Am I the only person who thinks Battlefield 3 is overdoing it?

Recommended Videos

Stripes

New member
May 22, 2012
158
0
0
Windcaler said:
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Smithburg said:
Paying for servers, paying to unlock stuff, and now paying for Battlefield Premium which gives you new weapons and such you can't get otherwise?

Am I the only person thinking they are going a little money crazy with all this? I love the game but it just seem like their money grubbing. What do you guys think?
Well lets get some perspective here. This is the first game I can ever think of where console players had the ability to rent servers while PC has had that for...since PC gaming began? The closer consoles get to PC the more theyre going to have to offer the same experience as PCs, this is just one of those options and honestly I thought it was needed back with Bad Company 2.

Paying to unlock is paying for convienance. Its not buying power since you can get every other thing in the game by just playing it. Its very similar to the League of legends business model. Now I think that this is fair because someone whos coming to the game now, months after its release is going to hit a brick wall against practiced players with better setups. Let's even toss out the fact that people who get in helicopters/jets without unlocks are seen as detrimental to the team. Now theres 2 options to counteract this. 1. soldier through it till they get their unlocks or 2. pay for the unlocks. I dont think thats such a bad thing and keep in mind that the payed for unlocks dont go away either

Finally theres battlefield premium. I believe its cheaper to get it then buy all the DLC down the road so on that basis alone I wouldnt call it money grubbing. I dont think anything is specific to BFP though if Im mistaken please point it out to me. What you've been seeing is the stuff from the close quarters DLC accessed with BFP. Now to be fair, I have one major problem with BFP and that is the "exclusivity" with guides and other learning tools. Right now the game does an abysmal job of teaching people how to play and I think guides/strategies should be part of the core experience. There really needs to be a tutorial for people and I would even go so far as to say people need to complete it before they can enter multiplayer
On the server business. They have handled it so that DICE owned servers are a rarity and you must queue to get in. It has created alack of convenience because youhave to wait for definite normal multiplayer or take a gamble with the player owned stuff, which is so damn cheap to partake in there are many, many crap servers of all different shapes and shades of bullshit. Paying for unlocks is buying power, more importantly unlocking things for vehicles is stupid and shouldnt be there in the first place. Its luck even getting one for starters and the fact that they are team property means, as you said, lower ranking people are even more of a hindrance. However its become a situation where the only way to really advance is to pay, which is not the desirable outcome. By this point they should just start new players off with the unlocks to put them on the same footing.
You are incorrect. Buying power is when you pay real money for something that is statistically better which non-paying players can not get. By definition the pay for unlocks is not buying power since every non-paying player can get them. Paying is not the only way to advance though, yesterday I spent about 2 games trying to get a single kill with the EOD bot to get the Mtar-21. During those games I was completely useless but I kept at it and persistence and luck made it happen. Likewise persistence with helicopters/jets can get you your unlocks, you are only stopped by giving up

Now with the servers, i havnt played on DICE's servers for a long time so maybe there's a que. I dont know for sure but I kind of doubt it with the vast number of servers out there now. I agree that there are a lot of servers I dont care for but that doesnt necessarily mean they're bad. Owners have a right to dictate what does and does not go on on their server and they have a right to dictate who does and does not play on their server. Just as you would if you were to buy a server. For me, Ive found some really good servers and I continue to play on them because Ive made friends there, the admins are fair, and I can generally find good games on them. I had to go through servers that I didnt care for to find the ones I like, it is a crap shoot but trial and error seems to be the only way to find good servers. On that note, good servers is a subjective term. For example I have a friend who hates playing with less then 300 tickets in any mode but Im more comfortable with a 75-150 ticket count. He hates shotguns and claymores but Im the kind of person that says use anything as long as it can be countered in some way. With that in mind, how else would you suggest finding good servers then trial and error?
There isnt a queue, mostly. However there is for the official servers which is not right. Thye shouldtn be able to change it massively without leaving those who never wanted the change with enough servers to stop them ever noticing. On the buying power stuff you are wrong. Buying power is not just buying things you otherwise couldnt get it is also getting things in some way that is easier/better than the normal way. If you buy things rather than unlock them then you have the advantage of having things before others despite not having earnt them in game like the others. Considering most people have what they want now it isnt really an issue but it remains one in principle. Imagine if people had everything unlocked on day 1, they would have a huge advantage by having objectively better everything and they had not earnt it in game, which ensures things like this dont happen. I still dont see why we should need to buy the advantage, why can we not simply have things unlocked if we havent already so we are not at a disadvantage? Unlocking things in such a team based game is dum anyway, you said yourslef that when you were trying to get a kill with the EOD you were useless. You put your team at a disadvantage because you wanted to improve your equipment, why should you even need to do that?
 

Stripes

New member
May 22, 2012
158
0
0
Vlad-X7 said:
Stripes said:
On the server business. They have handled it so that DICE owned servers are a rarity and you must queue to get in. It has created alack of convenience because youhave to wait for definite normal multiplayer or take a gamble with the player owned stuff, which is so damn cheap to partake in there are many, many crap servers of all different shapes and shades of bullshit. Paying for unlocks is buying power, more importantly unlocking things for vehicles is stupid and shouldnt be there in the first place. Its luck even getting one for starters and the fact that they are team property means, as you said, lower ranking people are even more of a hindrance. However its become a situation where the only way to really advance is to pay, which is not the desirable outcome. By this point they should just start new players off with the unlocks to put them on the same footing.
By letting people rent servers, will obviously mean there will be a lower percentage of DICE owned servers - this is great! What's not to like? Allowing people to finally customise the mp experience to what they want on console? No longer the lol-fest that was the quick match system. Finding a decent server isn't hard - the provided server browser is great. You have just as much a chance of getting a crappy server in the previous 'quick match' method, except you had way less control.

I'm glad that servers can finally be rented on console; it's such a backward idea to not provide the option. Console gaming is slowly moving in the right direction where it might actually have a chance of competing with the quality of pc gaming.

Unlike other franchises, pretty much all of the initial weapons you have are great - you can do just as well with those as with any other, so theres no "paying to win" per se. I do agree that some of the vehicles were ridiculously hard initially, but after the updates (jets!), they have all been put on a more even footing.

I feel like Dice are making the right move overall with their announcement of ALL the dlc and their custom servers. Personally the closer console gaming gets to customisation available to pc gaming, the better.
There are now a limited number of DICE servers which are the only ones to offer a definite normal service. You have to queue for these now. If not you must gamble with the player owned servers which are never a definite anything. The option is fine so long as it doesnt make what was origanally there less convenient.
 

WaysideMaze

The Butcher On Your Back
Apr 25, 2010
845
0
0
octafish said:
WaysideMaze said:
snip
The only thing I can take umbrage with regarding BF3 is the fact that they are renting servers and still charging for an online pass. Especially since they claimed the online pass was to pay for servers. I genuinely think that is a problem.
Did people really believe that about the online pass? That's...incredibly naive...the online pass was always a way of making money out of second hand games, no matter what other reason they may have had. I can't blame them for it myself. Didn't everyone read between the lines? Was I the only one?

No skin of my nose, it isn't an issue if you buy new, and it isn't an issue if you play PC.
No I never believed then. Always knew it was a money thing. But for them to say that the online pass is to party for servers, and then charging for servers anyway is a pretty big dick move.
 

PC EliTiST

New member
Nov 3, 2011
3
0
0
What truly concerns me about this situation: They don't have time to fix the countless glitches and bugs. None seems to be caring. Are they confused with so many things going on or what? They forgot the basics...

We gamers should be united, but EA managed to make us fighting each other. I can assure you, EA is a very successful company. Additionaly, just bothers me that I've to see the label "PREMIUM" on the guy who killed me, but this ain't so serious.

Also, outrageous the fact that Europeans and Aussies have to pay the most expensive price in the whole world for just digital downloadable content. I paid 34.9? for the Limited Edition ( box ), and now they ask 49.9? for Premium... heh!

After all, indeed, they're overdoing it. The transition from BFBC2 to BF3 wasn't the smoothest could be.
 

Griffolion

Elite Member
Aug 18, 2009
2,207
0
41
Sean Hollyman said:
It's EA man, what do you expect?
This, this, a thousand times this.

OT:

I like Battlefield 3, and Premium makes financial sense if you're committed to the franchise, as it gives you a saving on all the expansions due to come out. But the paying to unlock weapons instead of actually working for them is ridiculous.

But just to clarify, no weapons are exclusive to Premium members. All the weapons that "Premium" get's you is simply a list of all the weapons that will be available with the coming expansions. Technically, anyone without Premium but who buys all the expansions will have the exact same weapons as Premium members.

kortin said:
Vega said:
Stop pushing your belief system on me. you may think there is a hell but I know there isnt.
I never said anything of the kind. I said there is a special place for people like you. You inferred information that was not there. This special place just so happens to be my ignore list, thank you very much. Hope you enjoy your time there. ^^
My friend, you are full of far too much win. Share it around!
 

ThriKreen

New member
May 26, 2006
803
0
0
GonzoGamer said:
If you got the server running out of your home, you're sure to have a good connection. I'm just surprised they lend out that kind of equipment.
Uh, no, the rental server is hosted by EA or some 3rd party provider with facility locations around the world for better ping for you. It is all virtual, there is no hardware involved.

- Most MP console games have been peer-to-peers or one console acts like a server host (CoD).
- Obviously, said host will have the ping advantage.
- Console memory limitations (TF2 on console has max what, 16 players compared to 32 on the PC).
- BF has always been known as being about the large scale 32-64 player maps. You can't host a server for that amount of people on a console with 512mb or less of RAM. In addition to all the physics and textures and player models, etc. etc.
- Same note of the large scale battles, bandwidth on your dinky home ISP is often asymmetrical (you download faster than you upload). For a server host, you want to have a higher upload to support more players.

The only advantage having money to pay for a server is that ideally you would try to get a server that has decent ping for you, but unlike a local host, you will still suffer from some latency.
 

Bvenged

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,203
0
0
ThriKreen said:
GonzoGamer said:
If you got the server running out of your home, you're sure to have a good connection. I'm just surprised they lend out that kind of equipment.
Uh, no, the rental server is hosted by EA or some 3rd party provider with facility locations around the world for better ping for you. It is all virtual, there is no hardware involved.

- Most MP console games have been peer-to-peers or one console acts like a server host (CoD).
- Obviously, said host will have the ping advantage.
- Console memory limitations (TF2 on console has max what, 16 players compared to 32 on the PC).
- BF has always been known as being about the large scale 32-64 player maps. You can't host a server for that amount of people on a console with 512mb or less of RAM. In addition to all the physics and textures and player models, etc. etc.
- Same note of the large scale battles, bandwidth on your dinky home ISP is often asymmetrical (you download faster than you upload). For a server host, you want to have a higher upload to support more players.

The only advantage having money to pay for a server is that ideally you would try to get a server that has decent ping for you, but unlike a local host, you will still suffer from some latency.
Spoken like a pro.

I've got a question, ThriKreen, that's probably better suited for a PM, but ah well this is a BF3 thread after all:

I understand, with Battlefield, that destruction is limited by DX9 on consoles, right? So is the small RAM size on consoles the limiting factor for the player-count of 24? As you said, with TF2, RAM has to store data on each player so player-count is limited for the smaller memory-sized consoles; but with BF3 I just don't see how that is plausible, unless it's the local-side game rendering that takes a beating from the actions of all these additional players.

Also, I just checked out your website and would like to thank you for making the ME1 elevator conversations possible, cheers dude. Also, *incoming sarcasm* thanks a bunch: Playthrough 2 and 3 were dire on the Citadel because of how slow and mundane they were. I feel sorry for the citadel game testers (seriously, good job though - beats the crap out of a 2 minute loading screen or a RSI inducing trek up the stairs).
XD

[small]Captcha: Tea with milk
Yes, please. Quite, my dear boy, haaha![/small]
 

ThriKreen

New member
May 26, 2006
803
0
0
Bvenged said:
Spoken like a pro.
Funny thing, despite that I've noticed a lot of my posts, especially when I try to correct a misconception, tend to get ignored. And it's not like I'm being some corporate schill either, just trying to look at the full picture and seeing the cause.

I'm beginning to think people aren't interested in actual discussion or debate, or even open to being wrong, but just want to seek validation in their own opinions and prefer to cover their ears when countered with opposing views or facts.

Bvenged said:
I understand, with Battlefield, that destruction is limited by DX9 on consoles, right?
It would be limited based on if they are using Havok or PhysX or some other physics system, not DX9 itself, that's just the rendering engine.

Bvenged said:
So is the small RAM size on consoles the limiting factor for the player-count of 24? As you said, with TF2, RAM has to store data on each player so player-count is limited for the smaller memory-sized consoles; but with BF3 I just don't see how that is plausible, unless it's the local-side game rendering that takes a beating from the actions of all these additional players.
Admittedly, BF3 doesn't have to waste data on making the player characters talk or have facial expressions like in TF2, so the rendering and memory footprint per player is smaller. Obviously I haven't worked on either game on the consoles so I can't say what's what.

But things like alt camo skins, weapon models, all add up. Or climbing to the top of the crane and viewing the whole map for your team as well as sniping from across the map.

There's a fairly aggressive LOD system in place for BF3, so that's probably how they get away with the large open maps. Most FPS game and level design tend to involve a lot of right angle corridors to create structures to occlude the rest of the level, so it doesn't have to load and render everything. When you move it over to a multiplayer centric format, you can still get away with not rendering everything, but you have to switch to loading much more into memory, as you don't want to pause in the middle of a firefight for the machine to stream load the next chunk.

Bvenged said:
Also, I just checked out your website and would like to thank you for making the ME1 elevator conversations possible, cheers dude. Also, *incoming sarcasm* thanks a bunch: Playthrough 2 and 3 were dire on the Citadel because of how slow and mundane they were. I feel sorry for the citadel game testers (seriously, good job though - beats the crap out of a 2 minute loading screen or a RSI inducing trek up the stairs).
Yeah, I just made sure it worked, I didn't design it. ;)
 

Bvenged

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,203
0
0
ThriKreen said:
Hmm, I never thought about MP rendering that way - I suppose it makes sense to only render what the player sees and dump the rest into slower memory until required, rather than load the whole world at once. I assumed that rendering the whole map at once was just what you had to do in MP to keep the flow (except with MMO's).

So just to clarify, BF3's player limitation is not because of the engine or so much about actual player count, but more to do with how much more work those players can create for the console to render; where 24 player-made explosions are easier to render than 64 players, especially with the vast rendering BF3 has to apply more-so than your average-joe shooter who can hide a lot of pre-rendered textures and effects behind walls?

Also, what goes on in the elevators in ME1? Do you actually travel up to a new floor that's rendering as the previous is disassembled? or are you subtly portal-ling the player to a new room?
 

baddude1337

Taffer
Jun 9, 2010
1,856
0
0
The patch that added rented servers ruined quick match, and the changes the actual patch made the game unplayable for me. The fact they're charging £40 for a bunch of maps and shit extras is a complete slap to the face to me.
 

Windcaler

New member
Nov 7, 2010
1,332
0
0
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Smithburg said:
Paying for servers, paying to unlock stuff, and now paying for Battlefield Premium which gives you new weapons and such you can't get otherwise?

Am I the only person thinking they are going a little money crazy with all this? I love the game but it just seem like their money grubbing. What do you guys think?
Well lets get some perspective here. This is the first game I can ever think of where console players had the ability to rent servers while PC has had that for...since PC gaming began? The closer consoles get to PC the more theyre going to have to offer the same experience as PCs, this is just one of those options and honestly I thought it was needed back with Bad Company 2.

Paying to unlock is paying for convienance. Its not buying power since you can get every other thing in the game by just playing it. Its very similar to the League of legends business model. Now I think that this is fair because someone whos coming to the game now, months after its release is going to hit a brick wall against practiced players with better setups. Let's even toss out the fact that people who get in helicopters/jets without unlocks are seen as detrimental to the team. Now theres 2 options to counteract this. 1. soldier through it till they get their unlocks or 2. pay for the unlocks. I dont think thats such a bad thing and keep in mind that the payed for unlocks dont go away either

Finally theres battlefield premium. I believe its cheaper to get it then buy all the DLC down the road so on that basis alone I wouldnt call it money grubbing. I dont think anything is specific to BFP though if Im mistaken please point it out to me. What you've been seeing is the stuff from the close quarters DLC accessed with BFP. Now to be fair, I have one major problem with BFP and that is the "exclusivity" with guides and other learning tools. Right now the game does an abysmal job of teaching people how to play and I think guides/strategies should be part of the core experience. There really needs to be a tutorial for people and I would even go so far as to say people need to complete it before they can enter multiplayer
On the server business. They have handled it so that DICE owned servers are a rarity and you must queue to get in. It has created alack of convenience because youhave to wait for definite normal multiplayer or take a gamble with the player owned stuff, which is so damn cheap to partake in there are many, many crap servers of all different shapes and shades of bullshit. Paying for unlocks is buying power, more importantly unlocking things for vehicles is stupid and shouldnt be there in the first place. Its luck even getting one for starters and the fact that they are team property means, as you said, lower ranking people are even more of a hindrance. However its become a situation where the only way to really advance is to pay, which is not the desirable outcome. By this point they should just start new players off with the unlocks to put them on the same footing.
You are incorrect. Buying power is when you pay real money for something that is statistically better which non-paying players can not get. By definition the pay for unlocks is not buying power since every non-paying player can get them. Paying is not the only way to advance though, yesterday I spent about 2 games trying to get a single kill with the EOD bot to get the Mtar-21. During those games I was completely useless but I kept at it and persistence and luck made it happen. Likewise persistence with helicopters/jets can get you your unlocks, you are only stopped by giving up

Now with the servers, i havnt played on DICE's servers for a long time so maybe there's a que. I dont know for sure but I kind of doubt it with the vast number of servers out there now. I agree that there are a lot of servers I dont care for but that doesnt necessarily mean they're bad. Owners have a right to dictate what does and does not go on on their server and they have a right to dictate who does and does not play on their server. Just as you would if you were to buy a server. For me, Ive found some really good servers and I continue to play on them because Ive made friends there, the admins are fair, and I can generally find good games on them. I had to go through servers that I didnt care for to find the ones I like, it is a crap shoot but trial and error seems to be the only way to find good servers. On that note, good servers is a subjective term. For example I have a friend who hates playing with less then 300 tickets in any mode but Im more comfortable with a 75-150 ticket count. He hates shotguns and claymores but Im the kind of person that says use anything as long as it can be countered in some way. With that in mind, how else would you suggest finding good servers then trial and error?
There isnt a queue, mostly. However there is for the official servers which is not right. Thye shouldtn be able to change it massively without leaving those who never wanted the change with enough servers to stop them ever noticing. On the buying power stuff you are wrong. Buying power is not just buying things you otherwise couldnt get it is also getting things in some way that is easier/better than the normal way. If you buy things rather than unlock them then you have the advantage of having things before others despite not having earnt them in game like the others. Considering most people have what they want now it isnt really an issue but it remains one in principle. Imagine if people had everything unlocked on day 1, they would have a huge advantage by having objectively better everything and they had not earnt it in game, which ensures things like this dont happen. I still dont see why we should need to buy the advantage, why can we not simply have things unlocked if we havent already so we are not at a disadvantage? Unlocking things in such a team based game is dum anyway, you said yourslef that when you were trying to get a kill with the EOD you were useless. You put your team at a disadvantage because you wanted to improve your equipment, why should you even need to do that?
I dont understand, do you expect DICE to provide an ulimited number of official servers for the game?

On Buying power: Once again you are incorrect. I can call a duck a pig but at the end of the day its still, by definition, a duck. The same goes for buying power. The definition of buying power is when paying players have access to items that are statistically better and non-paying players can not get. This is also why its known as Pay to win. You can call this business model whatever you want but at the end of the day its not buying power (aka Paying to win)

Once again I think we need to dial back what were talking about and stick to what hass actually happened here instead of these crazy ideas that are not the reality. You can not make a case for this happening on day one because it didnt. It was 6 months? after release before they put pay for unlocks in the game which was plenty of time for even casual players to get a large variety of unlocks.

As to your opinion on unlocking, I had a hard time following it. How its written it just doesnt make a lot of sense to me. The most I got was you dislike unlocks though I couldnt understand why. Can you elaborate further?
 

Stripes

New member
May 22, 2012
158
0
0
Windcaler said:
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Smithburg said:
Paying for servers, paying to unlock stuff, and now paying for Battlefield Premium which gives you new weapons and such you can't get otherwise?

Am I the only person thinking they are going a little money crazy with all this? I love the game but it just seem like their money grubbing. What do you guys think?
Well lets get some perspective here. This is the first game I can ever think of where console players had the ability to rent servers while PC has had that for...since PC gaming began? The closer consoles get to PC the more theyre going to have to offer the same experience as PCs, this is just one of those options and honestly I thought it was needed back with Bad Company 2.

Paying to unlock is paying for convienance. Its not buying power since you can get every other thing in the game by just playing it. Its very similar to the League of legends business model. Now I think that this is fair because someone whos coming to the game now, months after its release is going to hit a brick wall against practiced players with better setups. Let's even toss out the fact that people who get in helicopters/jets without unlocks are seen as detrimental to the team. Now theres 2 options to counteract this. 1. soldier through it till they get their unlocks or 2. pay for the unlocks. I dont think thats such a bad thing and keep in mind that the payed for unlocks dont go away either

Finally theres battlefield premium. I believe its cheaper to get it then buy all the DLC down the road so on that basis alone I wouldnt call it money grubbing. I dont think anything is specific to BFP though if Im mistaken please point it out to me. What you've been seeing is the stuff from the close quarters DLC accessed with BFP. Now to be fair, I have one major problem with BFP and that is the "exclusivity" with guides and other learning tools. Right now the game does an abysmal job of teaching people how to play and I think guides/strategies should be part of the core experience. There really needs to be a tutorial for people and I would even go so far as to say people need to complete it before they can enter multiplayer
On the server business. They have handled it so that DICE owned servers are a rarity and you must queue to get in. It has created alack of convenience because youhave to wait for definite normal multiplayer or take a gamble with the player owned stuff, which is so damn cheap to partake in there are many, many crap servers of all different shapes and shades of bullshit. Paying for unlocks is buying power, more importantly unlocking things for vehicles is stupid and shouldnt be there in the first place. Its luck even getting one for starters and the fact that they are team property means, as you said, lower ranking people are even more of a hindrance. However its become a situation where the only way to really advance is to pay, which is not the desirable outcome. By this point they should just start new players off with the unlocks to put them on the same footing.
You are incorrect. Buying power is when you pay real money for something that is statistically better which non-paying players can not get. By definition the pay for unlocks is not buying power since every non-paying player can get them. Paying is not the only way to advance though, yesterday I spent about 2 games trying to get a single kill with the EOD bot to get the Mtar-21. During those games I was completely useless but I kept at it and persistence and luck made it happen. Likewise persistence with helicopters/jets can get you your unlocks, you are only stopped by giving up

Now with the servers, i havnt played on DICE's servers for a long time so maybe there's a que. I dont know for sure but I kind of doubt it with the vast number of servers out there now. I agree that there are a lot of servers I dont care for but that doesnt necessarily mean they're bad. Owners have a right to dictate what does and does not go on on their server and they have a right to dictate who does and does not play on their server. Just as you would if you were to buy a server. For me, Ive found some really good servers and I continue to play on them because Ive made friends there, the admins are fair, and I can generally find good games on them. I had to go through servers that I didnt care for to find the ones I like, it is a crap shoot but trial and error seems to be the only way to find good servers. On that note, good servers is a subjective term. For example I have a friend who hates playing with less then 300 tickets in any mode but Im more comfortable with a 75-150 ticket count. He hates shotguns and claymores but Im the kind of person that says use anything as long as it can be countered in some way. With that in mind, how else would you suggest finding good servers then trial and error?
There isnt a queue, mostly. However there is for the official servers which is not right. Thye shouldtn be able to change it massively without leaving those who never wanted the change with enough servers to stop them ever noticing. On the buying power stuff you are wrong. Buying power is not just buying things you otherwise couldnt get it is also getting things in some way that is easier/better than the normal way. If you buy things rather than unlock them then you have the advantage of having things before others despite not having earnt them in game like the others. Considering most people have what they want now it isnt really an issue but it remains one in principle. Imagine if people had everything unlocked on day 1, they would have a huge advantage by having objectively better everything and they had not earnt it in game, which ensures things like this dont happen. I still dont see why we should need to buy the advantage, why can we not simply have things unlocked if we havent already so we are not at a disadvantage? Unlocking things in such a team based game is dum anyway, you said yourslef that when you were trying to get a kill with the EOD you were useless. You put your team at a disadvantage because you wanted to improve your equipment, why should you even need to do that?
I dont understand, do you expect DICE to provide an ulimited number of official servers for the game?

On Buying power: Once again you are incorrect. I can call a duck a pig but at the end of the day its still, by definition, a duck. The same goes for buying power. The definition of buying power is when paying players have access to items that are statistically better and non-paying players can not get. This is also why its known as Pay to win. You can call this business model whatever you want but at the end of the day its not buying power (aka Paying to win)

Once again I think we need to dial back what were talking about and stick to what hass actually happened here instead of these crazy ideas that are not the reality. You can not make a case for this happening on day one because it didnt. It was 6 months? after release before they put pay for unlocks in the game which was plenty of time for even casual players to get a large variety of unlocks.

As to your opinion on unlocking, I had a hard time following it. How its written it just doesnt make a lot of sense to me. The most I got was you dislike unlocks though I couldnt understand why. Can you elaborate further?
Unlocks for less important things are fine since they have little impact on the game or play style overall, for example different guns dont matter much because they all do the same job well with little difference between them. However unlcoks for essential things, such as having to unlcok the med kit and revive pad things, is stupid since they are important to the class and the game overall. For vehicles unlocks are stupid because they are team property, the team only has a certain amount and they are to be used by the team not the individual player, and having nothing unlocked means it devalues the vehicles to the team as they simply are not as effective. Furthermore you are never guaranteed a vehicle, you can go days of normal play and not have a seat in a jet, which means players who are simply lucky enough to get vehicles will advance faster. Adding to this is that only a few people canhave vehicles at a time which means some advance when others cant. Basically it leads to imbalance and devalutation of vehicle strength. Unlocks encuorage selfish play, for example you spent 2 days not being any help to your team to get an unlock, which is the direct opposite of what should be encouraged in a team game. Buying power simply means buying an advantage, if you can have things before others, even if they will eventually get them through play, then you have bought an advantage which is buying power. Battlefield is not a great example mainly because there were weapons planned for pre order which you could not obtain otherwise, a huge boycott was the only thing stopping them and whats to say they wont try again? If you dont oppose the small problems they escalate. ON the server business I am simply asking they provide the service they promised, at least over a year after release. If they want to sell servers they cant simply do so in a way that forces people onto them whether they like it or not. I am not demanding unlimited servers just more so we dont have to queue if we dont want to. They set the price so low that any idiot can run one and plenty do, because they havent provided enough servers then I am forced to gamble on the player owned servers, on principle thats not right since I couldnt have predicted this when I bought the game.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Vega said:
NO, you are NOT the only person who thinks that; you NEVER are. Please, never start a sentence Like that again.
Am I the only one who thinks that the Critical Miss strip with this should be shown every time you are going to make a thread? Of course not.

To answer the question in your post there, OP. You are not the only one. You are in the massive majority who has been thinking this for a long time. You are never the only one so that is always a redundant question. However now you're basically asking "Am I the only one who uses oxygen".
 

dogenzakaminion

New member
Jun 15, 2010
669
0
0
They are releasing 4 new expansion packs and continuing the survivability if the game for at least another 2 years. That costs money. I'm sorry, I know EA are like the big-bads, but I don't really see the issue here. The weapons in BF3 are almost all just palette swaps, and it doesn't take that much playtime to unlock the really good stuff. Servers cost money, making more content costs money, them offering something to sweeten that deal is not a problem for me.
 

Windcaler

New member
Nov 7, 2010
1,332
0
0
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Stripes said:
Windcaler said:
Smithburg said:
Paying for servers, paying to unlock stuff, and now paying for Battlefield Premium which gives you new weapons and such you can't get otherwise?

Am I the only person thinking they are going a little money crazy with all this? I love the game but it just seem like their money grubbing. What do you guys think?
Well lets get some perspective here. This is the first game I can ever think of where console players had the ability to rent servers while PC has had that for...since PC gaming began? The closer consoles get to PC the more theyre going to have to offer the same experience as PCs, this is just one of those options and honestly I thought it was needed back with Bad Company 2.

Paying to unlock is paying for convienance. Its not buying power since you can get every other thing in the game by just playing it. Its very similar to the League of legends business model. Now I think that this is fair because someone whos coming to the game now, months after its release is going to hit a brick wall against practiced players with better setups. Let's even toss out the fact that people who get in helicopters/jets without unlocks are seen as detrimental to the team. Now theres 2 options to counteract this. 1. soldier through it till they get their unlocks or 2. pay for the unlocks. I dont think thats such a bad thing and keep in mind that the payed for unlocks dont go away either

Finally theres battlefield premium. I believe its cheaper to get it then buy all the DLC down the road so on that basis alone I wouldnt call it money grubbing. I dont think anything is specific to BFP though if Im mistaken please point it out to me. What you've been seeing is the stuff from the close quarters DLC accessed with BFP. Now to be fair, I have one major problem with BFP and that is the "exclusivity" with guides and other learning tools. Right now the game does an abysmal job of teaching people how to play and I think guides/strategies should be part of the core experience. There really needs to be a tutorial for people and I would even go so far as to say people need to complete it before they can enter multiplayer
On the server business. They have handled it so that DICE owned servers are a rarity and you must queue to get in. It has created alack of convenience because youhave to wait for definite normal multiplayer or take a gamble with the player owned stuff, which is so damn cheap to partake in there are many, many crap servers of all different shapes and shades of bullshit. Paying for unlocks is buying power, more importantly unlocking things for vehicles is stupid and shouldnt be there in the first place. Its luck even getting one for starters and the fact that they are team property means, as you said, lower ranking people are even more of a hindrance. However its become a situation where the only way to really advance is to pay, which is not the desirable outcome. By this point they should just start new players off with the unlocks to put them on the same footing.
You are incorrect. Buying power is when you pay real money for something that is statistically better which non-paying players can not get. By definition the pay for unlocks is not buying power since every non-paying player can get them. Paying is not the only way to advance though, yesterday I spent about 2 games trying to get a single kill with the EOD bot to get the Mtar-21. During those games I was completely useless but I kept at it and persistence and luck made it happen. Likewise persistence with helicopters/jets can get you your unlocks, you are only stopped by giving up

Now with the servers, i havnt played on DICE's servers for a long time so maybe there's a que. I dont know for sure but I kind of doubt it with the vast number of servers out there now. I agree that there are a lot of servers I dont care for but that doesnt necessarily mean they're bad. Owners have a right to dictate what does and does not go on on their server and they have a right to dictate who does and does not play on their server. Just as you would if you were to buy a server. For me, Ive found some really good servers and I continue to play on them because Ive made friends there, the admins are fair, and I can generally find good games on them. I had to go through servers that I didnt care for to find the ones I like, it is a crap shoot but trial and error seems to be the only way to find good servers. On that note, good servers is a subjective term. For example I have a friend who hates playing with less then 300 tickets in any mode but Im more comfortable with a 75-150 ticket count. He hates shotguns and claymores but Im the kind of person that says use anything as long as it can be countered in some way. With that in mind, how else would you suggest finding good servers then trial and error?
There isnt a queue, mostly. However there is for the official servers which is not right. Thye shouldtn be able to change it massively without leaving those who never wanted the change with enough servers to stop them ever noticing. On the buying power stuff you are wrong. Buying power is not just buying things you otherwise couldnt get it is also getting things in some way that is easier/better than the normal way. If you buy things rather than unlock them then you have the advantage of having things before others despite not having earnt them in game like the others. Considering most people have what they want now it isnt really an issue but it remains one in principle. Imagine if people had everything unlocked on day 1, they would have a huge advantage by having objectively better everything and they had not earnt it in game, which ensures things like this dont happen. I still dont see why we should need to buy the advantage, why can we not simply have things unlocked if we havent already so we are not at a disadvantage? Unlocking things in such a team based game is dum anyway, you said yourslef that when you were trying to get a kill with the EOD you were useless. You put your team at a disadvantage because you wanted to improve your equipment, why should you even need to do that?
I dont understand, do you expect DICE to provide an ulimited number of official servers for the game?

On Buying power: Once again you are incorrect. I can call a duck a pig but at the end of the day its still, by definition, a duck. The same goes for buying power. The definition of buying power is when paying players have access to items that are statistically better and non-paying players can not get. This is also why its known as Pay to win. You can call this business model whatever you want but at the end of the day its not buying power (aka Paying to win)

Once again I think we need to dial back what were talking about and stick to what hass actually happened here instead of these crazy ideas that are not the reality. You can not make a case for this happening on day one because it didnt. It was 6 months? after release before they put pay for unlocks in the game which was plenty of time for even casual players to get a large variety of unlocks.

As to your opinion on unlocking, I had a hard time following it. How its written it just doesnt make a lot of sense to me. The most I got was you dislike unlocks though I couldnt understand why. Can you elaborate further?
Unlocks for less important things are fine since they have little impact on the game or play style overall, for example different guns dont matter much because they all do the same job well with little difference between them. However unlcoks for essential things, such as having to unlcok the med kit and revive pad things, is stupid since they are important to the class and the game overall. For vehicles unlocks are stupid because they are team property, the team only has a certain amount and they are to be used by the team not the individual player, and having nothing unlocked means it devalues the vehicles to the team as they simply are not as effective. Furthermore you are never guaranteed a vehicle, you can go days of normal play and not have a seat in a jet, which means players who are simply lucky enough to get vehicles will advance faster. Adding to this is that only a few people canhave vehicles at a time which means some advance when others cant. Basically it leads to imbalance and devalutation of vehicle strength. Unlocks encuorage selfish play, for example you spent 2 days not being any help to your team to get an unlock, which is the direct opposite of what should be encouraged in a team game. Buying power simply means buying an advantage, if you can have things before others, even if they will eventually get them through play, then you have bought an advantage which is buying power. Battlefield is not a great example mainly because there were weapons planned for pre order which you could not obtain otherwise, a huge boycott was the only thing stopping them and whats to say they wont try again? If you dont oppose the small problems they escalate. ON the server business I am simply asking they provide the service they promised, at least over a year after release. If they want to sell servers they cant simply do so in a way that forces people onto them whether they like it or not. I am not demanding unlimited servers just more so we dont have to queue if we dont want to. They set the price so low that any idiot can run one and plenty do, because they havent provided enough servers then I am forced to gamble on the player owned servers, on principle thats not right since I couldnt have predicted this when I bought the game.
Paragraphs make things much easier to read, this just looks like a rant that is hard to follow.

The one thing Im noticing most is I wonder if you even play BF3? You seem to be lacking a lot of knowledge about the game like the idea of the different guns being sidegrades and better in certain situations rather then good in all of them. Now there are some guns that are jacks of all trades, masters of none but they tend to be few and far between. To give an example of situational weapons (and Im just going to be using the assault class here since its the one I play the most) if you intend to be in close quarters combat like the 2nd and 3rd set of MComs on Operation metro rush extremely fast firing weapons will be the avantage because they kill quicker. For me, I tend to use the AEK in those situations because its a very versatile weapon but with its high fire rate (950 rounds per minute). This means that when I get into a close quarters fire fight my gun kills quicker then most others. The downside of the AEK is its high reload time which I think is just over 3 seconds with an empty magazine. On the flip side Ive been using the new SCAR-L lately and its a gun that feels like a laser beam. Its so accurate that I can usually kill snipers and anyone at long range before they can get a kill. The trade off is its low rate of fire where I'll be outmatched by just about any gun. This is what I mean about side grades, no gun is inherantly better then another even if its just how it feels (For example the M9 is statistically better but the M443 feels better due to its sights).

Now I will agree that unlocks can but dont necessarily encourage selfish play. My adventure with the EOD bot over 2 rounds (not days, rounds) is a good example but this is one of those situations where the accomplishment wasnt done much. The EoD bot is a pretty worthless item, it can be useful for arming MComs or repairing/damaging vehicles at long range. The issue is the EoD bot wont be able to hold an MCom as well as a soldier and its so unwieldy that its hard to get it anywhere in one piece, let alone get a kill or effectively repair/damage a vehicle. Some of the other assignments I achieved by just playing the game. For example to get the SCAR-L I had to kill 20 people with an underslung grenade launcher and had to kill another 15 with grenades. I do that all the time over the course of a game, in fact I had the first part done in a single game (though I spammed the 320 more then I tend to do) and the grenade kills I got over the course of 3 games. Likewise to get the Spaz-12 I have to get 20 kills with pistols and 20 kills with shotguns, both will come as I play the game. Shotguns when Im in close quarters and playing a recon and pistols on every class because there are a lot of times where I run out of ammo or whats in my main weapons clip just isnt enough to finish a guy off. The EoD bot is the exception, not the rule.

On another note I think I need to point out that you do not have to unlock the med or ammo kits, the repair tool, or the radio beacon. So its not like you're robbed of anything that is essential to your class when first starting out and no I dont think the T-UGS, C4, Defib, or mines are essential to the classes

Vehicle unlocks is a little different due to the various seats in vehicles. Only the Jet has a single seat and to be honest I just suck at flying jets. However I recall a round where I got into the littlebird on Sharqi pennesula where the guy piloting was winning the game for us. It was so bad that the littlebird became the target of the whole enemy team, thats when I spawned engineer in it and just started repairing. I stayed there for the whole game. For every kill he got I got 20 points toward my littlebird unlocks. By the time the round was over I got flares, heat seekers, stealth, and autoloader. He wouldnt have got half those kills if I hadnt been constantly repairing him and because of him being able to fly around without as much caution we won the game. I also have most of my attack helicopter unlocks by sitting in the gunners seat with a good pilot. The IFV and tanks I know how to drive, and really well but at least part of those unlocks is by just gunning for drivers. As I said before jets are really the only type of vehicle where you have to do it all on your own. The only unlocks I would say are required to pilot are flares and you now get those for free anyway. Someone could argue the ECM as well and I wouldnt disagree but flares seems like a good substitute for the moment.

Although for the third time I have to state that you are incorrect with buying power. Buying power is when people pay real money to gain access to something that is statistically better and non-paying players can not get. A non-paying player can get everything that can be bought so its not buying power
 

ThriKreen

New member
May 26, 2006
803
0
0
Bvenged said:
So just to clarify, BF3's player limitation is not because of the engine or so much about actual player count, but more to do with how much more work those players can create for the console to render; where 24 player-made explosions are easier to render than 64 players, especially with the vast rendering BF3 has to apply more-so than your average-joe shooter who can hide a lot of pre-rendered textures and effects behind walls?
You're kind of mixing up your terms there, like textures are usually pre-rendered already. ;)

But yes, it's mostly a hardware limitation for why you have less players in certain games on the consoles compared to the same game on the PC. And why allowing one to rent a dedicated server for a game like BF3 is a great idea, since the game is all about large scale maps and lots of players is unfeasible for consoles in a standard client-server set up to host. Or deal with migration when the host player quits the game.

And why CliffyB was talking about how they need to drag the industry for consoles into the next generation - make sure the next gen console hardware has to be on par or better than current gen PCs to make them continue to be feasible, because PCs have been surpassing consoles for awhile now.

Bvenged said:
Also, what goes on in the elevators in ME1? Do you actually travel up to a new floor that's rendering as the previous is disassembled? or are you subtly portal-ling the player to a new room?
The former, the level is made up of "chunks" that the game loads and makes visible and unloads as you move around the level. Works for a single-player game environment, less so for a multiplayer one (noticed how the levels in ME3 MP are small and self-contained?).

There are 3 common states for the streaming levels: "Not Loaded", "Loaded" (but not visible) and "Loaded and Visible". Loaded means that the game engine will attempt to load the level off the disc/HDD in the background (and time is budgeted for worst case, so off the optical disc), but as it also has to multitask the still running game, so you need a bit of extra time. Obviously, you try to do this when the player is moving in a particular direction and load up the next sections that aren't visible yet (i.e. around the corner, up the stairs, etc.).

If the level is set to be "Loaded and Visible" and it is has not loaded yet at all - i.e. too small a duration from when it is to be loaded to when it is visible, then it creates a blocking state - it needs to pause the game until it has completed loading, as we need it to be visible. Since the level data often contains other things like triggers and collision, we kinda need that, otherwise you could fall through the level if the ground has not appeared yet. Since it halts the game, this mode usually can load faster (hence why some games kind of prefer short load screens vs. streaming it in).

So the ME1 elevators could be somewhat long, as it needed to create a large enough duration to unload and load the next sections. And in UE3 (and probably other games), unloaded levels tend to stick around in memory for a bit before being removed completely, as a just-in-case if you backtrack over the level streaming volumes and straddle two of them, to reduce strain on reading the data off the disc.

Other games use similar tricks to mask loading. Gears of War or Max Payne 3 are such games, since they are somewhat linear in level progression, they use the cinematic cutscenes to mask it and link the sections together. Try skipping some of the cinematics in Max Payne 3, you can't and a little bit of text on the corner pops up saying "STILL LOADING".
 

Bvenged

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,203
0
0
ThriKreen said:
Bvenged said:
So just to clarify, BF3's player limitation is not because of the engine or so much about actual player count, but more to do with how much more work those players can create for the console to render; where 24 player-made explosions are easier to render than 64 players, especially with the vast rendering BF3 has to apply more-so than your average-joe shooter who can hide a lot of pre-rendered textures and effects behind walls?
You're kind of mixing up your terms there, like textures are usually pre-rendered already. ;)

But yes, it's mostly a hardware limitation for why you have less players in certain games on the consoles compared to the same game on the PC. And why allowing one to rent a dedicated server for a game like BF3 is a great idea, since the game is all about large scale maps and lots of players is unfeasible for consoles in a standard client-server set up to host. Or deal with migration when the host player quits the game.

And why CliffyB was talking about how they need to drag the industry for consoles into the next generation - make sure the next gen console hardware has to be on par or better than current gen PCs to make them continue to be feasible, because PCs have been surpassing consoles for awhile now.

Bvenged said:
Also, what goes on in the elevators in ME1? Do you actually travel up to a new floor that's rendering as the previous is disassembled? or are you subtly portal-ling the player to a new room?
The former, the level is made up of "chunks" that the game loads and makes visible and unloads as you move around the level. Works for a single-player game environment, less so for a multiplayer one (noticed how the levels in ME3 MP are small and self-contained?).

There are 3 common states for the streaming levels: "Not Loaded", "Loaded" (but not visible) and "Loaded and Visible". Loaded means that the game engine will attempt to load the level off the disc/HDD in the background (and time is budgeted for worst case, so off the optical disc), but as it also has to multitask the still running game, so you need a bit of extra time. Obviously, you try to do this when the player is moving in a particular direction and load up the next sections that aren't visible yet (i.e. around the corner, up the stairs, etc.).

If the level is set to be "Loaded and Visible" and it is has not loaded yet at all - i.e. too small a duration from when it is to be loaded to when it is visible, then it creates a blocking state - it needs to pause the game until it has completed loading, as we need it to be visible. Since the level data often contains other things like triggers and collision, we kinda need that, otherwise you could fall through the level if the ground has not appeared yet. Since it halts the game, this mode usually can load faster (hence why some games kind of prefer short load screens vs. streaming it in).

So the ME1 elevators could be somewhat long, as it needed to create a large enough duration to unload and load the next sections. And in UE3 (and probably other games), unloaded levels tend to stick around in memory for a bit before being removed completely, as a just-in-case if you backtrack over the level streaming volumes and straddle two of them, to reduce strain on reading the data off the disc.

Other games use similar tricks to mask loading. Gears of War or Max Payne 3 are such games, since they are somewhat linear in level progression, they use the cinematic cutscenes to mask it and link the sections together. Try skipping some of the cinematics in Max Payne 3, you can't and a little bit of text on the corner pops up saying "STILL LOADING".
Awesome, cool. Thanks for that. I take it a large part in the differences of game engines is their memory management and loading.

I take it with UE3 they like to keep loading short, as Iv'e notices in many UE games the loading finished, but you still see textures becoming more detailed, and LOD increasing in front of you. In some cases it would take away form the immersion to see your character's body materialise in an expanding world.