Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

[LiquidSolstice]

I'm of the opposite school of thought here. I just don't see how anyone can see "By the way you can fork over 3/4th the cost of the game to not get your ass handed to you" is enticing to anyone.

I promise you this; take someone who's new to BF3 and pit them against someone with a month's worth of experience. Give the newbie the shortcut package, let the veteran use what he/she has unlocked.

Newbie will STILL get ass handed to self. I promise you that. This is not fanboyism. This is just the sheer fact that people can't seem to process; what specific gun you use has a negligible impact on the success or failure of a round. What class of guns you're using will matter, because you'll have to deal with different situations, and the factor that most greatly affects the outcome of a game is how well your team or your squad works.

This is a difficult concept for CoD players to understand (not trying to be insulting here, I play and enjoy CoD but it's very easy to see what happens when CoD players try and play BF3 the same way that they do MW3), and it appears to be an even more difficult concept for people who play MMOs to understand.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion to this game and convinced my boyfriend not to buy the game. Microtransactions in games piss me off to no end.

It's the reason I'm telling everyone I know to ignore Guild Wars 2 on release.

Again, it makes me pull off a sad smile when I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played was indeed not worth buying because of changes that don't even affect the game.

"I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion."

That would mean I do own the game (why would I think about buying the xpac for a game I don't own?). I can see it in my Origin list right now, lol.

...right, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to your boyfriend. Using criteria that does not affect the mechanics of the game, you've decided for him that it is not worth buying.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Every gun in BF3 is balanced against the rest. No unlock is "better" than any other. In fact, I've had all of the weapons unlocked for a considerable amount of time and on 3 out of the 4 classes, I primarily use either the starting level weapon or the first unlock for the class. The game's weapons are more of a "what works better for you and your playstyle" rather than what works better overall.

Paying for an unlock package doesn't give any advantage, just more options. If it helps bring in more new people, then I'm all for it. Statistically for every 500 new players there will be 3 that will actually drop ammo and medkits. Besides, having the guns is one thing, unlocking the attachments comes later.

THIS.

Finally, sanity shines through all the sensationalism and ignorance from people who have not even played the game. I still think the best assault rifle is the default M16 that comes with the US side.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion to this game and convinced my boyfriend not to buy the game. Microtransactions in games piss me off to no end.

It's the reason I'm telling everyone I know to ignore Guild Wars 2 on release.

Again, it makes me pull off a sad smile when I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played was indeed not worth buying because of changes that don't even affect the game.

"I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion."

That would mean I do own the game (why would I think about buying the xpac for a game I don't own?). I can see it in my Origin list right now, lol.

...right, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to your boyfriend. Using criteria that does not affect the mechanics of the game, you've decided for him that it is not worth buying.

"[When] I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played" was referring to my boyfriend? That makes most of your comment... make no sense, lol.

Besides, I convinced him to avoid the game. It would be hard for me to decide for him--free will and all that.

 

[darthzew]

I don't have a problem with this. You can either invest time or money. And here are a few things to consider:

A) It's expensive. $4.99 for some fake guns, most of which you probably won't even use, is a lot of money. The price feels about equal to the time spent earning them.
B) Nobody is getting anything extra. If you're paying, you aren't getting anything exclusive, you're just getting the same guns early.
C) From what I can tell, it does not affect the ranking system. You still have to earn the honor of being ranked up.
D) Player skill is unaffected. They still have to get good at the game to be good at the game.

I think this option is fine to have, as long as certain parameters are met. BF3 seems to have met them.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Besides, I convinced him to avoid the game. It would be hard for me to decide for him--free will and all that.

Uh, do you understand what "confirmation bias" is? I don't think you do...

 

[Roserari]

I see this as EA taking advantage of absolute morons. I say, let em.

 

[archvile93]

I can't help but feel that this was the plan of multiplayer unlocks all along. They just didn't hit the first to do it, like MW, because publishers wanted to take it slow to prevent displeasure with it. I can't think of any other reason for all equipment not to be unlocked from the start, and this is becoming more common recently (TF2, ME3, and now BF3.) I wonder how long it will be before CoD gets in on this money printing system?

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Besides, I convinced him to avoid the game. It would be hard for me to decide for him--free will and all that.

Uh, do you understand what "confirmation bias" is? I don't think you do...

It's cool how you skipped over the entire part where you didn't read my comment and assumed I had never played the game and then tried to say you meant something else which made no sense. Awesome stuff.

I'm also very sorry for telling my boyfriend I disliked the game and felt it wasn't worth the money I had spent. How dare I share my opinion with my partner and have it result in them deciding not to get the game. It's not as if I know them well and know for a fact they wouldn't enjoy the title.

Herp derp.

 

[Gromril]

Apparently having the high rank guns in first person shooters instantly makes you a pro

 

[LiquidSolstice]

Besides, I convinced him to avoid the game. It would be hard for me to decide for him--free will and all that.

Uh, do you understand what "confirmation bias" is? I don't think you do...

It's cool how you skipped over the entire part where you didn't read my comment and assumed I had never played the game and then tried to say you meant something else which made no sense. Awesome stuff.

I'm also very sorry for telling my boyfriend I disliked the game and felt it wasn't worth the money I had spent. How dare I share my opinion with my partner and have it result in them deciding not to get the game. It's not as if I know them well and know for a fact they wouldn't enjoy the title.

Herp derp.

It's cool that you don't understand what I said because you don't want to critically think about the words in front of you, even when offered a Wiki link to educate yourself with.

A. "Self-confirm" does not mean you are confirming something to yourself. Feel free to read the Wiki entry for what confirmation bias is.
B. Keeping the above in mind, you were using self-confirmation on someone who has never played the game before (your boyfriend).
C. I don't give a shit what you tell your boyfriend. I'm not trying to take that away from you, please don't strawman on me and try and turn it into "stop attacking my relationship", I don't do that kind of shit.
D. The fact of the matter remains, and is no different than the other idiots in this thread; without actually having played the game it is batshit retarded to think it is fair or qualified to say that the paid shortcut breaks the game in any way.

Tell you what; why don't you pick a tangent to go off on and stick to it, mkay?

EDIT: I wish I could be cool enough to toss "Herp Derp" and "lol" randomly in to my posts.

 

[Weaver]

I'm of the opposite school of thought here. I just don't see how anyone can see "By the way you can fork over 3/4th the cost of the game to not get your ass handed to you" is enticing to anyone.

I promise you this; take someone who's new to BF3 and pit them against someone with a month's worth of experience. Give the newbie the shortcut package, let the veteran use what he/she has unlocked.

Newbie will STILL get ass handed to self. I promise you that. This is not fanboyism. This is just the sheer fact that people can't seem to process; what specific gun you use has a negligible impact on the success or failure of a round. What class of guns you're using will matter, because you'll have to deal with different situations, and the factor that most greatly affects the outcome of a game is how well your team or your squad works.

This is a difficult concept for CoD players to understand (not trying to be insulting here, I play and enjoy CoD but it's very easy to see what happens when CoD players try and play BF3 the same way that they do MW3), and it appears to be an even more difficult concept for people who play MMOs to understand.

Well, I'm actually a battlefield player (I've played every single one extensively, except for 3 due to origin) so I understand where you're coming from. Buying the weapons does not buy you the ability to use them.

I feel, however, people are claiming having more options isn't an advantage, and I'd disagree. And, in battlefield tradition, the vehicle unlocks ARE just straight up more powerful.

Thus, the situation devolves into (unless I'm missing something):
A) Buying the unlocks gives the player an advantage over similarly levelled players.
B) Buying the unlocks does not give the player an advantage over similarly levelled players.
C) Buying the unlocks "levels the playing field for new players" against veterans.
D) Buying the unlocks doesn't level the playing field against veterans.

If (A), you're paying for an advantage other players don't have, which I think most people agree is bad form for a competitive game.

If (B), then buying these packs is absolutely pointless and is a cash-grab by EA to essentially milk money from players who don't know better.

If (C), I feel it's ridiculous a new player should be automatically made equal with long time players. You, yourself, have already dismissed this claim.

If (D), Then there is no point in paying money for these.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

without actually having played the game it is batshit retarded to think it is fair or qualified to say that the paid shortcut breaks the game in any way.

Now, you have a problem here; either you are saying I haven't played the game, which is incorrect, or you are saying my boyfriend hasn't and is suggesting the paid shortcuts break the game, which I never said and you would have no way of knowing.

Feel free to go into another rant (the last one was pretty funny) in an attempt to avoid the problem.

 

[josemlopes]

Not everyone has a shit ton of free time. Some people have multiple jobs, children, things to do, blah blah blah and just want to be able to play BF3 with their friends every so often.

I play probably....once a month with a friend of mine who lives in California. I get destroyed every time because I just don't want to play when I'm alone and he's the only one I know who has the game. This OPTION is nice to have but that's the thing, it's an option. You want to be a "purist"? Don't use the option but it's brilliant on EA's part to gain more players who may have skipped these online games due to not having time.

Sure sounds like a brilliant OPTION to give people putting down money the power to destroy other new players and all the things other people worked on for months.

Again, I couldn't care less how much free time or jobs or children or whatever they have, the rules in the game should be the same for everyone. You can't buy yourself more pieces or several kings when playing chess etc. either, no matter if you are hobo Bob or billionaire Mike.

What does it matter to you where I got my weapons?

Are you unhappy because you can't just kick the piss out of the new players now because they have a way to even the playing field? These packs are not giving them an advantage, these are the same exact weapons that you get.

To go with your chess analogy:
-A player started in November has the full board
-A player starting right now has pawns (seriously, we don't get shit in the beginning)

I just don't see how anyone could possibly see this as a bad thing. You're getting a bunch of new players in the game, some new blood, and allowing them the option to put themselves even with the players who have been playing since November.

At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't possibly see how this could be a bad thing for anyone. Unless swiping my credit card gives me a rifle while people who don't pay get squirt guns, I see absolutely no problem here. If that were introduced, I'd be right with you in the angry mob with my pitchfork but that's not what this is. Where you're seeing an evil company hell bent on screwing over the poor, I see a company willing to give the new players an actual fighting chance.

The weapons that a guy starts off in BF3 are weak but you rapidly earn the ones that do pack a punch (most of the latter unlocks aren't even all that powerfull), and I dont see the problem in rookies dying a lot on their first games, they don't know the maps and the tricks, they are supposed to die a bit more on the begining, its part of getting better at the game.

EDIT: Its amazing how people will buy virtual weapons even knowing that with a bit of time they can get them for free. We just have to wait until publishers see that there are more people willing to buy the unlocks then the people willing to earn it and just remove the possibility of unlocking them through playing the game.

 

[Laughing Man]

All attempts to argue with me are pretty much invalidated by the simple fact that the unlocks are functional rewards people work to unlock, and are seen as worthwhile bonuses which is why people pursue them. It is wrong for someone who has not done the work to be able to obtain the perks by paying real money... period.

Yet it is right for someone who whilst being new to the game may be forced to spend several hours playing a game just to achieve an unlock that allows them to perform a certain task? Of course having never played the game you won't be able to understand this example but here goes.

Anti- tank is a wanky role to play in the game, the anti tank weaponry is next to useless unless you have the Soflam (unlockable) lasing a target at which point you can usually get a Javelin (unlockable) kill. On the other hand being an Assault with C4 is a very effective way to take on a tank, having the C4 does not turn you in to an effective Tank killing machine, you still need the timing, the skill and the ability to sneak in unspotted lay the C4 and get away without blowing your self to bits.

The new guy who just joined has all these skills but because he hasn't played for 20+ hours he hasn't yet unlocked the C4, AND that's what all the perks in BF3 are like, none of them give you a huge advantage over another player they allow you to do the role you choose more effectively, you want to be a sniper then they allow you to be a more effective sniper but if you do not have the raw skill and ability you are still going to suck against someone who has the core weapons but knows what they are doing with them.

ALL the unlocks are like this save for one, the USAS12, even then the effectiveness of this weapon is limited to CQC.

 

[LiquidSolstice]

without actually having played the game it is batshit retarded to think it is fair or qualified to say that the paid shortcut breaks the game in any way.

Now, you have a problem here; either you are saying I haven't played the game, which is incorrect, or you are saying my boyfriend hasn't and is suggesting the paid shortcuts break the game, which I never said and you would have no way of knowing.

Feel free to go into another rant (the last one was pretty funny) in an attempt to avoid the problem.

It's clear to me now that you are either incapable of reading, or are unwilling to do so. I can only assume now you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguing, and I'm really not interested. So honestly, have fun not reading.

And as a footnote, for the record, I explained to you precisely what I said. I didn't give you a multitude of options as to what I might have said. There was no ambiguity in what I said. What I said is based purely off what you have told us.