Battlefield 3 Premium, Then…

By Jim Rossignol on June 6th, 2012 at 2:00 pm.


So yes, Battlefield 3 Premium is a thing. It costs $50, and for that you get early access to all five expansion packs – Armoured Kill, Aftermath, and End Game are appearing between now and March 2013 – as well as “exclusive in-game items”, exclusive events, and a lot of other stuff – double XP events and “tactics? And does all that add up to a new game’s worth of stuff? EA certainly seem to think so. Because I think I’d want a new game for that much cash. But perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps this is an essential purchase for the Battlefield 3 legions? Those expansions are certainly promising a lot of stuff – weapons, 20 maps, new vehicles and so on… Are you going to buy it? To the commentmobile!

(Oh, and there’s a glitzy trailer below.)

__________________

« | »

, , , .

179 Comments »

  1. famicube64 says:

    I’m interested in it but I can’t justify $50 for what is right now nothing more than just buying Close Quarters. I’m waiting until the 20th to just drop $15 and get my new guns.

    Edit: People seem to be expressing much distaste for this game. My comment was from the perspective of someone who’s still very active in the game and still enjoying himself.

    • wicko says:

      I bought it. Worth it if you plan to buy all the DLC, save $10, but pay $50 up-front. The best part was that the price included taxes for me (Canada) but I’m pretty sure if you buy them individually you’re still charged 13% tax. Not sure why this batch is an exception (this is on PSN btw, I haven’t bothered to buy it for PC, double dipping was bad enough).

      I’m still really enjoying the game, took a little break from it to play Dark Souls, but I think with the new content I’ll be playing it more (that and the fact that I’ve almost finished NG+ on Dark Souls).

      • neonordnance says:

        I bought it and I love it. The extras are fairly sizeable, and more than cover the burden of having to pay for all of the DLC up front. The one thing I don’t like, and I told the devs this via twitter, is that it is unfair to give premium players wait-queue priority. This is the only addition that actually takes content away from non-premium players, and as such I think they need to remove it. The devs assured me they would add it to their report, so here’s hoping for a change.

        But overall, the new skins, better battlelog and the promises of extra bonuses down the line make this a no-brainer for any serious BF3 fan.

        P.s. please don’t go overboard with the hand-wringing. This isn’t a subscription service like COD, it’s a disocounted DLC season pass with extras. This isn’t the end of gaming as we know it, so save your whining. This is a good thing and a bonus for hardcore players.

      • MrKay says:

        I also intend to buy it once I can justify it timewise (when exams are done). BF3 is my go-to ‘realistic’ military shooter and I’m still enjoying it a lot. Getting all this content just helps to keep things fresh and having more maps to chose from suits me well.
        Having all these expansions planned also mean they’ll keep balancing the game for some years still, which is also a motivator for me stick to the game.

      • Bonedwarf says:

        I often forget I live in the one province that doesn’t have a PST. Just got the GST.

        5% tax FTW!

        • wicko says:

          Oh we don’t have PST either. We have HST! Which is GST+PST in the end for us consumers.

          It’s BC with just GST right? I used to order PC parts from NCIX out there – but now they’re forced to charge us HST. Thanks, ON!

      • wengart says:

        I was pretty close to buying it but then three things happened. I had pre-ordered Close Quarters, I then heard about Premium, and the Red Orchestra 2 update/free weekend went live.

        I didn’t like the bait and switch feel of selling CQ and then releasing Premium so I canceled my preorder and have been having a lot of fun with RO2. At this point I don’t think I’ll go in on premium but I might just pick up armored kill.

    • philbot says:

      I Bought it too. I don’t know why so many people are complaining either, and boycotting BF3 all together. It’s just a good, fun, MP game. Origin isn’t THAT bad, and battlelog is better than I thought it would be. I’ve put 300 hours into this game, and still enjoy it a lot.

      Back in the day it was never offensive to release expansion packs for fifty bucks, and as far as I see, BF Premium is just a sparkly expansion pack.

      Although I do agree server queue priority is pretty BS.

      • Vesuvius says:

        I don’t know what day you’re talking about Philbot. When I was growing up and gaming (late 90s), expansion packs were $20-30 and usually gave you a full, voice acted singleplayer experience in addition to extra multiplayer content (I’m thinking of the Diablo, Starcraft, and Duke Nukem and Quake expansions).

        The multiplayer-only expansion packs were free and included character models/skins and maps (Unreal Tournament was the most prolific in this way, but many others did similar things).

        • philbot says:

          Well, times have changed then. I do love RPS but it sometimes seems that the readers and authors are suckers for the past. Times have changed, publishers got smarter, and if the market is willing to pay that sort of money, they will, and they have. Jumping into a game not long ago, at least 30% of in game players already had premium.

          Besides, since when was $50 a lot of money? That much money doesn’t even get me a case of beer in Australia.

          • grtkbrandon says:

            So when the day comes and we’re paying something ridiculous like $10 per map I have your full consent to blame people like you? Because a case of beer is more than $50 in your country, you might as well bend over and not resist while they steal whatever dignity you have left? Hell! Times are changing! There is absolutely nothing we can do but abide to our corporate overlords. Sounds good, man.

          • Froibo says:

            Who, people with money?

          • Vesuvius says:

            Don’t knock on me for living in the past when you’re the one who brought up that “Back in the day it was never offensive to release expansion packs for fifty bucks”.

            And yeah, it’s a LOT of money for a pretty minimal return. It’s a ridiculous rate, especially given the cost of the game proper, and there is a trend industry wide to nickel-and-dime gamers to death that is pretty obvious through microtransactions. This is no different, and unless you’re an employee at one of these places, there’s no reason to be blissfully excited for and apologetic on behalf of these companies taking advantage of gamers.

            I’m not saying “never buy anything” but I am saying “call a spade a spade and stop pretending that this isn’t a ridiculous escalation of price in return for less actual content almost every time”.

          • DrGonzo says:

            That’s weird. Because I’m still getting updates for Red Orchestra 2, new map, new weapons for free.

            How many new guns and maps have I had for free in Team Fortress 2 a game that cost me nothing? Or Tribes Ascend. Or Dota 2, or LoL. Or… You see where this is going.

            More stuff is free in PC gaming than there has ever been before. It’s not being stuck in the past at all.

            I enjoyed BF3, I bought Back to Karkand, but that’s it. I’m done with it now. I expect good post release support for free. New maps and new guns etc.

          • PopeJamal says:

            Times are indeed changing because I’m not buying their BS excuses any more for being sneaky and charging me $110 for the full game.

            I’m not paying $50 for beer and I’m not paying $50 for a silly map-pack either. Especially not to a group of people who think I’m “ruining” the retail market for games by “devaluing IP” when every time I buy a game on sale.

            You’ve got so much money to throw around, so feel free to buy “my” copy of the map pack too then, because I sure as hell won’t be picking it up.

        • Captchist says:

          In this case though I don’t WANT a single player. I played the BF3 single player and it was fine, but the fun for me is in multiplayer. I’m perfectly happy they aren’t wasting their time with the single player and are putting their effort into more multiplayer content. I certainly won’t hold it against them.

        • nearly says:

          have you played Battlefield 3′s singleplayer campaign? do you actually want more of it?

      • Euphoric says:

        It’s not a lot of money. Didn’t you know complaining and whining about EA & DICE are the cool thing to do nowadays. And if you get worn out doing that you can switch to Blizzard.
        Arguments about 12-15 yr old games are pointless. It is not the same industry it was – and people can whine about it all they want. The fact of the matter is – the structure works at this point in time – sales are PROOF. And the people that hate the change because in their rosey little worlds everything stays status quo for their entire lives – are in the minority.
        Who exactly bought BF3 for it’s single player content and would give a rats ass if they added more in DLC? I don’t think I’ve ever loaded the SP portion.

        • Vesuvius says:

          Do you seriously think that a total cost of $110 – $160 or more (if you want to get preorder / special edition withheld content) for a complete game is reasonable?

          • nearly says:

            the preorder content is included in premium and was never exclusive to begin with — just free for early adopters. to be perfectly honest, buying Battlefield 3 now for 30$ and premium for 50$ is actually a pretty good deal.

          • Euphoric says:

            That depends I guess on what you consider “complete”. That’s a tad bit subjective. BF3 as it stands by itself for what’s now around $30 is in fact “complete”. It’s not like the game came out with 1-2 maps, 2 guns and no single player.

            In comparison, though a different genre…let’s take World of Warcraft
            Vanilla game plus 3 expanisons = $49 x 4 = $199
            7 years running if you played all 7 – $15.99/month = $1343.00
            Grand total = $1542

            But yes, $30 for regular BF3 with 9 maps – 4 gamemodes and so on and so forth, then $49 for 4 DLCs, new eapons,vehicles,maps and so on and so forth…such a ripoff.

          • Shooop says:

            World of Warcraft is a service not a game you clod.

            People are paying them to keep all their data on their servers and keep maintaining the areas they play in. And all the expansions are pretty much free now.

            Yes it’s a crap game, but people are actually buying a service. BF3 is not a service, it’s a game they patch every once a year or so and ask you to pay them to do it. And none of the “updates” they’re releasing are comprehensive enough to be considered expansions.

          • Baines says:

            To be fair, Activision for years has wanted to turn Call of Duty into a subscription-based service. And EA is more than willing to copy Activision with Battlefield if they think there is money in the act.

            The idea of CoD being treated as a service received backlash, but then Activision introduced Elite. While people write it off as a cheaper way to get the DLC map packs (something that many argue are already over-priced for their content), it *is* a subscription service. And it is a service that Activision wants to grow. (The core game has even suffered for it. Black Ops-level in-game stat-tracking was not included because Elite was supposed to do all that and more, and that doesn’t even touch on the issue of Beachhead completely bungling stat tracking so badly that it was worthless. Downloading maps is more of a hassle than ever, thanks to how Elite’s early access was handled. As people warned before release, and IW/Beachhead apparently ignored, the web interface to edit classes was promptly exploited to create illegal class combinations. Etc.)

            And now EA has their own version of Elite, with added in-game exclusive content.

          • Shooop says:

            There’s no reason they can’t Baines, but they’re instead walking the line between the two instead, just trying to see how much they can squeeze gullible customers.

            If you want to make your game built on a subscription service, then go and do it. But that means you’re now required to keep constant maintenance of it, update it much more often, and take player feedback very seriously. Otherwise you loose subscribers, and with large operating costs, you can’t afford that.

            You can not simply bolt on a handful of subscription services onto a regular game and call it a day. Not if you have even an ounce of respect for gamers. But EA and Actvision have already proven they don’t need to. Gamers will just complain for a day or two, vote them a terrible company, and then buy the next shinny box they offer, perpetuating the cycle.

        • DrGonzo says:

          My monitor costs less than this game. That’s expensive. And see my comment above.

      • Kestilla says:

        The terrible patch schedule, rampant, game-breaking issues that take half a year to be fixed (hopefully), the awful servers packed so full of people neither team makes any headway and the respawns get screwed up (spawning in enemy territory), ineffective anti-air and ridiculous engineer spamming to repair vehicles, and the fact the only gamemode the majority of people seem to play is Team Deathmatch, spurning the superior, teamwork-based Squad Deathmatch because it A.) doesn’t provide as much instant XP, B.) has a tank in the center people use to run the field for the entire match, and C.) is often overloaded with players so you get one team of 24 and three others of 0, 3, and 1 respectively, come together to make me quite disappointed in this game.

        And yet I still see a lot of potential in it, and I do frequently enjoy playing it. It still feels like a partial step up, and two steps down from Battlefield 2 and Bad Company 2 in the large-scale engagements and the actual shooter gameplay. Also the sound, despite being high quality, is screwy in its directionality and droves of players can’t get it working right on their setups, if it even works right to begin with.

    • KastaRules says:

      I think, in all fairness, they should charge us more.

      A map pack sold for $50/€50 (nice conversion by the way) is, technically speaking, given away for free. For FREE! I honestly can’t understand how you guys can live with yourselves knowing that you keep getting away with these kind of awesome deals which, on the long run, lead good companies to bankruptcy.

      We should all feel ashamed.

    • discordance says:

      In £s per hour of gaming mp fps has always been incredibly worthwhile. The only singleplayer game thats even come close for me is Skyrim. I quite happily pay £30 for 60 hour singleplayer games. £40 is nothing for another 300 hours of BF. Maybe if you are a penny-pincher who will never pick up a game unless its on sale £40 is a problem but for anyone who enjoys the game its not.

  2. LegendaryTeeth says:

    No.

    But I didn’t buy Battlefield 3 either. Maybe if it comes out on Steam, and is like $20-$25 for everything. I have too many other games to play. For instances, I just got Railroad Tycoon 3 working under Windows 7! Woo!

  3. Mordsung says:

    I bought BF3 but I’ve barely touched it. I just don’t think I can do the military shooter thing anymore.

    I played the shit out of BF2 and BFBC2, but it just doesn’t do anything for me.

    I’ve switched to stuff like Tribes:Ascend.

    • Winged Nazgul says:

      Same here. I recently bought it at a half-price sale and I probably wouldn’t have bothered but I was curious to know how it would look and run on my new system (answer: awesome).

      I’ll be saving my shekels for Planetside 2 TYVM.

      • Mordsung says:

        Yeah, luckily I also bought it on sale and going by my “Get at least 1 hour per dollar” rule of game value, I’ve gotten my value out of it.

        I was just hoping to dump 500 hours in it like I did with BFBC2 and the thousands of hours I probably dumped into BF2.

        • Kestilla says:

          Bad Company 2 was a game I could play endlessly and laugh at, and just have fun in and not care too much about it. Battlefield 3 fills me with frustration and anger at all the things that happen, the people parachuting onto the crane from nowhere, the guys running around with shotguns like its Quake – people tried that in Bad Company and they ended up extremely dead. Now due to bad latency problems you’ll end up dead despite seeing and firing first.

          And you’ll have run behind a wall just in time to take cover, and five feet behind this wall suddenly fall dead due to bullets that hit you two seconds ago that only just registered.

      • Love Albatross says:

        And me, the MP just failed to hold my attention. Single player was terrible, but I forced myself to complete it since I’d pre-ordered to the stupid bloody thing.

        Ah well, back to playing BF1942 with Desert Combat and waiting for Planetside 2.

      • Reefpirate says:

        ohmygod planetside2 looks so so so so good

        i want it now

        • dontnormally says:

          “ohmygod planetside2 looks so so so so good”

          This is really the moral of the story.

          The fact that you basically HAVE to pay money to make use of vehicles totally ruined BF3. This coming from someone who dumped thousands of hours into BF2.

          • Falcyn says:

            Wot? How do you have to spend money to use vehicles, exactly?

            Vehicles spawn, and you use them.

    • Bostec says:

      i’m in the same wagon. I loved Battlefield Company 2, really great game but this? I can’t seem to get involved with it, its too detacted or something, too clean. I had a big pain in the arse trying to get the fucking thing to work in the first place so that didn’t help matters. I would say I like slower paced games now but I did boot up Serious Sam 3 the other night and had a good few hours with that. I don’t know, guess i’m too old for Serious army shooters.

      • DodgyG33za says:

        Was back playing BC2 myself last night. Had a blast. Now that the hard core have moved onto BF3 it is a much more enjoyable experience. When I avoided the helicopters anyway. Hate those flyboys in both games.

        • Anton says:

          Hmmm… Might try BFBC2 again if that’s the case. Had the worst time in BFBC2 Vietnam with those pesky helis! =P Always loved RUSH. I find that there aren’t a lot of RUSH maps being played in BF3, it’s always conquest. *sigh*. I love those “narrow” maps in rush, so to compensate in BF3, I always play on Metro maps.

          • Kestilla says:

            Players would probably be more evenly distributed across servers if player limits weren’t so ridiculously high. I’m actually surprised at how few servers I even see. Just how many people are playing this game?

    • Brise Bonbons says:

      About the only shooter I play consistently right now is Red Orchestra 2. Which I realized at some point that I play because it is more akin to a survival horror game than a modern FPS. In short, what I go in for is the tension, atmosphere, and fear. The mad rush across a field hoping an MG doesn’t find you.

      I’ve tried to get into Tribes: Ascend, but there’s just something about it that sticks in my craw. I don’t have any real criticisms (other than the mildly awful F2P implementation), it’s just not my game.

      I’d also probably like ARMA. Basically I like shooters where you spend most of your time moving, hunkering down, and only a little bit shooting.

  4. westyfield says:

    Haven’t touched BF3 since December. Keep feeling that I should get back into it, but Premium leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Didn’t DICE promise last year that they wouldn’t be charging for extra maps?

    • Siegfried says:

      EA & Dice you wont be taking my money

    • SanguineAngel says:

      I was fairly sure I remembered that – because I remember talk about DICE being the good guys for not splitting their player base.

      So much for that.

      • zeroskill says:

        “I remember talk about DICE being the good guys for not splitting their player base.

        So much for that.”

        ^ This.

        Good thing I didn’t trust one word they said.

        Also I love the B3 Premium adds all over RPS. What is happening to you RPS… You start looking like E3.

    • TwwIX says:

      “Didn’t DICE promise last year that they wouldn’t be charging for extra maps?”

      DICE is full of shit and has been ever since they were fully acquired by EA. This franchise died after Battlefield 2142. I only wish that i hadn’t contributed to EA’s profit by purchasing this shiny piece of shit.
      After all. That’s all this game is. All flash and no fucking substance whatsoever.

    • Deadly Sinner says:

      Dice said they wouldn’t charge for Bad Company 2 maps, but I didn’t hear anything about Battlefield 3.

  5. SquareWheel says:

    Sure glad I skipped this game.

  6. Dominic White says:

    If/when they drop the price to $20/25, that’ll make it on par with your average old-school expansion pack, which this effectively is. $50 is just bloody cheeky.

    • GetUpKidAK says:

      This is effectively paying $50 for five expansion packs, making them $10 each. $12.50 each if you already own Karkand. Either way, I don’t see your point.

      I won’t be buying it, though. It’s essentially a slightly cheaper pre-order for DLC with some other shit included to “tempt” players, but I’ve not played on BF3 for long enough for me to wait until the individual expansions are eventually released and on offer elsewhere. I expect I’ll have completely forgotten about the game by then anyway.

  7. Mark says:

    The principle idea of it doesn’t bother me, as long as it doesn’t unbalance the game. The problem is that quality is an unknown factor, and Close Quarters fighting isn’t what I come to Battlefield for.

  8. dignifieddevil says:

    it’s funny, I did the sane thing and uninstalled Battlefield 3 rather than let it ruin my life… work… online courses… and other things. Anyway, after finishing said courses I went to reinstall BF3 only to find… it wouldn’t reinstall. to make matters even more interesting, it turns out Origin’s uninstall feature doesn’t actually uninstall the game, but simply leaves a big 14 gig chunk of files on your hd and delists it from origin, so hey seems like it would be pretty simple to reactive my bf3 taken the fact that I’m logging in with my password and all that, but no… won’t reinstall…so well until EA gets the copy of BF3 I paid for and is actually installed on my computer back to a working state… wouldn’t really consider this. I might add I went to the support forums and found a few user comments with helpful suggestions, but they basically consist of deleting chunks of the game and then re-downloading. It does look intriguing though and I find myself shelling out for season passes all over the place, most recently with Quantum Conundrum, but that was like what 4 usd extra or something?

    • Shortwave says:

      I’ve had the same issue, as well as the installation becoming corrupt while updating.
      And.. Origin forgetting where it’s games are… >.> Don’t ask, I’m still confused about that one.

  9. Shortwave says:

    I keep on going to play this game and keep just getting annoyed with bugs, blurry graphics, stupid lens flare effects and all other kinds of annoyances. Not to mention for some reason I can hardly ever find any decent servers to play on.. How? I have no idea.. Oh, then theres the random times when the game will just refuse to work. Or give my system a BSOD. Recent spike in hackers.. Uh-huh!
    And they won’t more of my money.. How convenient.

    I’m still having a lot of fun with friends on BC2 these days and somehow I even find that game more visually appealing even if it lacks the detail of BF3.. Runs perfectly smooth these days and theres always a ton of great servers to pick from.. And tons of nice maps… Oh yea! I just wish piloting choppers was more like BF3.. But oh well. Maybe I’ll start playing BF3 when BF4 comes out?

  10. Gundato says:

    Based on checking the comment threads, I think that if EA called it a “Season Pass” people would be a lot less bitchy.

    Assuming 4 DLCs (we all have Karkand…), it is $12.25 per DLC, versus apparently $15 for them separately. So, on that front, it is totally worth it.

    But, considering that I might not get all the DLCs (I really don’t care for vehicles, ironically enough), I am probably going to wait to see what other extras we would get. Stuff like more assignments (basically like the better TF2 achievements that make you try new gameplay styles) might be enough to sway me. A black knife, not so much.

    • Vorphalack says:

      ”Assuming 4 DLCs (we all have Karkand…), it is $12.25 per DLC, versus apparently $15 for them separately. So, on that front, it is totally worth it.”

      Except that for the amount of content in each individual DLC pack, $12.25 is still a rip off. That they are offering a small multi-buy discount does not make this good value for money.

      • wicko says:

        The amount of content is pretty substantial, and making maps that size is no easy task, including 10 weapons with each pack and 2 vehicles with each pack, I’d say it’s worth it. Certainly worth far more than the competition with it’s 5 small maps (usually with 2 remakes).

        • Vorphalack says:

          Once again, justifying BF3 Premium because ”at least it’s not as bad as CoD!” isn’t selling it to me. For the amount of money they want you to put down on map DLC you can buy 3 or 4 full games, each with more content than the entire premium DLC package. It is objectively not good value for money.

          • Gundato says:

            Yes, yes, we get it. DLC bad, etc, blah blah blah.

            Honestly, as far as the current going rates are, 13 bucks for two or three maps, a few new guns, and a few new vehicles is a halfway decent deal. Is it worth it? I dunno, that is up to you.

            But, going by what EA will be charging (the 15 bucks), then Premium is worth if if you plan to buy all the DLCs. I don’t know what you plan to do, only you do.In fact, if you read the rest of my post before jumping on “YARGH! IT IS PURE EVIL!!” you would see that I am probably ignoring this because it won’t be worth it to me.

            Also, it is funny. We bitch and moan that we don’t get forty maps per patch these days (to be fair, we never did, but shhh :P). Think back: How many maps did you actually play on?
            I would rather get 2 or 3 GOOD maps with actual different gameplay (which is why I am looking forward to Close Quarters) than 10 maps that are just “more of the same” with a different set of textures (which really happened with 1942 and 2).

            With Unreal Tournament, we got 4 bonus packs full of maps (did the 4th contain maps, or just skins? I forget). And the core game. Most people just played Deck and Face (or CTF-Stargate with the STrangelove and a grappling hook!).

          • wicko says:

            Disagree – mainly because it’s the amount of time I spend playing the game, makes it well worth it to me. Sure I could spend that money on a full game that lasts 10-12 hours – but may be exactly the same game the second time I play it, whereas a multiplayer game, especially in Battlefield, can be quite unpredictable.

            I can only imagine how you feel about subscription fees (wrt MMOs).

      • piratmonkey says:

        I think that’s a fair price to pay for the content I’ll be receiving in each pack.

    • Squirrelfanatic says:

      Are you saying that you would pay money for achievements?

    • YourMessageHere says:

      Is Assignments the thing where you do specified stuff to unlock things? I don’t have the game but I was playing it at a friend’s place. I was trying to unlock the QBZ-95 carbine (I think) for him, which requires 50 infantry kills with AT launchers. Got kicked from three servers for it. Nice idea Dice.

      Also, that’s the most amazingly flexible tagline for any product ever. Battlefield 3 Premium: own more! Ikea coffee tables: own more! Harpic descaler: own more! Enriched uranium: own more!

      • jonfitt says:

        Some servers are set up to auto-kick for killing people with the grenade launcher or RPG/AT because they hate the game and wish it was different. You should avoid those servers unless you wish the game was that way.

        • ankh says:

          They don’t hate the game. They hate freedom! And America!

        • Gundato says:

          Basically, I agree with that. It is the same crap with “pro mods” and the like that balance the games for tournaments and what not (although, do tournaments even use those? If memory serves, the UT ladders generally didn’t force special mods).

          And yeah, it might sound stupid to pay for achievements (and it is). Instead, I view it as paying for encouragement to try new stuff. You know, new gameplay. I almost never play anything other than Rush, but I had some fun in Team Deathmatch, which I was doing to unlock a gun. And using the rpg and grenade launcher were fun too, even though I usually save those for clearing enemies out of hidey holes (which is why I refuse to play on the servers that ban them. It overpowers campers and snipers).

          You don’t know funny until you pop out, fire a rocket at a glint off a scope, and take out 3 snipers. Whereas, using a normal grenade (or even a grenade launcher) requires you to get much closer (and is less funny).

  11. sneetch says:

    I’m amazed that they’ve included Back to Karkand in that, essentially worthless to most of the people who would be interested in this as they’ve already either bought it or received it for pre-ordering. I don’t think I’m that interested in this anymore, my BF3 days are numbered. Giving them money ahead of time when the last big patch changed the weapon handling so much that I have to basically relearn the game seems like a bad idea to me.

    “VALUE ESTIMATED AT $75″

    Value? I’m not convinced. Sure, it’ll cost $75 (more like $60 if you already have B2K).

  12. Was Neurotic says:

    Yes, I will get it, but probably not until much closer to Christmas when I can comfortable afford it. BF3 is still the most brilliant shooter on PC (imho). Yes, I do own every BF game ever (except BC1), but that doesn’t mean I have blinkers or am a rabid Day One purchaser.

  13. TrueZarken says:

    If you’re a big Battlefield 3 fan and can see yourself playing it in the next 12+ months then I’d tell someone to go for it. Personally though Battlefield 3 is so full of problems and just didn’t live up to the hype (another reason to ignore hype) that I stopped playing it a month later.

    Did I get my money’s worth out of it? I’d say no because it just felt like it lacked soul. It is an amazing technical achievement, but like a lot technical achievements it lacks character and soul. However that’s a theme of a lot of EA games of late so we’ll leave that alone.

    Like I said if you could see yourself playing BF3 in the next 12+ months and play it regularly go for it, but if you are a “filthy casual” as some Battlefield users like to say then hold on to that money and buy something else you’re interested in.

    • grundus says:

      I bought this last night, I haven’t used it yet but given how much I play BF3 I know I’ll get £40 of game out of it, no question. I’ve grown out of the ‘ooh, shiny!’ phase so I imagine I’ll be playing BF3 and no other online adversarial military shooters (note: this does not include Arma) until BF4 comes out, presuming it doesn’t suck anyway.

      I honestly did give it serious thought, and I came to realise that EA is unlikely to drop the price on it for a long while so I might as well get it now, and you get a slight discount on all the DLC (unless you paid for B2K) as well as more stuff to do, see and use. The price is ok by me because the £35 I paid in the first place got me nine maps to start with with four more added for free because I preordered, this is £40 and adds 16 maps on top of that, plus extra guns, vehicles, vehicle unlocks and so on.

  14. Alexander Norris says:

    Actually, it costs $60 since it’s £40.

    Paid map packs are still the worst idea. I’d've probably bought something like Premium if they’d distributed the maps to everyone for free. Oh, and the queue jumping is somewhat insulting, frankly.

    It’s sad that the only company doing DLC properly these days is Bohemia (sad because everyone else should do them properly, not because BIS suck or anything). :(

    • sneetch says:

      Woah, the “server queue priority” is a major insult, I hadn’t seen that before. I can’t see myself playing any game where they think it’s acceptable that I can go from first in the queue to 2nd in the queue because someone else has spent more.

    • Cim says:

      Those are the two things that really bother me as well… In Sweden it costs 69 US Dollars, not 50.

      Even if the pricing was better, the queue jumping is in really poor taste. I don’t want that feature and I don’t think anyone should have it unless they own the server.

      • grundus says:

        Yeah, VIP slots were great in BC2 and I have no idea why they were removed. Well, I didn’t, but maybe I do now. How often do you guys join queued servers, though? I rarely ever sit in queues unless it’s for my clan’s more popular server.

        • Cim says:

          I don’t use the queues all that much either, it’s only when playing with a group of friends that it comes in handy sometimes.

          it’s just that giving priority to players that have paid more than the original game cost is something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It’s not so much adding a feature to the people who get premium as much as it is removing something from people who don’t.

          • PopeJamal says:

            So, here’s an honest question: If you don’t like what they’re doing, why are you still going to give them your money?

            You do realize that you don’t HAVE to do that, right? And even if you complain after purchasing, why should they listen to you when you’ve proven to them that they can get your money even when they do things you don’t like?

            I can understand people with no objections throwing their money at EA; fine, to each his own. What I don’t understand is the people who throw their money at EA while complaining.

  15. wodin says:

    Not sure why BF3 gets OK articles and comments yet Medal of Honour just gets slated. Which is a shame as MoH was the start of these games really. Then came CoD and BF. There all pretty much the same, infact CoD looks more arcade than MoH.

    Smacks of unfairness to be honest.

    • Nick says:

      Actually they aren’t really the same at all and the first MoH came out the same year as Codename Eagle (which is pretty much the precursor to BF series).

  16. smg77 says:

    I skipped this game when EA refused to sell it on Steam. Looks like I didn’t miss much.

  17. iviv says:

    When it says ‘early access’ to the expansions, that still means you have to buy the expansions when they actually come out, right?

  18. Prosper0_cz says:

    It simply boggles the mind for me how far are EA willing to go. 4 DLCs for the price of 3,5, ok, that’s fair game I guess. But paid for non-cosmetic advantages (like queue priority or Stat reset) in a standard retail game…brrrr… The very nature of these advantages – I mean how did I even came up with the idea of offering queue priority in retail MP game… In F2P would make sense, I guess, but hey, this is EA after all.

    • Winged Nazgul says:

      Funnily enough, most opponents of F2P never mention corporate greed is not to be found only in F2P models.

    • PoulWrist says:

      You could call BF3 f2p, since you only have to pay the price of admission, and at the present time that’s pretty low.

      • Winged Nazgul says:

        You obviously do not know what free means.

        • PoulWrist says:

          Sure I do, free means you get shafted untill you start paying. Universal model for all F2P games. BF3 just starts out with an admission fee.

          • Winged Nazgul says:

            No, F2P means you can take a game or leave it before you’ve sunk any money into it.

      • Prosper0_cz says:

        Yeah, what Winged Nazgul said.

        Plus there are hundreds of thousands of people (not me) who paid the full retail price which is a pretty expensive price of admission.

        Do you find stuff like double XP weekends, Stat resets or queue priorities as a fair monetization option for a retail game?

  19. Exylled says:

    So, i think its worth the 50$ / 40€ / 32£

    But 49,99€ in EU, that’s not worth it, its 20% more than everywhere else.

    So the thing is that I bought it for 18,83€ ( wont go in detail, but its not possible anymore, price has been corrected).

    Now that’s value.. anyway, I think that 50$ is acceptable for 4 DLC,s and some more stuff, but asking in EU 50€..well, f*ck off

    • MrTambourineMan says:

      You have to know that american prices don’t include tax (vat). But anyways, I was huge fan of BC2, played it more than any other FPS in a long long time, I’m glad though that I didn’t have opportunity tu purchase BF3 yet, with 50 € worth of additional content that I can spend buying 2 games that are a few months old.

  20. nothingfaced says:

    No, I wont be paying for this. If you like the BF3, dont have the expansions already but want them, then it makes fiscal sense. Otherwise – no. Not at all.

  21. DodgyG33za says:

    Unless I have missed it no-one has mentioned the effect of double XP. Surely if you start giving away differing amounts of points to each player depending on how much cash they have paid the ranking system between players becomes pointless. What is the point of saying “hey man, my SPM is better than yours” if the comeback is “that’s because you are EA’s bitch, sucker”. Or something.

    • PoulWrist says:

      The “skill rating” is unrelated to your score/min.

    • grundus says:

      XP, skill rating and score per minute are all different things. Yeah, XP and score are 1:1 at the moment, but on a double XP weekend I imagine the score you earn is the same, but the XP you earn is doubled. In other words, Premium players won’t magically have double the SPM of non-Premium players.

  22. Longrat says:

    Despite not really enjoying bf3, I found it to be a fairly complete game. It had a lot of MP content and maps and such. As a result, I’m not offended by the price of this package, though I know I won’t be buying it.

  23. Cruyelo says:

    50$ is a lot of money, but it’s also a LOT of maps, so… I dunno.
    At the moment, the maps they’ve been releasing are quite varied and it seems like they’re taking them seriously and doing quality work. For the price of a full game (50$) you would get twice the amount of maps the game shipped with. (Approximately. 20vs9 if you don’t have Karkand, 16vs9 if you do)

    So in that regard, it’s not a bad deal for big fans of the game.

    But I still find it hard to pay 50$ for maps. For 40$ I’d probably buy it, no problem, but 50$ feels just a little too much for me.

    The best approach is probably to wait for deals on the DLC and buy them separately, but I don’t think it’s a bad idea to offer this option for the big fans of the game.
    Not for me, but I don’t find it to be a ripoff or anything.

    (note : players have been connecting through vpn to reduce the price of the premium service)

  24. Arithon says:

    Paid DLC will just split the BF3 player-base even further.

    Their “20 maps…” etc. INCLUDES Karkand which most people have, so you’re being asked to pay more for the DLC than the GAME cost on pre-order – 25% of which we already have!

    Origin pricing has followed the “usual” by adding VAT to the USD price (+20%) then adding another 3% for good measure! UK Price $61.86 on Origin, bear in mind that the game itself only cost $46.39 INCLUDING Karkand on day one…..

  25. ain says:

    Who in their right mind is going to buy an EA product anymore?

  26. Makariel says:

    For 50$ I buy a new game. Looking on how much I paid for the last couple of games I bought: for 50$ I buy about 8 new games (indiebundles ftw).

  27. PoulWrist says:

    Already bought it. It’s cheaper for the expansions that can’t really be labeled as map packs as outsiders looking in are doing with all their hate speak. And I’m a very casual player.

  28. brkl says:

    Buying this would mean playing it to justify the cost, which experience has shown me is an exercise in frustration. So no.

  29. aircool says:

    Took me about three weeks to realise BFBC2 was far superior. So bored with FPS’s these days that I can’t even get excited about Colonial Marines…

    Of course, PS2 doesn’t count as that, er, an MMO as well :)

  30. simulant says:

    It is worth the extra 10 bucks it will cost me to separately purchase the 4 expansion packs that I don’t already have just to discourage this bullshit.

    And who knows? Maybe there will be more discounts down the line. Maybe since I already have to wait two weeks to play with my friends who made the plunge, I just go ahead and wait 4 or 6. Maybe I’ll skip a pack. Or maybe I’ll just abandon the game altogether like I did COD.

  31. Exylled says:

    Well, “no its not worth it”..and then “but i hate the game, never really got into it, yada yada yada”..well, its natural you hate the Premium, if people don’t like the base game…

  32. ekuurh says:

    I don’t resent EA, but I’m certainly not going to pay 50$ for a game that’s almost a year old plus new expansions. I won’t pay 50$ for a new game. Hell, I won’t pay 50$ for a huge valve box. It’s 50$.

  33. Skystrider says:

    Being a single-player only gamer, I wasn’t all that entertained by Battlefield 3. Won’t be getting this.

  34. sharks.don't.sleep says:

    I wouldn’t have a problem with BF 3 Premium, early access to DLCs doesn’t bother me too much, Stat reset (K/D, Accuracy and something else IIRC) even less, a different skin for my knife, weapon? Don’t care..

    But what spites me is the higher queue priority Premium users get.
    It sucks getting pushed back just because someone paid 50$ (or 50€…)

  35. Post-Internet Syndrome says:

    The base price of the DLC:s is a bit steep, but Premium itself is not a big problem. It’s just a season pass, as some people have noted. Jumping server queues is stupid and should not be there, but otherwise it’s just a couple of cosmetic extras for the hardcore fans. Among which I count myself. At 150 game hours clocked – and counting – this game has definitely been worth it for me, and I don’t see myself quitting it for quite a while. And while each DLC only contains four maps, you have to take into consideration that every map supports several different game modes and game sizes.

    It is perhaps not an awesome deal for everyone, but for me personally it is worth it. BF3 is one of the best FPS games I’ve ever played.

  36. Clavus says:

    Already bought it. After looking at my stats, I think having clocked more than 200 hours in this game should justify the purchase. Plus it’s not a bad deal, even with the fact I had Back to Karkand already.

    After playing a lot of Day Z the past week, I actually found it quite refreshing when I fired up a match of BF3 yesterday.

  37. Synesthesia says:

    Great, now im locked out of half of a 60 euro game, not to mention getting kicked from lots of servers. Loving it! More, please!

  38. paddymaxson says:

    Let’s be reasonable here (warning, the following will sound mildly like I’m an EA apologist, I’m not).

    BF3 Premium doesn’t just get you early access to the DLCs, it gets you the DLCs (A lot of people seem to either neglect to provide this information or write it down in a way that’s unclear).

    These DLCs are priced around £12 each, so across 5 DLCs the UK price of £40 saves you 33%.

    It also includes a few cosmetic touches that are normally £2-5 in DLCs. So you’re probably looking at £70 of DLC

    I agree it’s nuts to have enough DLC that the sale value of it is twice the cost of the game itself, but I suppose its normal now.

    I admit £40 is very expensive for a DLC bundle, but it looks like there’s going to be equally as many bonus maps in the package of 5 DLCs as there are currently existing maps (official ones anyway) Now I suppose that makes this an expensive expansion, but then 90% of sequels now are full priced standalone expansions so I don’t see how EA is any more villainous than than Ubisoft (AC2 has TWO full price standalone expansions masquerading as sequels) or Activision (CoD4′s full price standalone expansions now number 3 and will number 4 soon enough).

    • BlackeyeVuk says:

      What you are doing is justifying them. Everyone is aware of the cost. However those DLC-s are not worth 20 euros in the first place.

      So why will I buy for 50 all together?

    • Brun says:

      I think there’s more outrage about the price on the European side – they seem to be following the Blizzard standard of price NUMBERS rather than actual cost. In other words, they aren’t adjusting for currency exchange rates, just copying and pasting the dollar amount with a Pound or Euro sign in front of it. I don’t know what the exchange rate for Pounds or Euros is right now, but I do know that 50 pounds is going to be more money than $50. The value of the content, then, DOES go down in Europe, because you are paying more for the same amount. However, in dollars at least, $10 or $12 per DLC doesn’t seem terribly outrageous.

  39. piratmonkey says:

    I’ll probably buy it and stat resets are something that every game like this should have.

  40. TwwIX says:

    Leave it up to EA to churn out more garbage and community splitting DLC while completely ignoring the numerous issues that plague their game. Fuck EA, every developer associated with them and the crusty assholes its CEO’s crawled out of!

  41. WinTurkey says:

    Here are some numbers for you
    Total price of Battlefield 2 extra content: $56 ($30 Special Forces addon and 2 $13 “booster packs”)
    14 maps
    10 new weapons + specops gear
    20 new vehicles

    Total price of Battlefield 3 extra content: $50
    20 new maps
    20+ new weapons (at this rate it’ll be around 50)
    10 new vehicles

    Whether you think it’s worth it or not is another matter, but this is just typical DICE paid content and not OMG DEATH OF GAMING TO DLC.

    • Brun says:

      This. Isn’t it interesting how the attitude toward additional content has changed so much since then? Back then people welcomed the new content with excitement. There were few, if any, gripes about dividing the user base, etc.

      Now we get additional content and everyone whines about how DLC is killing gaming. What happened? Did everyone get a little less naive or something? That’s adorable.

      • WinTurkey says:

        It’s because of EA, they do so much genuine nonsense that when they don’t do something dastardly people still fail to react appropriately.

        Doesn’t matter though, DICE are kings of good-looking trailers, the moment they release an AK trailer showing off that desert map with the 1.5km distance between control points and the AC-130 you’ll have people buying Premium like there’s no tomorrow.

      • SanguineAngel says:

        Pretty sure I remember just as much outrage back then for many of the same reasons. For myself, I don’t think any game is worth £80 and splitting the player base by paid for maps has never been acceptable. Especially when they explicitly said that they would not do that.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          Been here since the beginning of battlefield. There was no outrage for bf2 booster packs, or the 1942 expansion packs. People welcomed them.

    • po says:

      You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that BF2 also had a large amount of completely free but still very high quality player made content for it.

      DLC has killed that off completely.

      What really stinks is that without modding in BF1942, there wouldn’t have been a Desert Combat mod, the team who made it wouldn’t have been hired to work on BF2, and the whole Battlefield series might never have happened at all.

      Not having modding in more recent games has pushed back progress in gaming, because it’s now much harder for talented people to get into game development. At least companies like Valve and Bohemia can respect the fact that many players have a lot more to offer to gaming, than just the contents of their wallets.

      The fact that ARMA II sales have rocketed thanks to a player made mod, and with no extra dev work, like they’d have to do to make DLC, just goes to show how stupid it is for publishers to remove modding from games.

  42. Ravenger says:

    It’s the way they’re pushing this that gets me. if you’ve got this you appear as a ‘Premium Player’ with a snazzy red colour scheme on the Kill-cams. You even get a ‘Premium Player’ dog-tag.

    It’s like they’re suggesting that if you don’t get this pack you’re not worthy. It’s the sort of hard-sell that really puts me off playing the game at all because this will be rubbed in your face every time you play if you haven’t upgraded.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      I can understand that. Thats one of the few legitimate complaints people can have.

    • cube911 says:

      This, exactly. I feel like they’re forcing this on me. Especially with things like access to double XP weekends and queue priority. If it wasn’t for this, I would be glad to pay for a real season pass. But this isn’t a season pass. It’s a forced purchase if you don’t want to be left behind.

  43. jelmerkla says:

    I bought the first cod last week for 2 euro, with case and disc

    • Euphoric says:

      Congratulations on buying a 9 year old game in your local bargin bin. Enjoy trying to play with the other 1-2 people in the world that still have it, yet need to reinstall it to join you on hacked server no less since there aren’t any more dedicated servers for it.

      How does that have any relevance to this article at all?

      • deadly.by.design says:

        It’s relevant because BF3 premium is aimed at those who want to play this current game and stay up-to-date with all new content. He’s obviously not in that boat and, in direct contrast, prefers to play games at his own pace.

        I bought MW2 for $5 last month, so I’m digging his jive. In my defense, I dont give a hoot about multi-player and I only bought it because I thought it had a zombie mode. (my wife would play that with me)

    • LionsPhil says:

      It’s got a great singleplayer campaign.

  44. Hug_dealer says:

    The DLC being released now is larger than the booster packs we got for battlefield 2 and 2142, and they are the same price as they were back then.

    All in all. Worth the investment if you plan on playing that long.

    I would also say it takes more work to create any map in BF3 than it does any other game period. The amount of extra artwork and design required to do all that destruction is immense, then take the size of the map into account. You can most other games entire map line up on some of battlefields maps.

    • Brun says:

      I agree with most of what you’re saying, except the last paragraph. The fact that “it’s harder” to make content for game X or platform Y is an excuse that too many developers have hidden behind for too long. “We don’t want next-gen consoles, because it will be too hard to make games with better graphics!”, is what they’ve been saying. Can you believe that garbage? No, the whole attitude of “it’s too hard” just smacks of the laziness into which the entire industry has fallen. EA and DICE knew what they were getting into when they crafted Frostbite 2, if they didn’t adjust their processes or create the tools necessary to efficiently create new content then that is their failure to bear.

      • Hug_dealer says:

        Not harder, more work. With more work, comes the need for more people to do it, which costs more money, or it takes longer to do it, which also costs more money. It just a fact.

        The fact that they need to design not just 1 building, but design that one building with various levels of destruction, and eventually entirely destroyed. When pretty much every other game the building has nothing happen to it. Same goes for fences, walls, everything in the game. They all have various states that need animated and artists to do art for all that various levels of destruction, and have it look real. Then they have to deal with all the bugs and other issues that can come from doing things advanced things of that nature.

        That is a ton more work than making a static map like in COD. Then you have to take into account the size of the map also.

        I wouldnt say it is harder at all. It simply requires more work, and time. which costs companies more money. The fact that dice when Dx11 and 64 players cost more work, and money. When they could have simply ported the game like COD does.

        The attitude you are carrying wreaks of entitlement. You assume that the devs dont work hard, and dont care about their work. You seem to think that they need to have someone with whip cracking down on them at all times saying more content, faster, more content, faster. You obviously arent in the game industry, and you have little clue what it takes to make a game, or additional content. I also know little of the game industry, and what it takes to make a game. But i atleast know that it takes more work to create dynamic content than static.

        For example. I want you to build me a sandcastle. Nice. Now i want you to build me a sandcastle that we can go inside. Now i want you to build me a sandcastle in no less than 10 different states of damage, and finally destroyed at the end. Obviously building a sandcastle is easy. Now building it so you can go inside is take more work, and then making even more work, now you have to add destruction to it.

        • Brun says:

          Difficult, more work – it boils down to the same thing: more money, as you said.

          My point was that developer/publisher costs are ballooning out of control because both sides have gotten “stuck in their ways” so to speak. They’re used to doing things a certain way, and that way has failed to keep pace with technological advances. Which is why you see developers complaining that the next generation is arriving too soon – it means their way of doing things will fall even further behind.

          I understand completely that Battlefield maps are much more complex than COD maps. I don’t think anyone can make an argument to the contrary. My point was that DICE knew that – they designed Frostbite 2, which means that they had the prior knowledge necessary to design tools to streamline their development process (and that of future Frostbite 2 licensees).

          Perhaps an illustration is in order. You tasked me with building a sandcastle. Then making that castle so we can go inside it. Then making that sandcastle so that it has 10 distinct stages of destruction. Based on what you described, the current way to accomplish this would be to make 10 different sandcastles (in various states of disrepair) with full interiors. I would instead make a tool into which I could feed a single sandcastle model, and out of which 10 variously destroyed sandcastle models would be generated. Then, when you came back tomorrow and told me to build a sand sculpture of a mermaid in 10 distinct stages of destruction, I could simply model the sand mermaid and feed it through the tool again.

          That’s just an example, and it’s very hypothetical (I’m not a 3D modeler and while I imagine such a tool wouldn’t be impossible to create, it would certainly be difficult). Such a tool would be a technical feat in and of itself, and it would indeed cost a significant amount of money. But the whole point is that such a tool (or set of tools) would save an enormous number of man-hours in the long run. I don’t know if complex art asset generation is the biggest bottleneck in gaming development (it certainly seems to be, though), but if that’s the case then these kinds of investments MUST be made or the cost of developing games will continue to increase exponentially.

          And no, I don’t think developers are lazy – at least not the grunts who are actually doing all of this stuff. The failure lies with the publishers and the upper management of the developer shops.

          • Hug_dealer says:

            how long would it take for you to build that tool. Would its results always be what you want the destruction to look like for that single building?

          • Brun says:

            Both valid questions, ones that I don’t have answers to. Again, it was only an illustration. It’s also perfectly acceptable for such tools to be made external to the developer (i.e. middleware). Some examples include things like SpeedTree. SpeedTree is a great example of the kind of tool I’m talking about. They took something that was very difficult to do by hand (model detailed trees) and computerized it. Now developers have access to a tool that can spit out hundreds of realistic trees in mere minutes. THAT’s the kind of tool I’m looking for. The game industry needs more of that – similar tools but for textures, humanoid models, etc.

  45. db1331 says:

    Instead of buying BF4 for $60 in November (like you would do with CoD) you can pay $50 to unlock enough maps and weapons to fill most whole games, and you can enjoy some of it right now. I don’t see a problem with it.

  46. Lev Astov says:

    I’d feel a lot better about buying this if the game had mods for some reason. Or at least community made maps. I just feel the community would put the new resources I’m paying for to much better use.

    Also, are we sure those are actually 20 new maps and not 10 new maps with both a conquest and rush mode for each? I wouldn’t put it past EA to try to sell conquest and rush versions of a map as 2 separate maps.

    I will at least be buying the Armored Kill map pack when that comes out, but I’m afraid all of the people who hate armor (who I incidentally love slaughtering) will never play on any of those maps. So much for not dividing the community, DICE.

  47. MrTambourineMan says:

    TF2 has hats.

  48. deadly.by.design says:

    If $50 gets you BF3 and all future expansions/DLC, then sure.

    If $50 is for DLC only, I’d rather keep playing Tribes. This serial DLC business is just companies trying to ensure that they get $50 from you each year.

    • Hug_dealer says:

      or they could release a new game every year, and make the money you spent last year worthless.

      Instead you get 1 game with all the new content, and keep all your work a progress, instead of having to abandon the already patched up game with lots of content for a new game without as much content and that will have bugs.

      I know which i prefer.

      • deadly.by.design says:

        If you play that same game for two years, then sure. I can’t think of any multiplayer games other than Left4Dead 2 that I’ve played that long, though, and I know it didn’t cost me an additional $50.

        I’m admittedly biased, though, because I think selling maps is evil.

        • Hug_dealer says:

          Well. Is there a difference between the last few cod games? They could all have been expansions of the last game. So the idea you cant play the same game for years is not out of the question.

  49. wssw4000 says:

    So I don’t have BF3. Is there any pack for like 60$ where you get the game and this premium? If there was I’d buy it right now.

  50. Auzy says:

    I might buy Close Quarters…but overall I think i will be playing Firefall and Planetside 2 later this year. So premium isn’t really worth it, especially since I have no idea what I will be buying with the last couple xpacs. I would rather be an informed consumer and wait to purchase the product, even if it ends up costing me more $ in the end.

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>