EA Is Bringing Free-To-Play To All Its Major Franchises

EA COO Peter Moore revealed that they are working to bring free-to-play versions of all their most successful franchises.

"The ability for you to be able to interact with those franchises on a free-to-play basis is going to be part-and-parcel with every major franchise we do now," he said. With that, EA aims to have players interact with its franchises no matter where they are, what they're doing, or how much money they have in their pocket.

Moore also reaffirmed the company's push towards online gaming. "We don't ship a game at EA that is offline," he said. "It just doesn't happen. And gamers either want to be connected so their stats and achievements reflect who they are, or you want the full multiplayer experience on top of that. We don't deliver offline experiences anymore."

When asked whether EA would support new hardware such as Ouya and NVidia Shield, the EA COO admitted that those devices are at the bottom of the company's priorities. According to him, EA's top priority is consoles and the ramp-up towards the next generation. After that comes mobile gaming on iOS and Android followed by free-to-play PC games. New hardware such as Shield and Ouya "kind of sit on the periphery of that" and the company has no plans to target them in the near future.

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.



How about i DON'T BUY YOUR GAMES !! i'll wait for the pirated version to come out. Like SIM CITY. I wanted to buy this so bad as i've played them all, but when i heard "always online" and drm. **** YOU *******!! i waited a month...and now i'm playing it OFFLINE for free and didn't have to buy it. !! hahaha. When will they learn.

Force feed, force ****.

"gamers either want to be connected so their stats and achievements reflect who they are", - yeah you know, because my stats & achievements in video games are so stellar that they explain to the world what a pathetic, lifeless, virgin, basement dwelling, familial mooch of a ******* loser I am!!! Also "you want the full multiplayer experience on top of that" - because I definitely don't want to be told a good story or anything. What I want is to run around & see how many camouflaged pixel soldiers I can pop in the head before one nails me & do that over & over & over................ & over. The movie industry should take a look at the philosophies of Electronic ******** & Micro$hit. Stop trying to tell good, interesting stories & just give viewers achievements for watching the garbage that they're already producing, like all the stupid comic book & '80s/'90's toy movies. Make me a **** movie, & then just upload stats like "# Of Times Watched" & "achievements" like "Watched End Credits Through To Completion" to some page on the internet that no one will ever look at and/or care about. That way, I & all the other loser nobodies out there can feel like we've "accomplished" things in our worthless lives too. Keep telling me what I want EA, Just like M$ does. Just like GM tried to. Think the government's gonna rob tax payers again just to keep a video game company in business?


No one is being "tricked". No one has been "tricked", & no one will be "tricked". Anyone spending money on an FTP, made the conscious decision to. Your *** doesn't make a fashionable hat here on the internets.


It's true for some games, but not all of them. Some actually have very fair free to play models like league of legends, where money won't give you the slightest advantage over people who don't spend a dime.

You missed the concept

Free to play games in general usually have some sort of micro transactions in them if not advertisements and or sponsors backing them. Making a free game would be pointless if there was no profit margin from it and It doesn't have to be a play to win system for it to be considered "bad". It's just an annoying trend that is becoming more and more mainstream in games where it doesn't belong. Hence why the concept of it *******a lot of people of.

I'm not annoyed at all about

I'm not annoyed at all about playing a game for free. Pay to win and pay to affect gameplay are the things that **** me off, I used league as an example because I've been playing for a couple of years now. Spending cash is entirely optional, mostly if you want different skins for your characters, game affecting items can only be bought with currency earned by playing the game. I wouldn't mind if other games used such a model instead of being sold for $60. As for EA, they're well known for their horrible decisions, they'll back down from this when it fails just like they always do.


1st "...gamers either want to be connected so their stats and achievements reflect who they are..." This is the biggest load of crap ever. What a tag line. In the Simpson's video game you get an achievement just for pushing the start button. How does that reflect who you are? Do people really buy this line? 2ed "...or you want the full multiplayer experience on top of that" Yeah...right... everyone wants the online experience ... is that's why so many people stayed away from Skyrim? Also from the article on this site [XBOX ONE GAME RECORDING REQUIRES XBOX LIVE GOLD SUBSCRIPTION - August 11, 2013] "It is also estimated that more than 30 million Xbox 360 owners are not subscribed to Xbox Live at all " My point is simple. They believe always on games will fight pirates, and they want 24/7 access to you so they can sell you crap in game. Plain and simple. I hate it when they feed us this bullshit and tell gamers what they want.

Peter Moore can die in a ******* fire

EA is showing that once again despite being a leading game publisher, they don't know jack **** about what gamers want, or better yet what is in our best interests. They analyze the market and make calculative assessments based on risk vs reward and scrutinize developers under them leading to games being disappointing or failing expectations. Dead space 3 is a perfect example, less horror more action and lets not forget micro transactions galore. (But hey, it's what we all wanted right?) How about all the people who bought Sim City telling them that constant connection was required even though it was not. (Hey, we'll force you to be online and be out social guinea pigs.) The bottom line is that they keep telling us what we like and what we want and continue to pump out the same bullshit with a new number next to it every year. Not all their games are bad, I just think their dogmatic principles on gamers is bullshit but that doesn't really surprise me since EA COO Peter Moore used to work for Microsoft's game development division. There's a reason why EA is the back to back winner of the consumerist's poll for "Worst Company in America".

In this particular case EA

In this particular case EA was elected the worst company in america twice in a row. So you can assert with a degree of certainty that there is a sizeable group with similar opinions regarding the company. However the same doesn't hold true in your case, why are YOU assuming others don't share his opinion even though there are facts suggesting otherwise?

You're right

I'm sure there are many people who share his views just as many share in mine. But when it comes down to it all, my views will not impact millions of people around the world. It doesn't take a genius however to see the error in the direction EA is possible going with this, but that's just my opinion on it all.

They didn't specify

However I presumed when they said "represent" it was from an EA company perspective. I don't represent the gaming community nor pretend to. I can only speak from my own point of view and all those that I know who share similar distaste for how the market is pushing people. In my opinion however it is business men like Peter Moore who are enablers of this by telling us how we should game and creating a policy around it.

Add new comment