Sempai wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 20:35:

UConnBBall wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 20:10:
Not buying

Yes you will.

And anyone else here screaming "I wont buy your stuffs EA!" Is a fuckin liar too.
You'll do whatever they tell you to do in order to play your shiny new BF3 and you'll like it. Stop lying to yourself.

Now, for those of you who actually man up and grow a pair, and keep your credit card in check on day one, good for you, cause that's the only thing these corporate whores understand.

But by all means, keep shouting how you're not gonna take it anymore while opening your wallet.

now that is proper talking. as much as i love the BF series,i am going to lay off pre-ordering and with that lose the back to kharkand DLC (DLC, on day 1 right?) which i´d love to have. but this just makes me sad...

by the way, i use Steam and find it to be very useful. if you don´t have internet, you can still play your games without problems, so i don´t really see what the problem is with Steam

Another thing is that it requires 2 plugin installations. I find that more than a bit intrusive and who wants to potentially give EA of all companies that kind of access?

This is going to bother people who are obsessed about avoiding clutter. Other people? A modern, BF3-capable rig should have enough RAM to handle a little browser window. A lot of people will leave a browser and other junk open in the background anyways. Who bothers about closing all of that these days?

Bothers a lot more than you think. There isn't software around that doesn't eat up RAM and cause problems while sitting idle. Both IE and FF are horrid at recapturing RAM and not growing to the size of a basketball sized tumor.

It just comes down to really bad design decisions to have a server browser OUTSIDE of the game. I can imagine how fun the load times are going to be getting into the game.....

Hell, BF2 still has crappy load times and it is all done ingame. What it comes down to is EA/DICE are really shitty programmers when it comes down to broswers and load times.

We haven't even touched on how shitty BFBC2 is for updating...wonder how BF3 will be? They insult their PC users by saying everything is too complicated to release an SDK, but then they can't even fix shit in their own game. On top of that, they have NEVER addressed hacking....

Saw an article on the BF3Blog that said they are going ot have "7 times more DLC". Well, if it ist he type of DLC they offered in BFBC2, I wouldn't want it. Rehash old maps with new game types. Whoopity dooo. I can gurantee you that the DLC for BF3 will NOT BE FREE.

Everything EA/DICE has done as far as web design, front ends, DLC, microtransactions, etc. was leading up to the release of BF3. I don't think anyone can argue that their websites appear to be designed by a class of elementary school kids in the "slow" program. How many sites have they released in the last 5 years for just 3 games? First we had Veterans, then the Gun Club, now Origin. I think they went through 5-6 different iterations of web sites just for the Veterans program....AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.

The more I find out about the game the less inclinded I am to get my pre-order ordered again...and I know they don't give 2 shits about me as a consumer - which is sad, as I have been pretty loyal up until now.

/edit: Oh, and I close all that stuff....I don't like things running that I don't need. What for? Maybe it stems from the 3.1 and Windows 95 days, running games with a boot disk, streamlining as much as possible...I dunno. Or maybe it was because my folks told me to put stuff away when I am not using it. Worked.....I have my own home and it isn't cluttered either.

This comment was edited on Aug 13, 2011, 01:02.

Bhruic wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 11:17:
Frankly, I've never really been sure why other publishers would go the Steamworks route in the first place. I guess once you have enough of your games on their, it might be worth it, but otherwise, you are just exposing your customers to all the competition. And basically having your game be an advertisement for Steam.

The main reason is time and money.

Let me provide a metaphore using the family home construction industry. In that industry houses are built using lumber and hardware. The home builder would never make any money if they had to design and manufacturer every screw, nail, 2x4, 2x6, 4x4, sheet rock, MDF panels, etc. A small single bedroom house by itself...without any consideration for the land that it's on...would cost about a million dollars and take perhaps a decade to build. It's a rediculous notion for a home builder to do that.

Heck...an even simpler comparison is an operating system. An operating system interfaces with various computer hardware. A developer doesn't "have" to use an existing operating system. They could distribute their software on bootable DVDs that includes their own operating system. Heck...they could even offer that operating system to other developers to use. The reason developers don't do that is because it's very expensive and time consuming to design and develop their own operating system...which includes developing drivers specific to their operating system...for all the hardware out there and would need to keep pumping out new drivers for new hardware that comes available.

And, for EA to spend the time and money...perhaps 1 year and 2 million USD for Origin...it is evidence that they didn't build Origin for just BF3 or just their games. They have not tried to hide the fact, and actually publicly announced in press releases, that they want to become the #1 online vendor of all games...this means putting Steam out of business...which could mean all the games we ever bought on Steam would be useless. It is in our own interst to support Steam.

EA is just the next company that has tried to sell their gaming client. This is not something new...ever since the first multiplayer game, for example Doom, developers have been trying to establish a gaming client. Most of them failed because they charged gamers a lot of money. Others failed because the client didn't have enough features, or didn't get updated to work with new games, and a better system was offered.

This quest for a gaming client mostly stopped when Steam became available. But, that didn't keep companies from trying to replace it with their own...especially after Steam grew in popularity and Steam's unique and risky business model proved profitable. Origin won't fail...just like many of the other attempts to surplant Steam have not failed; however, they only succeed in the games that they have convinced to use them and then no longer get any new games. Then EA will probably come up with something else to replace Origin...who knows what the future has in store for EA, but I highly doubt that it's going to be able to replace Steam.

All that will happen is gamers will be upset that a desireable game won't be on Steam. Gamers who really like the games that EA publishes will of course have to run Origin...unless/until EA's attempt at using Origin to make money doesn't succeed and they have to close down their servers. They will also run GFWL on games that require it. And, of course they will run Steam for the games that are available on Steam.

Teddy wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 15:27:

Crustacean Soup wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 05:03:

Crustacean Soup wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 19:53:
So, you could open the game, which brings up the main menu, where you open the browser, click a server, and have the game start.

Or, you could open the game, which brings up a web page, where you open the browser, click a server, and have the game start.

I don't see the problem yet.

How many pieces of software do you have running in instance 1? How many in instance 2? (Just to save you the trouble, the answers are 1 and 3, respectively.)

Software bloat is a problem, period. It's not a deal breaker for some, it will be for others.

2 and 3 if you want a better modern comparison (Steam - Origin/Battlelog)

This is going to bother people who are obsessed about avoiding clutter. Other people? A modern, BF3-capable rig should have enough RAM to handle a little browser window. A lot of people will leave a browser and other junk open in the background anyways. Who bothers about closing all of that these days?

Crustacean Soup wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 05:03:

Crustacean Soup wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 19:53:
So, you could open the game, which brings up the main menu, where you open the browser, click a server, and have the game start.

Or, you could open the game, which brings up a web page, where you open the browser, click a server, and have the game start.

I don't see the problem yet.

How many pieces of software do you have running in instance 1? How many in instance 2? (Just to save you the trouble, the answers are 1 and 3, respectively.)

Software bloat is a problem, period. It's not a deal breaker for some, it will be for others.

Marvin T. Martian wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 09:07:
To each their own suggests the people have their own types of game play that they enjoy.

Exactly, which means that you're also stating that one's opinion of a game cannot be 'wrong'. And yet you say it is in the same line. You can disagree with someone's preference, but that hardly makes them wrong, nor you right.

As much fun as I had with BF2 5+ years ago, I haven't played any iteration of the franchise since and will very happily skip this one too if these requirements don't go away eventually.

If Steam is denying the listings because of the Origin requirement, I find that to be hypocritical on their part

Unless I'm mistaken, this is the first true "service" based competitor to Steam. The other DDs don't have "must be running client" requirements for their games. Someone else mentioned GFWL, but that seemed entirely compatible with Steam, so I'm not sure that applies.

I think it'd only be hypocritical if Valve had complained that they couldn't get their Steam games on other services. As they've never cared to even try to do that, that wouldn't appear to be the case.

Frankly, I've never really been sure why other publishers would go the Steamworks route in the first place. I guess once you have enough of your games on their, it might be worth it, but otherwise, you are just exposing your customers to all the competition. And basically having your game be an advertisement for Steam.

Verno wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 10:15:
If Steam is denying the listings because of the Origin requirement, I find that to be hypocritical on their part.

AFAIK the game is not on Steam, because EA wants all updates and DLC to come through Origin exclusively - which is something that Valve doesn't allow for games on Steam.

It can't just be that the game requires Origin that precludes the game from being on Steam. After all, Batman AA and GTA4 both require GFWL and they're on Steam.

Unless Valve actually views Origin as a threat; clearly GFWL was never going to be.

Bhruic wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 10:07:
At least now we can clearly see why it's not available on Steam.

If Steam is denying the listings because of the Origin requirement, I find that to be hypocritical on their part. Other stores carry Steamworks titles after all. It sounds like Steam isn't happy about something with regards to the DLC but I'm unsure of what that could be at this point. Several other titles sell DLC outside of the Steam framework but offer the title itself on Steam. I'm guessing EA and Valve had a very specific contract in this regard and one or the other stepped out of bounds.

Oh and some funny for the day that I just saw while catching up on reddit - apparently most people from Puerto Rico and Chile have to pay in Euros on Origin. I don't normally use this catchword but big Fail EA.

This comment was edited on Aug 12, 2011, 10:27.

At least now we can clearly see why it's not available on Steam.

shihonage wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 20:47:
I dunno man. I never cared for multiplayer in the quasirealistic shooters, and may have stopped caring about competitive team-based multiplayer entirely.

The main appealing part of BF3 and MW3 for me, by far, is the cinematic scripting in the single-player campaign, but frankly, there's nothing even remotely new to be seen there conceptually. Once you start cinematic scripting, you can't give player more freedom, because he'll break your shit immediately.

It's an ever narrowing tunnel, and, after all the COD games and MoH and Homefront, it wouldn't take much to dissuade me from buying BF3. Shitty DRM just might easily relegate it down to the priority list, well into the bowels of "wait until it's 14.99 or less" category.

Meanwhile I'd still have Deus Ex:HR, Bioshock: Infinite and Rage.

Two Thumbs Up! !

Teddy wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 20:05:

Marvin T. Martian wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 19:54:

Krovven wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 17:24:

DangerDog wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 17:16:
The fanboys were pretty strong with this one

Because the GAME, is excellent, so I hear. So once you get past all the bullshit business practices outside the game...which for a lot of people, that's all they care about.

Wrong--far from excellent. But each to their own.

To each their own and wrong in the same breath?

You're right it is far from excellent. It's phenomenal. Best multiplayer shooter ever created to date, and you can tell that from one map.

To each their own suggests the people have their own types of game play that they enjoy. Played the alpha and other than the graphics, it's just another generic run gun shoot and die that looks pretty. The original poster didn't even play it and I bet most of the posters haven't also.

Exactly like steam, it comes up with the store tab first by default, but that can be changed in the settings. If anything it's less ad heavy, there's no equivalent of the "steam news" ad popup.

Actually he's referring to window popups when you launch a game, I've seen it happen as well. I was able to disable in the Origin settings however and by the way, the Steam news ad thing can disabled in options too.

And anyone else here screaming "I wont buy your stuffs EA!" Is a fuckin liar too.
You'll do whatever they tell you to do in order to play your shiny new BF3 and you'll like it. Stop lying to yourself.

This is kind of a dumb comment for many reasons but just a few: the Battlefield franchise is certainly popular but it doesn't enjoy the kind of assured success that Call of Duty does. I love Battlefield games but several instances of bad news related to this game has me rethinking buying it at all. There are a ton of good games out this year and 2 other major FPS games that I know of so I'm not really beholden to play this or something.

No surprise here, as BF2 was a great game but not hyped like games are now - and the console was no where near as popular at the time of BF2's release, as it was a PC only game.

Previously, there was ZERO incentive to pre-order.

(Amazon stats)

* Battlefield 3: 2300% more pre-orders than Battlefield 2
* Uncharted 3: 488% more pre-orders than Uncharted 2
* Batman Arkham City: 350% more pre-orders than Batman Arkham Asylum
* FIFA 12: 325% more pre-orders than FIFA 12
* Modern Warfare 3: 321% more pre-orders than Black Ops
* Gears of War 3: 216% more pre-orders than Gears of War 2

I'm really taken aback that there are so many companies these days that seem to do everything possible to NOT get my money. No sale, EA.

Crustacean Soup wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 19:53:
So, you could open the game, which brings up the main menu, where you open the browser, click a server, and have the game start.

Or, you could open the game, which brings up a web page, where you open the browser, click a server, and have the game start.

I don't see the problem yet.

This web interface conversation came up a while ago, and I stated that it would not surprise me if they use a web portal for the game as they hvae been practiving with Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield4Free.

Not hard to figure as they can't do an ingame browser to save their friggen lives! The friends list in BFBC2 only accepts 20 friends. Seriously?! WTF are these aholes thinking?

And here we are.
What a joke.

I cancelled my pre-order, and don't think I will be getting this. Which does upset me a tremendous amount....