Peter Suciu

Battlefield Heroes: Play 4 Free, Until You Want Something
January 23, 2008

Most of the folks I know in the video game industry know that I’m a big history buff. I tend to know a lot about the events depicted in various games, and because a lot of games take place during the second World War, I’m known as “the World War II guy,” but my real interest in military history lies in the European history from the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the first World War.

That said, I feel confident that I know my way around the military games better than most. I’m a nitpicker too, and I can point out incorrect uniforms, anachronistic use of weapons and notably the inaccurate depiction of vehicles — only in World War II action games can a Sherman go head-to-head against a King Tiger and win the day!

I’m always happy to hear about a new military simulation, especially those rooted in a historical setting. Games don’t have to be utterly realistic to be good. But this week’s announcement from Electronic Arts has me ready to go into full anti-video-game-war protest mode. Battlefield Heroes, the latest title in the franchise from Swedish development studio DICE, will be a major leap backwards in multiplayer action games.

The company is taking a series known for gritty realism — which as ranged from World War II to Vietnam to the modern day to the near future — and is basically dumbing it down with cartoon-like graphics. The company could at least launch it under a new name, but of course that name has been very popular. While Battlefield isn’t Madden, it is enough to draw interest. Battlefield 1942 came out in 2002 and is still going strong with players online, while Battlefield 2 from 2005 is regularly packed with people from around the world.

No doubt it was the success of the latter game, which continues to reward players for in-game accomplishments that certainly spawned Battlefield Heroes. EA must have taken notice that people are still paying for a game two and a half years later — but also noted that the company isn’t making any money. The online multiplayer series is free to play. So once you paid the $50 for a copy (now about $10 to $20 in the bargain bins), you never have to pay again to play.

So rather than make another retail game with a free online presence, EA is actually giving away BF Heroes! My military history knowledge reminds me that during the Napoleonic Wars recruiting sergeants would get soldiers to sign up by offering something for nothing. Essentially EA is doing the same thing. The game is available as part of the new “Play 4 Free” business model. So far so good, but there are no free lunches and certainly no “free games.”

“We interrupt this blog post for a word from our sponsors …”

Not really, but that’s along the lines of what you might find in BF Heroes. While in-game advertising is common enough in sports and racing games, EA hopes to bring this revenue stream to shooters! The game will be free but players will have to endure in-game ads. Whether this will be posters or billboards in an urban battlefield, or actual ads during the load screens isn’t known for sure. EA has long had a NASCAR franchise, so let’s hope they don’t sell space on tanks and helicopters. Or worse corporate sponsors for each team: “The Cola Wars on Battlefield Heroes, Team Coke vs. Team Pepsi. This time thirst is the only real enemy.” It is clear ads will be there!

What won’t be there: an arsenal stocked with weapons and equipment. Not a major problem, right? After all, in BF 2 players started out with a basic kit and the rank of buck private. For efforts in the game, including “kills” as well as meeting mission objectives such as capturing flags, providing support, etc. you earned points. These points were saved and you could “rank up,” earning promotions, awards and unlocks of new weapons and equipment. The universe remains persistent in that every time you came back you have what you earned the time before.

BF Heroes on the other hand will allow players to pay for that new gear instead. Some real-world cash will allow a shortcut to arming up like Rambo. “Are you having fun yet? No? That’s just because you haven’t bought enough weapons. Drop $10 more and get the M-4 sub-machinegun already!”

Does this mean merit is dead? Who knows, but I prefer playing to actually earning those upgrades. Since coming out in the summer of 2005 I’ve personally managed to play Battlefield 2 for about 300 hours, making me solidly a “weekend warrior” type, where I’m earned the rank of Master Sergeant. I still occasionally get together with a few friends to go on missions against enemy troops, where my specialty remains driving a tank. (My in-game handle is Panzer Six in case you’d like to check my accomplishments).

Say you don’t even have 300 hours to get to the rank of Sergeant, or 5,000 hours to get that Colonel’s eagle — and lets not talk about those who have played for 10,000 or more hours to earn some General’s stars — might BF Heroes have you covered? EA has already made it clear that the players can buy better equipment but does this mean you can earn ranks by typing in a credit card number?

Now in fairness the company hasn’t actually said anything about rank, but if they’re selling the guns, uniforms and gear, restoring the pre-19^th century system of selling of officer’s commissions wouldn’t be that much of a leap. And this is where my knowledge of history really makes me think EA is making a mistake. The system of selling ranks was common in almost all Western nations, until it became apparent that officers unable to support a higher social status were left in junior ranks, while wealthy men without any actual skills were leading men into battle and disaster. Want to play as a commander, just pay for it!

Now, in fairness, EA promises to make sure players face off with each other according to skills, but even twitch-based shooters tend to offer an advantage to anyone with the better firepower. What about equipment, camouflage and vehicles? Do I have to buy more stuff to get a better game experience? EA and DICE have promised “robust character customization,” but all that customization is going to cost. This “Pimp my Soldier” approach also feels just as antiquated as the Napoleonic Era when rich officers wore gaudy uniforms that showed their status more than ability.

War is not a pretty thing. There are no doubt those who feel any depiction of war for entertainment, especially interactive entertainment, is wrong. But done right, military games can provide a way to honor those who have found themselves fighting for their countries. Over the past two and a half decades that I’ve played the various strategy games, and more recently the military shooters, I’ve come to respect the real soldiers who fought in the wars depicted on the screen. But turning it into a cartoon where I buy upgrades is just wrong on so many levels. Game Over.

Posted by Peter Suciu on January 23, 2008 | Comments (2)