a good singleplayer. I want a long singleplayer. So to me this is robbery. All I here anybody ranting about or quoting the numbers about is the multiplayer. like I said in my original comment. I don't want a game that has a short and linear singleplayer and then your stuck going online with campers, snipers, and little whining kids that can't except the fact that they're just not as good as they think they are. A game that focuses on the multiplayer is robbery to me. Games like this are warping what games are supposed to be. Everybody is worried about they're rank online. I want a solid singleplayer and from what i've seen this doesn't deliver. They aren't doing anything new no matter what anyone has fooled themselves into thinking. Warfare is overdone. That is a fact.

gsmull
gsmull

I am not sure that using BF3 as the signature game to launch Origin is a great idea. They must know that the game they use to draw people to use Origin has to have that "must have" quality. Valve wisely used the half life 2 series to get steam going on the right foot. But in this case many people might just decide to buy and install COD on steam and sit out BF3. I believe that DAO would have been a better choice or maybe SW the Old Republic. Either way, if EA knows what is good for it they should bump up the quality of their games in the near term in order to lure customers onto Origin. And that would be welcome news.

lfebaggins
lfebaggins

I have over 30 games on steam, with atleast 5 of them being from EA. I have had no issues with any of the them. I had no problems running bad games like Red Alert 3, good games like Bad Company 2, or great games like Mass Effect 1 & 2. I'm very happy with the service of Steam. I don't give a rats ass if Origins has an offline mode and everything could possibly be managed in-game with Battelog, they made it just about buying and I'm not going to buy Battefield 3. Just out of spite I'm going to buy Modern Warfare 3 on Steam even though CoD games are whack. BF3 will own MW3, but MW3 is going to own in sales anyway. Speaking of sales, I bet they will announce Origin sales for BF3, while Valve never announces Steam sales. Valve > All. Now if only Bioware would take a stand with Mass Effect 3.

Rocker6
Rocker6

@tyco_ex I think EA is worse than Activi$ion,bacause EA treats their customes like $h!t,they only care about money,and they are making incredibly dumb decisions,while Activi$ion is only taking advantage of CoDs huge popularity and consumers stupidity.They are overpricing their map packs and rehasing CoD games because they KNOW sales will be huge.They still suck a lot,though.But if sales went down,they would probably try to innovate or do something.They at least dont force some stupid Spyware programs like Origin into their games and remove their games from Steam.EA is also guilty of destroying a lot of gaming studios in the past(Westwood),and now their latest victim could be Bioware.And that would suck a lot.

tyco_ex
tyco_ex

@Hrel: Well I couldn't comment on that because I have never had a single problem with Steam. I don't know if that's just because I'm lucky or I actually built my PC properly. Steam has completely revitalized the PC gaming industry as far as I'm concerned, and I wouldn't own even half of the PC games I own now if it wasn't for amazing sales on Steam. @ others talking about EA: We have to realize that while EA isn't nearly as bad as they used to be, they still aren't some great company. Yes, they look good compared to Activision, but a pile of dog poo looks good compared to Activision, so that isn't really saying much.

smoke_dog_4ever
smoke_dog_4ever

minty, I think you're confusing EA shoveling games out with Activision - do I really even need to mention Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, or Call of Duty? At least when EA releases Madden once a year it's justifiable to an extent - new rosters (though, let's be honest, they could just release one game with yearly roster updates). With COD you pay $60 for new maps. It's the same formula. Hell, I used to love CoD, but it's the same formula every year with little to show for it. Thumbs down if you're a CoD fan boy who agrees with me but is too prideful to admit it ;)

minty_cbo
minty_cbo

Didn't need to read..It's EA..money money money.. Game can suck ..but they'll shovel it.. (see Westwood studios closing - command and conquer franchise) buy em out..shut em out..take people's money..take a benzodiazepam to go to bed at night.. carry on.

warhawk-geeby
warhawk-geeby

@Edged_out COD's full of campers. Battlefield is full of campers with skill - snipers.

warhawk-geeby
warhawk-geeby

@captain_hitec *Round of applause* Good comment my man.. good comment indeed. Battlefield looks plain awesome, whilst COD looks plain... well.. plain. I think even Dynasty Warriors has changed more than COD.

Hrel
Hrel

@tyco_ex. Really? Cause if you're game is ONLY on steam, I won't buy it. I don't think even ONCE have I bought a game on Steam and just had it work. I ALWAYS have to mess with stuff, edit registry entries, download patches, update this verify that. Many of my friends have the same issues; I hate Steam with a fiery DRM fueled rage that consumes my soul. Gog dot com for the HWIN!!! Honestly, sometimes If I really like a game but DRM makes it a pain to get working properly, I will buy it, then sell it at gamestop or ebay, and just keep an edited copy digitally on my computer with all the DRM disabled. Makes it so it works flawlessly 100% of the time. I think that's what most businessmen just can't imagine. That we WANT to pay for good games. They see the piracy numbers and flip their niche, but there's no numbers for the number of people who "pirated" the game who also went out and bought a legit copy. Problem is your "legit" copy is harder to get working than the illegal one. Also, I don't wanna have to buy a copy for EVERY console I own. If I bought it on Xbox, I shoud be able to play on PC too. Just whatever I feel like playing on; don't charge me for every single version of the game.

tyco_ex
tyco_ex

Lol at TOR being a new IP. Not only is it the "sequal" to an already established series, KOTOR, a Star Wars MMO has already been done before. No one remembers SWG? And EA needs to understand that Valve makes game makers money. If your game isn't on Steam I'm not going to buy it. End of story.

captain_hitec
captain_hitec

@Edged_out Don't you wish then that Call of Duty had something new, awesome graphics and stuff? I understand that you need an fast action game... But BF3 has all that my friend! EA says BF3 is ready to take CoD down, because they ARE ready, DICE copied pretty much all of what CoD had and blended it into BF3! It has Team Deathmatch and Squad Deathmatch which is exactly the fast action you need! It will be worth your buy, and try. Don't buy a rehashed game from a broken team of studios! That's why EA came up with the smart release date before MW3! You have exactly 2 weeks to get addicted to BF3 before MW3 comes out ;)

Edged_out
Edged_out

@captain_hitec more players doesnt make a game more action packed and i hate big maps, the point in MW game is madium size maps with fast action, Bf will never have this the reason i dont like it simple and im not a kid, ive been playing games for 28 years.

MemberUnknown
MemberUnknown

Well at least they are being honest about their motive. I've seen idiots who claim it is about "the passion for making unforgettable gaming", only to find out that they have been chasing the green all along. This is all useless and pathetic. Men selling their souls and reputations for the dollar bill. Makes me sick.

Richardthe3rd
Richardthe3rd

Best part of the interview: "GS: Is the role of EA Partners changing in the company? Is it in danger of falling to the side in order to focus on higher margin businesses? PM: Not necessarily." I believe he meant to say, "Yes, yes it is. And you can now expect to see a BF title every year to match Activision." EA, Get your filthy hands off my military shooter!!

MoreThot
MoreThot

@cbthedog what do you think call of duty has been doing the past 4-5 years? their main focus was money money money..... MONEY! They dont care about the experience of their game anymore, they just want to shove the same game in front of consumers faces and give it a new name, thats all.

cbthedog
cbthedog

not tht i dnt like these games, but it feels as if developers are doing it to make a profit, rather than a good experience...not that BF3 wont be a good experience, but i think their main focus was to look good for shareholders on this project

captain_hitec
captain_hitec

@Edged_out Because one map is about the size of multiple Call of Duty maps together, besides, those 13 maps are actually 78, because DICE has to make 13 for Conquest, 13 for Conquest 64, 13 for Rush, 13 for Team deathmatch, 13 for Squad deathmatch, and 13 for Squad rush. So all game modes have the 13 locations, but the maps have to be custom made for each multiplayer mode. Because you can't play a 64 player Conquest map in, for example, Squad Deathmatch. And, your forgetting something, "10x more DLC as BC2, and most of it should be free.". Here's what "Sergeant_" said to me: @captain_hitec Its best to just leave the COD Kiddies alone. Let them play their rehashed game, I think we'll be enjoying flying planes over a map that is the size of all Call of Duty maps put together. Last thing I say to you, does 64 multiplayer seem slow to you?

Edged_out
Edged_out

@captain_hitec not a lot of maps, MW3 will come with 20. plus only 6 Different multiplayer game modes... lame to say the least. As i say a slow game for the slow brain, MW3 fast action paced game for the fast brain.

kais112
kais112

@tachsniper Have you not noticed that it's free now \facepalm/

rungchai39
rungchai39

lol.. This Good infomation. I Love PSP, and waiting for PSP Vita before buy game again...Waiting PSP vita lol

guitarist1980
guitarist1980

@No7th1ng Absolutely correct. But I don't mind shelling out 60 bucks a year on a COD game because I usually enjoy playing the campaign.. leveling a character to level 20 and then playing zombies or spec ops with friends. There quality games but they are basically the same thing over and over.. I don't know how people prestige 10x and not get bored. To each there own. Rage, GOW3, Uncharted3, MW3, BF3.. lots of action fps/tps action games this holiday. I am probably going to buy all of those and TOR and D3... it sucks cause they all come out within 60-70 days of each other.

beuneus12
beuneus12

@captain_hitec you should go work for EA marketing team

NakedTowel
NakedTowel

I love you EA "It's important for us to have a direct conversation with our consumers, particularly on the PC platform, which is an open platform and should be kept that way."

captain_hitec
captain_hitec

There is so much content in BF3 you'll really be playing till 2013, and that's with out DLC! It's the biggest BF3 game they've ever build. Some EXCLUSIVE BF3 NUMBERS you'll get excited about: - 350+ Dogtag customizations - 55 Weapons - 27 Weapon customizations, including 12 different optics. - 16 Soldier Equipment, including Claymores, C4, Medkit, Knife, Ammobox etc. - 14 Solder Specializations, including FLAK vests, Sprint boost etc. - 22 Vehicles - 28 Vehicle Specializations - 6 Different multiplayer game modes - 9 Multiplayer maps in the vanilla game, and the scale of the maps is HUGE. - 13 Multiplayer maps if you pre-order, (because of the 4 extra from Back to Karkand) - 10x more DLC as BC2, and most of it should be free. That's real warfare, not modern warfare.

Raven-002
Raven-002

The success of Call of Duty is noted as having stagnated the market. It's simple, but generic and getting stale. However, other games are being made like it because it makes money. All we need is "innovative" games to come back into the market and we'll be set. BF3 looks solid though, I'm buying.

beuneus12
beuneus12

@holtrocks, dude i know that i switched from mw2 to bf2. I'm just saying EA better not start milking BF the way Activision does COD

Smokey2003
Smokey2003

Ugh, whatever. Just make the games that let me shoot people in the face and shut up.

couchtater12345
couchtater12345

I'm fine with EA as long as when they kill of CoD, which will probably happen, they don't start pumping out BF games every year. If they do that I'll be furious

holtrocks
holtrocks

@beuneus12 they don't do map packs they do expansion pack with at least 5 new maps and guns and factions its usually 20 but its like getting another game its totally worth it trust me. ( BF2 player )

N07H1NG
N07H1NG

@lewishim666 $60 for a game like Battlefield 3 is NOT robbery. Have you seen the videos/images to this game? I would pay $100 for that! They have gone beyond what I thought games were capable of doing this day in age. If you had just said that about that recycled year after year Call of Duty franchise, I would totally agree. I think it's stupid people buy that same crap every year! They may change the scenery and add in a tiny new feature here and there, but all in all you're getting the exact same game every year with a new label on it and paying $60 for it. I abandoned the Call of Duty franchise because of that. Battlefield is not like that. If you're looking for bang for your buck, buy Battlefield 3!

beuneus12
beuneus12

As long as the greedy EA executives don't make dice copy more of the COD formula I'm ok with BF3. Ow and no $15 mappacks please LOL

PC-RUL3S
PC-RUL3S

@dstv I didn't say that I wouldn't buy it, Personally I don't pre-order games on Steam because 1. Games are over priced. 2. I like to have something I can see when spending £25-30. I said that I know people that don't buy games that are not on Steam.

Son_of_Bmore
Son_of_Bmore

@razorfett147 Hey get off ur high horse & get ur head out ur a** I was pointing out just how ever1 says Activision is greedy & some how EA ain't & they're using that as a reason not 2 buy CoD but 2 buy BF which is stupid so do use all a favor & stop taking what people say so serious & acting like ur sh*t don't stink

lewishim666
lewishim666

I'm tried of EA and Activision's greed. I'm really getting tired of all the "modern warfare" shooters. It's old and stale. There isn't much more to be done. I'm tired of these games that can be beaten in 1 day then your forced to go online and deal with campers, snipers, and whining kids that can't except that fact that they aren't as good as they think they are. We need some innovation. If you really want a taste of modern warfare then join the military and start serving your country for real instead of just serving your ego because you are good at an online shooter. $60 for a game like this is robbery. What ever happened to games that actually gave you some bang for your buck. I for one don't care what my online rank is so i want more substance then just a bland linear single player mode and an online mode that caters to casual gamers. I also like how he said "If we're allowed to deal with our consumers directly, being able to transact directly with our consumers, fix issues directly with consumers." So to me that sounds like EA is being greedy and they don't want to pay valve to use steam. They want the money all to themselves. That's messed up that they're worried about being able to "transact" with their customers over helping them fix issues. people need to stop buying this garbage so we can get some better games for once. Ever since Call of Duty 4 came out the innovation and fun in games has gone out the window. there has been the odd exception now and then but for the most part it's all recycled garbage.

Vangaurdius
Vangaurdius

EA, publisher of a s****y, soulless FPS franchise predicts Bobby Kotick's s****y, soulless, but more popular FPS franchise will collapse, and then EA will be the king of the s****y FPS because clearly the cawadoody audience will all go to play battlefield.

Raven-002
Raven-002

@tachsniper: I know what you mean, thinking back on the good old days of Metal Gear Solid and Super Mario? Would you like to know the difference? Today's games are more of a service, than an experience. Games back then had a smaller target audience and since there was no "online," it had to impress you and take you on a journey. You'll see that most offline games seek to do this. Online games focus on user interaction but the stories are usually crap and character development is practically non-existent. You have to build to impress if it's a product someone has to enjoy several times through, without being played online. Now, some companies get this right. Valve with L4D/TF2 make wonderful online games that have substance. What we need is a game studio who caters to off-line gaming, they are the ones who will seek out genuinely powerful experiences for new gamers. Stuff like CoD is garbage character/story wise simply because there's no focus on it. I love old school gaming for that very reason, but games existed to deliver an experience. I don't hate online games, they bring their own pros and cons. I just know what you mean. As gaming has become more profitable, it attracts people who see these opportunities. You've got people who genuinely care about making good games and you've got business people who care about the bottomline. It's always been this way, it's just that the advent of DLC has made this more apparent.

Raven-002
Raven-002

@tachsniper: I know what you mean, thinking back on the good old days of Metal Gear Solid and Super Mario? Would you like to know the difference? Today's games are more of a service, than an experience. Games back then had a smaller target audience and since there was no "online," it had to impress you and take you on a journey. You'll see that most offline games seek to do this. Online games focus on user interaction but the stories are usually crap and character development is practically non-existent. You have to build to impress if it's a product someone has to enjoy several times through, without being played online. Now, some companies get this right. Valve with L4D/TF2 make wonderful online games that have substance. What we need is a game studio who caters to off-line gaming, they are the ones who will seek out genuinely powerful experiences for new gamers. Stuff like CoD is garbage character/story wise simply because there's no focus on it. I love old school gaming for that very reason, but games existed to deliver an experience. I don't hate online games, they bring their own pros and cons. I just know what you mean. As gaming has become more profitable, it attracts people who see these opportunities. You've got people who genuinely care about making good games and you've got business people who care about the bottomline. It's always been this way, it's just that the advent of DLC has made this more apparent.

thereal-15-cent
thereal-15-cent

@Son of Bmore, Agreed. EA is extremely greedy, they started the "Online pass" Thing so they could charge an extra 10$ for people who rent or buy games used. 10 Years from now, BF will be the "Recycled" Series that hardcore gamers hate.

tachsniper
tachsniper

@ckynick254 If you buy a game from origin you can only download it for a year? if that is true that is Epic fail. What if i you know, buy a different hard drive? then i guess I'm screwed and never seeing my $60 origin game again. Nice EA nice... Way to start that "relationship" off on the right foot.

ckynick254
ckynick254

I would like steam is better then Origin. You know why, they only allow you to download for 1 year then you can not download the game you paid for ever again. Unlike Steam where you get it forever! This is why im buying this game with a DVD and not from Origin even though i get the beta for Battlefield 3; I dont need it since i played the Alpha.

tachsniper
tachsniper

@TonnFool23 I bought it when it came out so yea i paid for it. Also everything in the store is free? wow i must be seeing things then.

TonnFool23
TonnFool23

@tachsniper You give money for Team Fortress 2 ? Well friend I've got news for you...steam doesn't charge for team fortress 2...it's free LOL!

Falmar
Falmar

"being able to transact directly with our consumers..." There u go. That's whats all the fuzz is about: ingame exclusive dlc stores.

IAm_PUFF_FearMe
IAm_PUFF_FearMe

@Spencertaylor Yeah, but Activision already monopolizes the fps market, so its great that Battlefield 3 is challenging them. Hopefully, the competition between Activision and EA will force them both to create better games, and everyone wins.

swavo1
swavo1

The last thing I would want to have is deal directly with EA....I enjoy working with Valve moreso than anything, aside from those "admins" that PM me through chat asking if I can give them my information -__-