Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

[ThePS1Fan]

People'll pay for convenience even if they aren't getting anything a little bit of time couldn't get them for free. I swear if you could make gas instantly transfer itself into a gas tank in half a second you could you could charge $5/litre.

Captcha: good for nothing
I do agree.

 

[Gylukios]

I know this is one of those kind of things we're supposed to hate "just because," but I'll state that I do not mind shortcut packs for Battlefield 3 for two reasons. First, the switching of initial primary weapons based on what faction you're playing is crushing to new players whose learning of the game is stymied by trying to learn two starting weapons instead of one, and because the later-chain vehicle unlocks are both incredibly useful and take an inconvenient amount of time to unlock.

Also, if people could stop raging for a second, does anyone know if the shortcut packs also include the attachment unlocks for weapons?

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, the days of me not playing this no doubt excellently designed multiplayer shooter are certainly coming to a middle.

 

[Big.Bad.Blowback]

The idea of these "Play for Gear" system is not very good in my opinion. People who are new to a game and do not have the same level of skill as a veteran will go up against people with vastly superior skill and equipment. Games like Halo allow people coming in to have the same gear as a vet. In games like COD and BF where there are a ton of weapons this system of playing is even more unneeded since if you spend some time balancing weapons to different play styles will allow people to find the best weapon set for themselves.

Ideally you should not have to play or pay to get these guns. They should be available from the start.

 

[Therumancer]

[

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich
Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Actually it is "pay to win" your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game. Your basically paying for an advantage over anyone who hasn't put in the time, or spent the money, and gaining the abillity to dominate them.

Ultimatly if you "want to play" but don't want to put in the time (or can't) your supposed to suck compared to those that do, that's part of the point. Being able to decide "well I'm rich so I'm going to buy my way out of the boring stuff and paying my dues" isn't paticularly fair to those who can't afford to do that, or those who put in the time and effort.

In the end this isn't good for the game, or gaming in general. The only thing it's good for is EA lining it's own pockets.

Of course understand that I am of the opinion that in multiplayer I believe firmly in everyone being equal other than their skill and time investment. I do not believe in "equalizing" things between the serious players and the casuals if the more casual or unskilled players can afford to pay for it, if your a casual player, then you should expect to not be as powerful as the other players who take it more seriously. In any enviroment like this, even PVE games, there is going to be a degree of competition, and that means there are going to be losers, being able to buy your way into the winners circle and get those perks invalidates the entire process.

See, the arguement is double sided. Your casual player argues that he should not be held back because he's unwilling to turn a game into a hobby and make the time committment, or maybe he links the game but is just pants at it and doesn't like that this limits his progress. To him, if he has the money, paying a few bucks to even the playing field seems reasonable. To the more serious player, he feels that the time, effort, and perhaps displayed skill SHOULD get him some rewards. Putting 100 hours a week into a game (if that's what he decides to do) should make him better than someone who might play an hour or two a day and that should be recognized by the game by putting him well above those casual players in every conceivable way. Swiping a credit card should not give someone equal achievements and perks.

Now, to be honest I do understand the problem of being someone who always gets WTFpwned by giants in an established game. However I believe those are the lumps someone needs to take to earn their way up, especially seeing as the first ones playing generally had to pay their own kinds of dues. I feel that monetizing this is not the way to address it however, I think instead more effort needs to be taken to segregate queues such as ensuring PVP in MMORPGs is premade vs. premade, and pug vs. pug, and in all forms of games probably make the amount of time an account has been logged into the game a variable in matchmaking. If you've only played 40 hours in say a month, a queue should try and find people with a similar amount of played time for you, before it sticks you onto a map with people who log that in a week. You can't measure skill levels with a computer (yet) but you can measure that variable which would help, and which to me is a much better idea, and has more gaming integrity, than letting people pay to unlock benefits that are supposed to be earned... even if integrity doesn't put money into industry pockets.

You already said you don't play BF3, so how do you know your 'your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game.'? It's not an MMORPG where the latter weapons are automatically the best. Different people have different styles and use different weapons to suit them. When I play recon (sniper) I use a Semi-automatic rifle with a medium range scope, so the last unlock for that class - a large single shot Anti-Materiel rifle - is of no use to me. It's not 'better' but 'different'.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point - BF3 isn't like an MMORPG, or really like CoD were certain unlocks are vastly superior to others. I believe on paper, or at least to the best of my knowledge, the FAMAS is currently the best weapon in BF3, yet it is far from the most widely used weapon. It is a short range rapid fire weapon, it doesn't suit a lot of playstyles.

The vehicle unlocks certainly make a tank/heli/plane better, but an enemy dies just as good from a M16 as he does from an AN-94.

See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least. For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

 

[weirdee]

well it's not as if suddenly getting the weapons makes the people have any more skill

 

[Metalrocks]

i rather have a patch that fixes these awful lagging in the servers. since thursday last week when i got my self this game (PC), i have only problems with it. if i can get my money back, i think i would.
greedy bastards. milk everyone down to the bone.

 

[Slayer_2]

I'm already level something over 60, so I don't care. Give a noob an M98B and he'll be happy camping for a day, give me a knife, and I'll be happy for life, nooby snipers. The best thing is, retards will pay for this, only to find that the AK-74M and M16A3 (the starting weapons) are the best guns in the game for Assault class (which is the best class). Sure there are a few perks and stuff to unlock, but nothing you can't get with 10-20 hours of play. And like someone else said, you can kit your jet out with Extinguishers and AGM-65 missiles, only to find me stuck on your tail like glue and chewing you apart with my GAU 12 chaingun, and also that both your new fancy perks suck. Unlocks =/= skill.

I still feel like this is a dirty move, though, even though I couldn't care less... I can't place what it is, but I feel like I should be annoyed.

 

[samsonguy920]

Considering TF2 already has this same system to some degree, it's hardly innovative. And considering the players of TF2 have not been visibly alienated by that system, it's hardly a problem.
I get hives over the thought of any edge being available to cashiered players, but I don't really read anything in this giving evidence to that being the case.
I say, carry on.

 

[Andronicus]

I see nothing wrong with this. They're paying for convenience only. If they're rubbish players paying for better weapons, then they'll just continue shooting walls and empty space with twice as much power. If they're good players, and just want to skip the tedium of unlocking everything, then it just means veterans have more people to shoot faster.

On top of that, I figure that most of the people who either don't have the time or inclination to spend copious amounts of time playing these games, and are actually willing to shell out extra money to ensure they don't miss anything, are just trying to experience as much of the game in as short an amount of time before they move on. ie, they won't be hanging around for long.

 

[octafish]

snip

See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least. For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

The weapons unlock to keep you playing, not to give you an advantage. It's pure Skinner Box mechanics, nothing more, two thousand points more and I get a new rifle, twenty thousand and I get a specialization, forty thousand I get a new camo pack, gotta keep playing must unlock them all. The guns are just different flavours, none are "better" than the others, BF3 is trying to be balanced all the way through, not realistic. Hell, the highest tier weapon unlock you can earn is that the first level weapons are available for both factions. The next gun you unlock isn't better and for some people they are vastly inferior. Plus you want the best equiped players you can find on your side, not some newb who has to switch between two weapons every time you swap sides.

The vehicles are a little different, but do you want newbs who are going to lose your vehicles behind the wheel without a level playing field?

 

[Berenzen]

Tribes: Ascend has a similar system and I don't really have a problem with that game, so why would I have a problem with this? Hell, in T:A you have entire classes locked until you either get a good chunk of experience or purchase it for a few bucks. However, the base 3 classes are also all quite good at the roles they do (flag capture for pathfinder, all around for soldier/ base defense for juggernaut.), however, everything is still all available for unlocking in game, it just takes a lot more time. However, from experience, those who are still at a higher rank are typically a LOT better than those who are of lower rank, even if both players have everything unlocked.

If BF3 is even slightly similar to TA these shortcuts shouldn't be gamebreaking.

Paying for a custom server though, is bull.

 

[cgentero]

I know players are going to complain about this but I really don't see how this is a problem. I don't see any difference between the game being imbalanced because of spent time playing or just spending money to gain that advantage.

 

[Therumancer]

[

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich
Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Actually it is "pay to win" your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game. Your basically paying for an advantage over anyone who hasn't put in the time, or spent the money, and gaining the abillity to dominate them.

Ultimatly if you "want to play" but don't want to put in the time (or can't) your supposed to suck compared to those that do, that's part of the point. Being able to decide "well I'm rich so I'm going to buy my way out of the boring stuff and paying my dues" isn't paticularly fair to those who can't afford to do that, or those who put in the time and effort.

In the end this isn't good for the game, or gaming in general. The only thing it's good for is EA lining it's own pockets.

Of course understand that I am of the opinion that in multiplayer I believe firmly in everyone being equal other than their skill and time investment. I do not believe in "equalizing" things between the serious players and the casuals if the more casual or unskilled players can afford to pay for it, if your a casual player, then you should expect to not be as powerful as the other players who take it more seriously. In any enviroment like this, even PVE games, there is going to be a degree of competition, and that means there are going to be losers, being able to buy your way into the winners circle and get those perks invalidates the entire process.

See, the arguement is double sided. Your casual player argues that he should not be held back because he's unwilling to turn a game into a hobby and make the time committment, or maybe he links the game but is just pants at it and doesn't like that this limits his progress. To him, if he has the money, paying a few bucks to even the playing field seems reasonable. To the more serious player, he feels that the time, effort, and perhaps displayed skill SHOULD get him some rewards. Putting 100 hours a week into a game (if that's what he decides to do) should make him better than someone who might play an hour or two a day and that should be recognized by the game by putting him well above those casual players in every conceivable way. Swiping a credit card should not give someone equal achievements and perks.

Now, to be honest I do understand the problem of being someone who always gets WTFpwned by giants in an established game. However I believe those are the lumps someone needs to take to earn their way up, especially seeing as the first ones playing generally had to pay their own kinds of dues. I feel that monetizing this is not the way to address it however, I think instead more effort needs to be taken to segregate queues such as ensuring PVP in MMORPGs is premade vs. premade, and pug vs. pug, and in all forms of games probably make the amount of time an account has been logged into the game a variable in matchmaking. If you've only played 40 hours in say a month, a queue should try and find people with a similar amount of played time for you, before it sticks you onto a map with people who log that in a week. You can't measure skill levels with a computer (yet) but you can measure that variable which would help, and which to me is a much better idea, and has more gaming integrity, than letting people pay to unlock benefits that are supposed to be earned... even if integrity doesn't put money into industry pockets.

You already said you don't play BF3, so how do you know your 'your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game.'? It's not an MMORPG where the latter weapons are automatically the best. Different people have different styles and use different weapons to suit them. When I play recon (sniper) I use a Semi-automatic rifle with a medium range scope, so the last unlock for that class - a large single shot Anti-Materiel rifle - is of no use to me. It's not 'better' but 'different'.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point - BF3 isn't like an MMORPG, or really like CoD were certain unlocks are vastly superior to others. I believe on paper, or at least to the best of my knowledge, the FAMAS is currently the best weapon in BF3, yet it is far from the most widely used weapon. It is a short range rapid fire weapon, it doesn't suit a lot of playstyles.

The vehicle unlocks certainly make a tank/heli/plane better, but an enemy dies just as good from a M16 as he does from an AN-94.

See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least.

If you do not play the game, how do you have experience of it?

For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Stats to support your statement. If you can make such a claim you must be able to support it with some factual evidence.

Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

That is true, but i'm really not to bothered about it. I'll hardly be upset if I start going up against Lvl 1s armed with AEK-971s, it'll still take them time to learn how to use the weapons, what works in what situation, which attachments suit which role. Just because they have a slightly more accurate gun that the base, does not immediately result in them running around the map obliterating all the other newbs.

See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

If this were true, why did I not more than 2 hours ago come up against several level 50s using the base Assault rifle, LMG, and Sub-machine gun? The base weapons are often the most balanced, with the more advanced ones tending towards an extremity in one area over the other (the F2000 having an incredibly high rate of fire, but awful accuracy, for example).

I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

I have no real love for EA, I enjoy BF more for playing it with friends than anything fundamental about the mechanics.

Do you really think that many people are going to spend $39.99 for every unlock? It's an overpriced service which is entirely unnecessary. It's only on one platform. The Prothean DLC, now that was a cash grab, aimed directly at fans of the franchise.

Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

I don't really care for your hyperbolic predictions. The unlock systems in FPS are there to encourage persistence and expand the games lifespan (i'm really not sure why, tbh, doesn't seem that important to keep people playing once you have their cash). This service cuts out the unlocks which are purposefully designed to encourage persistent play. Which actually when I think about it is rather self defeating.

The grinding in MMOs is to encourage the player to sub for the longest period. With something like CoD Elite, we have a cross-over in the two (CoD Elite is a service that is defiantly damaging to gaming, and sets a bad precedent that I hope is not taken up, it also has utterly obnoxious advertising).

Battlefield 3 is a well known game and pop culture phenomena like CoD, you can't follow gaming like I do without gaining some familiarity with it.

To be honest it's getting to the point where I am going to ignore any demands for "evidence" to something obvious on any topic. EA apparently sells these packs, as the article points out they have done so before, which encourages them to keep doing it. If nobody gained an advantage and purchused them, this would not be an issue. They even call them "shortcuts".

As a word of advice since I run into this a lot, don't demand evidence or proof of something as hyperbole. It makes you look silly. I understand why people do it when they feel in control of a situation (to try and look cool, or to sidestep having to concede a point or do their own research when someone points something out that's easily verifiable). In this case for example this entire discussion exists because of specific events that have already transpired... ie EA providing a "shortcut" to top flight capabilities in the game for real money, with people supporting this enough to make it a viable business. No evidence needed, everything I said was established before this conversation even happened. Semantics games don't a point make.

At any rate, it seems you eventually came to the same conclusion that I did, albiet by a differant path, and for differant reasons so there is no real point to further discussion.

 

[Therumancer]

I know players are going to complain about this but I really don't see how this is a problem. I don't see any difference between the game being imbalanced because of spent time playing or just spending money to gain that advantage.

It's like this, if I spend 100 hours or more gradually building up my arsenal of weapons and unlocks, putting in a lot of time and effort, it utterly sucks if some rich kid can walk up, swipe daddy's credit card, and get everything I worked for without having to put in the effort.

All game balance issues aside, having this stuff is a status symbol, having a top tier unlock means you did a lot to earn it. It's cheapened if anyone who want to spend a few bucks can have it too, it's no longer a sign of an accomplishment and mastery of the game.

What's more if you worked your way up from a handfull of basic weapons, to earn your varient and specialized weapons, someone not having to pay the same dues, and just getting the payoff and step in with equivilent gear and options also sucks.

Part of the point of a competitive game is that by playing and sticking with it, or dominating it with skill, you are going to be outright better than other players, when people no longer have to earn that stuff it defeats part of the entire point of the competition.

 

[Therumancer]

snip

See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least. For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

The weapons unlock to keep you playing, not to give you an advantage. It's pure Skinner Box mechanics, nothing more, two thousand points more and I get a new rifle, twenty thousand and I get a specialization, forty thousand I get a new camo pack, gotta keep playing must unlock them all. The guns are just different flavours, none are "better" than the others, BF3 is trying to be balanced all the way through, not realistic. Hell, the highest tier weapon unlock you can earn is that the first level weapons are available for both factions. The next gun you unlock isn't better and for some people they are vastly inferior. Plus you want the best equiped players you can find on your side, not some newb who has to switch between two weapons every time you swap sides.

The vehicles are a little different, but do you want newbs who are going to lose your vehicles behind the wheel without a level playing field?

Again, it's up to the newbs to go through the trials and tribulations to learn to play and stop being newbs, not to be handed the keys to success right off the bat. Dealing with the problem finding teams and so on is exactly one of the things a newb is supposed to go through, ditto for getting pwned by everyone. It's not nice, but it's part of the process, and letting rich people buy their way out of it is unfair to those who can't pay extra money for the unlocks, as ell as being unfair to those who tolerated the grind to get to the top and had to pay those same dues. In any multiplayer game, whether it's an action game, or an MMO, the newb phase is sort of like "hell week" the phase everyone goes through and brings them into the community. Part of what makes it fun to pick on newbs is the knowlege that the people doing it were there to begin with, and knowing those newbs will eventually get through it if they stick to it. I think it actually builds stronger communities.

That newb should have to make due with his two guns and slowly work his way up. Also saying that the new guns "aren't superior for everyone" doesn't mean much since by definition they are superior for some people, and the greater degree of options means a Newb is more likely to find an ideal weapon for his play style, as opposed to having to make due as a newb is supposed to do... and heck, even you mention the vehicles DO present an advantage.

Even if they were purely cosmetic, just by being unlocks they should remain that way, because those models are a sign that you played and paid your dues to earn them. Someone who just drops money to get them cheapens the whole value and the achievement.

Now if EA was selling models for guns that aren't otherwise in the game, say a Galil skin for the M-16 that doesn't change anything about it or whatever (basically some gun's appearance that isn't in the game) that be one thing, but when it comes to selling gear with differant stats that have an actual gameplay effect, and are supposed to be earned, I can't agree with that in any genere of game.

 

[5t3v0]

I would never buy it but its hardly "pay to win". Skill is a determining factor, and the way Dice have gone about the game, some weapons are just reskins of others anyway. (though that is ocming from someone who is playing the PC version which is yet to be patched...)