Battlefield 4 Premium detailed: five map packs planned through summer 2014

EA has detailed exactly what you'll get with the $50 Battlefield 4 Premium subscription.

47

EA has detailed exactly what you'll get with the $50 Battlefield 4 Premium subscription. In addition to the requisite map packs included with membership come a number of other benefits, including unique personalization options (in the form of camos, paints, emblems, dogtags, etc), as well as priority position in server queues. Members also receive 12 bonus Battlepacks, which contain random drops of XP boosts, gun attachments, knives, and more.

Of course, while the perks are undoubtedly appreciated, the real reason to buy Premium is to access the game's map packs. As before, Premium members will get a head start over non-members, getting two weeks of early access.

Here's the schedule for the game's five planned map packs:

  • Second Assault — Includes four fan-favorite Battlefield 3 maps now re-imagined with the power of Frostbite 3. Available first on Xbox One.
  • China Rising — Players fight for dominance across the vast and majestic Chinese mainland. Available December 2013.
  • Naval Strike — Experience dynamic ocean combat as the Chinese armada takes the fight to the sea. Available Spring 2014.
  • Dragon's Teeth — The US strikes back engaging in all-out urban warfare. Available Summer 2014.
  • Final Stand — Bring the war to its epic conclusion. Available Summer 2014.

Finally, the Battlefield 4 multiplayer beta will start in early October, and will be exclusive to owners of Battlefield 3 Premium. An open beta will follow afterwards, closer to the game's October 29th launch.

Andrew Yoon was previously a games journalist creating content at Shacknews.

From The Chatty
  • reply
    August 20, 2013 8:30 AM

    Andrew Yoon posted a new article, Battlefield 4 Premium detailed: five map packs planned through summer 2014.

    EA has detailed exactly what you'll get with the $50 Battlefield 4 Premium subscription.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 8:48 AM

      Can I pay $50 for all the multiplayer content and just pass on the single player? Because $100 is fucking stupid

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 8:54 AM

        ^^^^^^^

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 8:59 AM

        IAWTP

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 9:13 AM

        Maybe at first glance, but I played Battlefield 1942 for many years and if I like the game enough the additional $50 would be easily worth it. If I don't really care for it, I'll just buy a la carte or not at all.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 10:09 AM

          BF1942 had a couple of expansions that were $20 or $30 a piece also if I remember correctly. So the Premium thing is really no different than what they have always done just branded differently.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 11:57 AM

        I would do this in two seconds.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 9:18 AM

      I love Ben's response to this: http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/battlefield-4s-premium-service-makes-us-tired-of-the-game-before-its-been-r

      Maybe I’m a pessimist, but my reaction to all this bullshit is to simply skip the game. If you don’t pay extra, you’ll be entering the new content against a crowd of people who already know the maps, have been playing them for two weeks, and get to jump right into the servers instead of waiting in line with those of us who don’t think you need to subscribe to a fucking service to play a first-person shooter.

      You’re basically pre-ordering content sight-unseen, and paying for the right to be treated like a paying customer. The game isn’t even out yet, and EA is already pumping players for more money, and creating a tiered system where some people are simply paying for advantage.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 9:19 AM

        [deleted]

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 9:26 AM

        I don't quite understand that reaction. If you don't pay extra, you won't see those maps at all, having a two week wait still means you're buying them eventually. They aren't giving those extra maps up for free.

        You can still get the base game and ignore all extra DLC fluff if you want. Though we don't know how many maps are in the vanilla game as of yet. Would be unfortunate of there's even less locales than BF3.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 9:38 AM

          I agree with the hate on promoting additional content before the game is even out, dislike that approach across the board.

          Just didn't quite grasp - If you don’t pay extra, you’ll be entering the new content against a crowd of people who already know the maps, have been playing them for two weeks

          When if you don't pay extra, you won't be entering that new content at all.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 9:44 AM

          having a two week wait still means you're buying them eventually
          That's his point. Assuming the map is good enough to own (since they killed modding of course), he would like to pick it up, but he'll be weeks behind other players in learning it.

          I went with the base game for BF3, once the extra stuff came out, I was pretty alone. It's all a moot point to me right now, I refuse to fund EA anymore, so no BF4.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 9:46 AM

          I don't understand the negative reaction either. If you love Battlefield, then the expansion packs will be well worth your money. If you don't like Battlefield, don't buy the game or just play the vanilla experience like (I'm sure) many other will. Criticizing DICE/EA for supporting their game with additional content just sounds silly.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 9:37 AM

        well they are creating this "scarcity" of player space. your favorite server full? only premium members can skip the waiting line... levelling up too slowly? premium players get bonus XP...

        regarding the content, that's no different from waiting to play the same base package. if you have two non premium players, each buys the basic game offering, and one plays immediately and the other delays two weeks, you are still going to experience disorientation while everyone else knows the killzones and cover spots.

        paying for an advantage? no, not really. LOTS of people I know can use the default stuff, join a month late, and still wipe the floor with most pubbie server scrubs. it's really no different from any other game. in world of tanks you can have a pay-to-get-advantage player still suck horribly, and a normal player can embarrass them with a shitty tank and shitty crew.

        the deal is this: if people want to pay for an advantage, FINE. but what Ben needs to not assume is that it actually does anything in practice in the game.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 9:39 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            August 20, 2013 9:50 AM

            CoD looks to be doing the same thing. I wonder what Ben will say to that. Instead of shredding one game and saying he's going to skip it, he needs to back the fuck up and ponder why this monetization is so successful. Or else they wouldn't be doing it.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 9:47 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            August 20, 2013 10:01 AM

            That price isn't out of line for retail + two expansions like we've seen tons of times before.

            • reply
              August 20, 2013 10:05 AM

              Expansions traditionally have way more content than just maps and boosts.

            • reply
              August 20, 2013 12:36 PM

              Expansion packs used to be ~$20, and there generally was only one maybe two over several years. This is $50 for a single year.

              • reply
                August 20, 2013 12:47 PM

                I remember buying expansions packs with an SP campaign and MP for like $30 15 years ago. Content is more expensive to make and I never felt like the true cost of of ownership was $50 for the game + $30 for the expansion for a total of $80. What's the difference? You know about the expansion now ahead of time. Look at blizzard and starcraft. People complain that SC2 is a rip off because it doesn't include the expansions they know would cover after the base game ships. Had the game cam out as KometKraft 1 from a different company with no expansion announced ahead of time people wouldn't have been upset.

          • reply
            August 20, 2013 10:14 AM

            That is indeed a problem. However BL2 did a good job I thought of capturing customer money up front sight unseen for future content, inflating the base game cost..... but did it deliver the value to consumers?

            that's the main issue. is the VALUE there for that money?? in my opinion the answer is yes. same with BF3. it extended the game and added lots of content. it's not like in MW2 where you pay $20 for like 3 maps. That's where we need to focus is when you pay money and it's honestly very little value.

            I do agree that $110 is some serious sticker shock up front. however, amortized over the life of the game... is it WORTH it? how many hours do you get out of the base game, then out of each subsequent premium addition? it might be well worth it.

            • reply
              August 20, 2013 10:39 AM

              [deleted]

              • reply
                August 20, 2013 10:47 AM

                sure it did. I had several coop friends that didn't get it. fractured. and that's been the case since road to rome in BF1942. it will always be that way, as games add more content. some people will get it. some won't.

                so do we want shorter games that have no additional content, so the playerbase will never be fractured? or do we want to extend the games as people see fit? some people might have already migrated to another game, and just don't care about additional content. that's fine.

                the main thing is that people consume games so quickly now, additional content roadmaps are almost essential. the devs/pubs are saying up front that yes, there is going to be more to this game. is that good, or bad?

          • reply
            August 20, 2013 12:26 PM

            I don't really understand you guys. I just buy the base game and don't buy DLC. If I don't feel the base game is worth the price of they sell the base game then I don't buy that either. So basically I pay for stuff that I think is worth it, and then I move on.

            I don't understand the whole "true cost of ownership is $110" If you didn't buy the season pass it's not $110. The base price is the same with or without DLC. If they didn't make any DLC ever the base price would still be the base price and the base game would still be the same base game. I don't think they made 32 finished maps and then just removed 16 of them and split the rest up into DLC. And even if they did if the base product isn't worth the base price, do not buy it.

            I think what is going on here is people are just broken in a way that is convenient for the seller. When people find out that there are extras, the got to collect them all hack kicks in and they feel they HAVE to pay more to have it all to have a "complete thing" It doesn't really matter what the extras are or how much of the thing they already have. It's the achievement whore thing or the item set thing. Many people just have that gene where they can't help feel compelled to get everything. So when a game has more stuff to buy they feel compelled to buy it, and then complain that it's too expensive and they are being ripped off. Had the extra content never been developed in the first place they would happy as a clam as there wouldn't feel they HAVE to HAVE and BUY something that doesn't even exist and the base product wouldn't feel incomplete because there would be no more content.

            16 map base content sound fine to them until there are 16 more maps out over the next year, then suddenly they were ripped off.

            • reply
              August 20, 2013 12:35 PM

              [deleted]

              • reply
                August 20, 2013 12:39 PM

                But if they never made it I am 100% sure that most people wouldn't say the base price was a rip off for lack of content.

            • reply
              August 20, 2013 12:37 PM

              If games are a service, the person who bought the base game have their experience degraded a little with every map pack (assuming they don't want to add more DLC).

              Access to other players is really what you're paying for. Or, at least, that's true for me. If Dota2 had a new queue that only players who'd bought an expansion would have access to, I'd suddenly be getting a way crappier experience on average.

              • reply
                August 20, 2013 12:41 PM

                You're right it does fracture the community a bit. But usually the community for the base game is much much bigger than the community that has DLC.

                Still I stand by if the base game isn't worth the base price, don't buy it. I think the base game is worth the base price. (besides all the origin BS)

                • reply
                  August 20, 2013 12:44 PM

                  That's totally true. I guess I think that expansions should be super generous whenever it's a multiplayer game. Relatively cheap, lots of content, and a low profit margin. It should be such a good deal that anyone actively playing would be silly not to pick it up.

                  Which isn't really the case with CoD or BF these days.

                  • reply
                    August 20, 2013 12:48 PM

                    I wish they made no extra content so I don't have to hear the bitching and moaning.

                    • reply
                      August 20, 2013 12:50 PM

                      For games that come out every year or two, that's probably the best option. Stick your new content in the new game, we all know it's coming.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 9:40 AM

        Yup exactly. When I read that they are already planning FIVE map packs for the first six months.... Get bent.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 10:18 AM

        its the same shit as Premium for BF3, isn't it? so why all the gnashing of teeth this time?

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 10:58 AM

        Yup, I don't plan to touch it. Makes me sad that people continue to buy into it and keep the cycle going. DLC subscriptions are lame.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 11:10 AM

          I think it's actually a good thing. It announces transparency as to the total deliverables of the game.

          Instead of like MW2 and people getting fidgety and angry, then they announce ANOTHER MAP PACK YAY WE LOVE OUR FANS.... oh ok so you are going to nickel and dime us forever. Great.

          no, I'd rather have insight as to the entire deliverables up front. I prefer it now like how BL2 did it. You can prepay and buy the base game, or you can prepay for the extra goodies.

          with BF3, we knew what the lifespan was. That's a good thing, in my opinion, as opposed to "surprise! another expansion! hopefully everyone will buy it!" people with the base game can truck right along. people with premium got a ton of extra stuff over time. the choice is up to the consumer, and it's almost refreshing to know that when new shit comes out, I GET IT.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 9:30 AM

      $110+ for our games now. Ouch.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 10:05 AM

        That is only the price for those that are impatient or unwilling to wait. More than likely a complete bundle with game and expansions will be released for a more sensible price. About 6 or 8 months after Premium was released there were Premium editions that had everything for $60 and then priced dropped to $39.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 10:12 AM

          [deleted]

          • reply
            August 20, 2013 10:39 AM

            My point is there is nothing forcing you to buy it at that price.

            • reply
              August 20, 2013 10:41 AM

              [deleted]

              • reply
                August 20, 2013 10:45 AM

                I get why people don't like it. You have to realize its a perception problem. BF1942 had two expansion packs (Road to Rome ($20) , Secret Weapons of WWII ($30). BF2 had Special Forces ($30) and two boosters $10 a piece. When you look at it this way the game price for the total package hasn't really changed.

                • reply
                  August 21, 2013 7:22 AM

                  Who actually purchased Secret Weapons of WWII? Total garbage.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 9:39 AM

      I'll be buying the base game for PS4. I'll leave the content though, I'll have china rising as it's free with the pre-order but I'm not gonna get pushed into Premium again. There's too much coming out for me to pay the price of a whole game for a few map packs.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 10:09 AM

      If I want everything, do I buy the digital deluxe + premium or will the standard + premium have everything already?

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 10:14 AM

      Damn, was looking to play this, but with a $100 price tag to get everything, i'll stick to DOTA2 for free.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 10:33 AM

        just talked to some friends that i usually FPS with, and they all agree, no one's getting this. We kind of decide on a game as a group to do MP with.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 10:41 AM

      Can I pre-order Premium? All I see on Origin is Digital Deluxe.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 10:43 AM

      So basically anyone who buys the base game three months after release will have less people to play with in a multiplayer game. BF3 premium and the separate map packs splintered the pool of people to game with.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 10:58 AM

        which is no different from back in the day when we bought expansion packs to our multiplayer games

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 11:56 AM

          Correct. But you only see metro populated enough from the base maps nowadays. No one wants to play seine, etc.

          To be honest the maps in BF3 overall took a step back from prior BF editions.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 11:06 AM

        It sucks, and I think it's a really backwards looking way to monetize content. Valve does this stuff better. Don't splinter the community just to make a short term profit.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 11:43 AM

          I believe the difference here is that Valve is on the PC and rarely has it ported the awesome MP games over to console. When you have a multi-platform game like this is, you have to have it standardized. No longer does the community get to make maps like the did in the Source expansion games with Valve like CS, DoD, and TF. Whenever Valve did release something they made, you paid for it. Why is this a surprise for the Battlefield franchise? You can still pick and choose the expansion stuff later when it comes out, but you can purchase it for less plus a crap ton of other extras for only $50.

          BF3 came out in Nov of 2011...still has a HUGE amount of players and many are premium, but many aren't... It's not any different this go around and I relate better to this than I do anything the CoD franchise does as Battlefield actually releases NEW games...not reboots with some different paint.

          • reply
            August 20, 2013 12:49 PM

            You're incorrect about it being only Valve who allows the community to mod their games.

            Just from the last year: Shadowrun Returns, Gunpoint, FTL, Natural Selection 2, Saint's Row 4, Dead Island, ARMA 3, Star Citizen (Starting this week!!!!), Trackmania 2, Magica, Torchlight 2

            List of games with full community mod support.

            • reply
              August 20, 2013 12:53 PM

              That's fine, but not all of them have console games and the developer is no longer producing maps to release. If they did, they would sell them. Just like Valve did for Half-life.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 12:04 PM

        People who are into the game and want to play it will buy it. The community got better once it splintered into those who are solid team players and those wanting just to sit on a hill and snipe.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 12:55 PM

        Might be a few less but it's nothing to really worry about. I still see tons of full vanilla servers to this day for bf3

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 12:58 PM

          And how many actually have players?

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 10:56 AM

      The jumping ahead of queues is bullshit.

      People just picking up BF3 now and not Premium end up sitting waiting to join a popular server and get constantly pushed to the back of the queue. It's an awful experience.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 12:56 PM

        And dont forget limited servers running base maps. I quit playing BF3 because it dropped down to two or three servers running base maps, and they are always full.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 11:49 AM

      Hopefully we get another multiplayer beta or demo and I can just play that into the ground and be done

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 11:59 AM

      [deleted]

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 12:12 PM

      Yeah, will be waiting to buy Premium with the game for $20-30 during a winter sale next year. Sccaaaarewww that.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 2:06 PM

        Exactly what I did with bf3 and its still fun enough for me even though I'm far behind on levels and game experience. But if you're a competitive gamer, you're not going to wait.

        • reply
          August 20, 2013 3:51 PM

          Im at the age now where I cant game like I used to so it's mostly pick up when I have time, which is rare. I can wait a year.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 12:34 PM

      Any info if they improved upon the abysmal admin tools that BF3 had? The fact you couldn't switch directly to a map but had to cycle through them was atrocious.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 12:56 PM

        Someone must have improved them already for BF3. There have been servers for a long while now with every map from the game and DLC in rotation and mid-round map voting. Can go directly to the map that wins the vote without cycling through them all.

        I assume if that's doable, forcing a specific map is also a thing that can be done now. But I could be wrong!

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 12:53 PM

      EA never stop being EA.

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 1:06 PM

      lol less then one year of support on a game. The last DLC was the last patch BF3 and will be the same for BF4. Blizzard supported Starcraft for 11 years, EA can't even support their game for 1.

      • reply
        August 20, 2013 1:11 PM

        right on, great apples to apples comparison, really made me think

    • reply
      August 20, 2013 1:12 PM

      I'd rather they just said it's 110$ for everyone. It's certainly worth it on PC, judging from BF3 anyway.. the only downside is the 'premium' servers that your friends can't join if they don't pony up.

      New content every few months helps keep people interested, but what good is it if it fragments the community.

Hello, Meet Lola