Battlefield Heroes pricing restructured

By Oli Welsh Published 2 December, 2009

Free shooter just got a lot less free.

EA's DICE has changed the item pricing structure for its free-to-player shooter Battlefield Heroes, reducing the real-money cost of items while making their cost to rent or buy with in-game currency dramatically more expensive.

As Ars Technica explains, all non-cosmetic items in the game, such as improved weapons, were previously available for both BattleFunds (bought with real money) or Valor Points (earned through playtime).

While that's still true, the changes have increased the Valor Point cost of all items and reduced the BattleFund cost of most. Valor Point item rentals have also been shortened from up to a month to just one to three days.

One player, quoted by Ars Technica, calculated that they would have to play 50 matches a day just to afford to keep a powerful weapon using VP. In effect, the choice for players who want to be competitive is now between spending money or submitting to serious grind. Needless to say, it's been a very unpopular move.

The received wisdom in free-to-play gaming is to charge for convenience or cosmetic items, whilst ensuring a level playing-field in terms of game balance between free and paying players. Battlefield Heroes - which boasted two million users in September - has now, in all but technicalities, broken that rule. It will be interesting to see how it fares.

Picture of Oli.

About Oli Welsh

Oli is Eurogamer's acting deputy editor and reviews editor and likes to take things one word at a time. He is among the best dressed people in South London.

Read more articles from Oli by visiting the Oli Welsh archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (18) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Skurmedel #1 2 years ago

    I didn't like the model they used in the beta and this feels even worse. If you have the money you can run around with a better gun than everyone else, and you don't even get to keep it for that long.

  • vx-chemical #2 2 years ago

    games like this is no play for me! It's not free if you have to spend money to have fun.

  • Freek #3 2 years ago

    The fact that there is revenue system in place is not in itself a bad thing. The game has to be funded in some way, usually by asking the more dedicated fans to pay for certain extra features.

    But if it turns into a game of "who ever spends the most money wins" it'll quickly fall apart.

  • Quint2020 #4 2 years ago

    EA in "We're a business that's out to make as much money as possible" shocker!

  • BigE0n #5 2 years ago

    To be honest I tried the beta ages ago on PC and its alright no where near as good as Battle Field 1942 (which im playing on Xbox 360).

    I got put off by the fact there were blatantly soo many people using aim bots on it (being head shot in the respawn from the other side of the map is a bit dull on the nteenth time!)

  • hulahoops #6 2 years ago

    It's about time rich/cash rich though.

    Some of us have time, some cash.

    Surely complaining about people being willing and able to spend a fiver for an advantage is the same as complaining about people being willing and able to spend 12 hours a day grinding for an advantage.

    If you work for a living you can pay for lost time. If you don't, you can afford to grind.

    Western gamers are just set in their ways, but times are a'changin'.
    Edited by 2 at 02/12/09 @ 10:57

  • JahB #7 2 years ago

    If you work for a living you can pay for lost time. If you don't, you can afford to grind.

    while this is entirely true, it still beats the point of having a "free to play" game.

  • kangarootoo #8 2 years ago

    "while this is entirely true, it still beats the point of having a "free to play" game"

    I'm not sure "the point" was ever that firmly established.

  • superjag86 #9 2 years ago

    BOOOO!

  • Akuma #10 2 years ago

    @duckncover

    What are you talking about? Most big and expensive to make free to play games work under that model.

    You're talking about cheap and cheerful facebook games and always sub-par Korean MMO's.

    You can't compare those type of games to those of major publishers like EA and NCSoft.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/09 @ 11:46

  • Skurmedel #11 2 years ago

    BlankOBlank, well if there was any real value in grinding, etc. you got some enjoyment from it I would agree with you, but I just can't see that happening with BF Heroes. The rewards you reap are just not worth it.

  • Hunam #12 2 years ago

    I don't get why neither Quake Live or BF heroes have third party advertisements.

  • dsmx #13 2 years ago

    It used to be you could play for about 10 hours a week at most and you could still get enough bandages and purchase yourself the gun that worked for you. Under this new pricing scheme you just cant do that any more you have to pay real money and that is not what a free shooter is.

    What really rubs salt in the wounds is that you could buy bf2 for under a fiver these days and you'd be paying less than you will in bf heroes if you want to survive longer than 10 seconds.

  • jambo74 #14 2 years ago

    Humiliation!

  • Collymilad #15 2 years ago

    "EA in "We're a business that's out to make as much money as possible" shocker! "

    Yawn. Yes they are a business, but we are supposed to get something in return for our money - that's the part of capitalism people seem so quick to forget. Unless you're stupid and think it's ok to think we are just there to find corporations (getting nothing in return)

  • dsmx #16 2 years ago

    Essentially though they've killed bf hero's to me, I see no reason why I should spend more money on bf heroes then bf2 costs. This is even before we get into the whole widget debacle, gunners and commando's have to buy them but the price for them is nothing short of insane.
    Edited by 1 at 02/12/09 @ 15:50

  • Lukree #17 2 years ago

    After short testing this game isn't clearly for me, free or not-free. It doesn't have soul and is in every way really mediocre.

    /Goes playing Team Fortress 2

  • byakuya83 #18 2 years ago

    In the build up to the game's release many testers and those interested in the game voiced concern over players who are willing to spend money gaining an unfair advantage. All along the developers claimed that you couldn't purchase gameplay enhancements, only cosmetic changes, so everyone would be on a level playing field. Essentially it's true that people paying have access to the same weapons etc as those playing for free. However, they've moved the goal posts and got round that promise in a very sneaky way!