Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck

EA Flip-Flops On Battlefield: Heroes Pricing, Fans Angry 221

An anonymous reader writes "Ben Kuchera from Ars Technica is reporting that EA/DICE has substantially changed the game model of Battlefield: Heroes, increasing the cost of weapons in Valor Points (the in-game currency that you earn by playing) to levels that even hardcore players cannot afford, and making them available in BattleFunds (the in-game currency that you buy with real money). Other consumables in the game, such as bandages to heal the players, suffered the same fate, turning the game into a subscription or pay-to-play model if players want to remain competitive. This goes against the creators' earlier stated objectives of not providing combat advantage to paying customers. Ben Cousins, from EA/DICE, argued, 'We also frankly wanted to make buying Battlefunds more appealing. We have wages to pay here in the Heroes team and in order to keep a team large enough to make new free content like maps and other game features we need to increase the amount of BF that people buy. Battlefield Heroes is a business at the end of the day and for a company like EA who recently laid off 16% of their workforce, we need to keep an eye on the accounts and make sure we are doing our bit for the company.' The official forums discussion thread is full of angry responses from upset users, who feel this change is a betrayal of the original stated objectives of the game."

Comment Re:differences in not dl ad vs. not seeing it? (Score 1) 974

I have never understood this argument. Well... I have not understood this argument since what? Sometime around 1999?

as long as the site is getting credit for pushing it, I don't see a problem with blocking them
No one gets paid for "pushing" the ad. People get paid for clicks generated by the ad.

In my opinion the ad blocking software, in its current form, is causing more problems than it solves.

1. Your browser requests the ad and burns server side bandwidth/CPU/other resources to deliver the ad.
2. Your browser receives the ad and burns client side bandwidth/CPU/other resources to receive the ad.
3. Your ad delivery is counted as a "view", since it was "pushed" to you.
4. The number of views is now erroneously increased, since it was never viewed.
5. The overall click through rate is driven down, since the ad was never viewed.
6. Advertisers are forced to react to plummeting click through rates with more intrusive ads or inventive measures to get around your countermeasures.

I personally feel the whole ad blocking idea needs to get over the "but I gave them credit for the view" idea and just not request the things at all. If there is no intention to display the ad, fine. Then do that. Just do it right.

If the technology was not requesting the ads at all, advertisers would get more accurate numbers and may be inclined to pay more per click. The Internet as a whole would have more bandwidth. The webmaster would have more accurate numbers of how many of his viewers are actually accepting his forms of advertising/revenue and could better gauge the his own business model.

Ad blocking technology needs to stop being an active part of the problem instead of trying to be the total solution.

Slashdot Top Deals

After all is said and done, a hell of a lot more is said than done.

Working...