EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3
You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.
Read Full Article
You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.
Read Full Article
Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.Dennis Scimeca said:EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3
You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.
Read Full Article
Here's the difference: EA claims that the "Online Pass" system is necessary to fund official servers. They take money for that purpose.mindlesspuppet said:Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.Dennis Scimeca said:EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3
You may not play the game, but you may want to pay attention.
Read Full Article
Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.
I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?
The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
I started as a PC gamer, I used to play action quake on quake2 and a 56k modem till the early hours of the morning. It took me a while to find some good local servers but it was great.mindlesspuppet said:Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works. Player owned servers are nothing new, nor are games that relay on them exclusively.
Some players will change the rules: some may hate it, others will love it. For those that hate it, well I'm sure they'll have no trouble finding a vanilla game. Websites with a gaming audience often run servers, so there's no need to worry about some rager being ban happy.
I have to side with EA and Dice on this. I think they are trying to bring a more PC experience to console with this, and by all means it should be for the better, and that's a problem?
The ability to modify and run/own a server is why Quake still has people playing it.
Made a lot of good points here. It sounds as if the issue isn't so much the servers themselves as it is the interface for finding one that is best suited for the individual.bjj hero said:I started as a PC gamer, I used to play action quake on quake2 and a 56k modem till the early hours of the morning. It took me a while to find some good local servers but it was great.
I now play BF3 on the 360 (I have a young family and cannot justify spending on a gaming rig, maybe when the boys older). It is a different beast on a console, you get used to things being standard. This shift in servers is a real pain in the arse.
I dont have the same free time as I used to and if I have an hour or half an hour to kill I could drop onto a CQ server and get a few rounds in, now I spend most of the time sifting through servers trying to find one with normal tickets. I dont even get to see my ping, just the stupid bars so I cannot even work it to my advantage.
Ive been banned for being top, killed and swapped teams with no warning (while piloting a full helicopter that resultantly crashed), banned for using, most weapons, vehicles, kamikaze attacks, run and gunning, sniping... It seems quite random although linked to winning.
To be fair, it wasn't long ago that consoles didn't even have online play. I think this is only a first step and the issues that you and others are having will get ironed out. Unfortunately, the first step tends to be the most harsh with these sort of things.bjj hero said:It is a real miss step for consoles. There needs to be a better way to find "vanilla" BF at the moment, its a different market than the PC. Consoles, until now, let you drop in to the game you wanted to play, 1 click. Not so in BF anymore.
Yeah, except everyone knows EA has Online Passes just to punish people for buy/selling used games.RvLeshrac said:Here's the difference: EA claims that the "Online Pass" system is necessary to fund official servers. They take money for that purpose.
Maybe EA should introduce some sort of review and rating system for players to leave feedback on servers they play on. If an admin is able to consistently maintain a positive player rating EA could offer the server renter a discount on the rental fee. This would discourage server admins from acting like ass hats and thus people avoiding privately run servers.Hitchmeister said:I think EA only deserves about 60% of the blame for this one. If there weren't so many players willing to rent a server to impose their own rule-set on other players, EA would be stuck with providing standard vanilla servers. But all the servers they put up get rented out. Now it seems reasonable to me to have a set number of standard vanilla servers that will always be available, clearly identified for people who want to be sure of getting the standard "fair" game. But doing that would probably make the custom servers less popular and less likely to be rented. Should EA cost themselves money for the sake of players who have demonstrated eagerness to screw each other over?
Maybe. But the players need to share some of the blame for creating this situation.