Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

[LiquidSolstice]

Oh look. EA is trying to make BF3 multiplayer use a free to play model, except they are still charging £40 for it. Yep, im glad I didn't buy this game.

I like people who decide what a game is like and then state they didn't buy it. Drink your kool-aid, then, go on...

 

[LiquidSolstice]

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.

"I've never actually played this game but I've read about it so it's basically the same thing."

I'm sorry, did you even read this bit that you typed? Battlefield is not political news. You don't "follow it" and gain familiarity with it. You either play the goddamn game and know what you're talking about or you accept that you have not played it and therefore are not qualified to pass judgements on its addons and accessories.

 

[getoffmycloud]

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.

I've actually not played BF3 since somewhere when they introduced Back to Karkand, also I've been playing it on PC where this doesn't seem to be available.
It's just the idea that people can basically pay money to cheat themselves to the top that is baffling, every single player so far started at the bottom and worked his way up and that's how it should work. If they wanted to give "everyone a fair chance" they should've designed their game differently without Unlocks, like Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament or whatnot or made them much faster to get.
What they are doing is selling power, pure and simple.

They might be selling the best weapons but if you put a bunch of new player with all the weapons against a bunch of players who started playing in November and gave them only the starting weapons the experienced players will win because battlefield is designed so the team that plays the best wins not like COD where the team with the best weapons and kill streaks wins.

 

[Aeonknight]

Yeah, the power to absolutely destroy new players should remain firmly in the hands of those who worked the hardest to get that power. And if you destroy them hard enough, they'll never have a chance to catch up with you. That way, they quit playing and don't become competition for you later.

You're right of course, my bad... that power should go solely to the people with the most money to spend, not the people who played the game for months to unlock everything... where was my mind?
If you have a problem with the way the game is designed, then you have a problem with the way the game is designed, but that doesn't justify selling power for money.

Last I checked the gun didn't make the player. You can give them "ubergun2000" but if they don't know wtf they're doing it's not going to make a difference.

the same goes for vehicles. In fact it makes more sense for those. Example: Jet combat. I don't see a new pilot being able to do a damn thing to someone with Air Radar/Extinguishers/etc. They'd be lucky to get any points in the jet period without flares to save their ass from stingers/heat seekers. This gives them a means of playing on somewhat even ground, just without the experience to back it up.

I'm not going to say it's not a sort of money grab, but it does make the game more approachable to people who didn't get in on the ground floor. That's never a bad thing for extending the game's life span. Maybe EA is banking on trying to pick up a few burnt out CoD players looking for something new. Can't blame them for trying, but I seriously doubt I'm going to get my shit kicked in by a noob just cause he's packing a USAS-12 now.

 

[Cowabungaa]

I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimatly winds up giving the rich an advantage.

Except that no exclusive, superior content is made available for customers who pay extra, which is what Pay2Win means. Star Trek Online is a great example of it, as they sell superior ships solely for real money, you can't get them any other way. BF3 doesn't do that, hence no Pay2Win.

Not to mention that buying those high level guns doesn't buy you gameplay experience, which is very important in a shooter. BF3 isn't as dependent on good stats or gear as an MMO is, not even nearly. A beginner wielding a high-level rifle is still going to get his ass kicked by a veteran using a low-level gun.

Is it a greedy and pretty lame move? Yeah. Does it hurt your gameplay experience and put the non-paying customer back? No.

 

[Therumancer]

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.

"I've never actually played this game but I've read about it so it's basically the same thing."

I'm sorry, did you even read this bit that you typed? Battlefield is not political news. You don't "follow it" and gain familiarity with it. You either play the goddamn game and know what you're talking about or you accept that you have not played it and therefore are not qualified to pass judgements on its addons and accessories.

Incorrect, Battlefield 3 is similar enough to other games that I have played where it's handfull of tweaks and changes hardly put it into truely alien territory. None of it's concepts are paticularly original, and I understand what your trying to say entirely, I just happen to disagree with you.

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.

I understand you disagree with me, but at least get it right, that's a matter of your opinion, not some kind of absolute fact reinforced by my ignorance.

If these purchuses did nothing for those buying them, there wouldn't be a market out there for EA to exploit by making them availible. It doesn't matter how much YOU think they don't influance the game, the entire point of the sale is that they do, which is why people purchuse the shortcuts.

 

[Fasckira]

Nothing new here, EA did the same to NFS The Run - you could buy an unlock pack that unlocked all the cars, avatars and backgrounds. I personally dislike it and would never use it myself but I know a lot of people bought it.

 

[Cowabungaa]

It doesn't matter how much YOU think they don't influance the game, the entire point of the sale is that they do, which is why people purchuse the shortcuts.

Yes it does, because we players know how much it influences the game. You do not. And we players can tell you that these shortcuts do not influence the game in a negative way. We've seen this in Bad Company 2 already. Where's your argument against it except for "Well that's just my opinion."

 

[JoesshittyOs]

Am I the only one who got all the Co-Op weapons when they made that patch a few months back? Because I think that might have been a glitch.

 

[Therumancer]

I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimatly winds up giving the rich an advantage.

Except that no exclusive, superior content is made available for customers who pay extra, which is what Pay2Win means. Star Trek Online is a great example of it, as they sell superior ships solely for real money, you can't get them any other way. BF3 doesn't do that. Not to mention that buying those high level guns doesn't buy you gameplay experience, which is very important in a shooter. BF3 isn't as dependent on good stats or gear as an MMO is, not even nearly.

Is it a greedy and pretty lame move? Yeah. Does it hurt your gameplay experience and put the non-paying customer back? No.

Actually it does, because your looking at people getting perks they did not earn within the game. Someone getting something for mere money that someone else has to earn defeats the entire purpose of it being a reward for good play and committment.

Also, in reality most gaming, especially when it comes to shooters and such, does not generally involve "superman" going up against some complete scrub, though that does happen. For most players that are in the average catagory, access to more and better/more specialized guns with a higher chance of finding their ideal weapon can provide a decisive edge over a player that they would have been balanced against skillwise to begin with. Granted some scrub isn't going to be able to pwn the experts with thus stuff, but your typical player is going to have an edge against other players of his skill level who haven't spent the money.

Your right about STO to an extent, the ships are mostly an excuse to get the free players to donate money to the game. It's defended by the simple fact that nowadays you can convert dilithium into cryptic points, and Cryptic itself puts points up on the market for people to obtain that way. Your typical "free player" is limited to being able to refine 8000 dilithium a day, but with two characters who can make the 2000 cps needed to buy a top tier ship in a month of solid play and doing daily dilithium missions. Paid players wind up getting no limits on dilithium refinement, and receive 400 cps per month their account is active.

Don't get me wrong it's a borked system, but it's also not making pretensions of having a level playing field based around skill, as it's quite frank about there being "levels" of players with differant perks and ease of play. If you play STO you sign up for that, as opposed to this apparently being added into B3 well after launch despite other EA games having done it. Had B3 launched with this active and announced this system before the game came out (which does not seem to be the case) I'd have a somewhat differant attitude about it.

I do play STO casually and have given them a bit of money, indeed it's one of the only FTP games I've supported (and I have my reasons beyond the gameplay advantages which I won't go into since it would be increasingly off subject). The thing is I knew what I was signing up for, and truthfully if it wasn't for the dilithium exchange they probably wouldn't have gotten me to stick around even to the extent that I play. When it comes to B3 the fact that this is being annouced now, makes it pretty clear that this wasn't part of the package when most of the players started... and that's a big part of why I think it's ridiculous.

 

[Therumancer]

It doesn't matter how much YOU think they don't influance the game, the entire point of the sale is that they do, which is why people purchuse the shortcuts.

Yes it does, because we players know how much it influences the game. You do not. And we players can tell you that these shortcuts do not influence the game in a negative way. We've seen this in Bad Company 2 already. Where's your argument against it except for "Well that's just my opinion."

That is my opinion, just as what your saying is your opinion, you don't speak for anyone other than yourself. Trying to make pretensions of speaking for a group just makes you look silly in cases like this.

 

[Doclector]

I don't have a problem with this. It's not as if you HAVE to pay to unlock certain things, and the price seems fairly steep for people who want to take the easy route, and besides, these newer players with high level kit ain't gonna be experienced with it. In a fairly tactical, hardcore online shooter like BF3, that makes all the difference.

 

[CCountZero]

I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimately winds up giving the rich an advantage.

As far as "funding the war effort goes" cute line, but in the end people already paid $60 for this. This is an example of the industry getting too greedy, with the greed undermining the integrity of the games.

I don't fully agree with that assessment.

I started out in the Beta, and then the Alpha. I played the unfinished multiplayer so much pre-release that I needed a break when it was actually released.

That meant that I came in about a month later than everyone else, and I can only say that some of those unlocks are a huge pain to acquire when everyone else on the battlefield already has them.

A great example is for the planes, 'cus if you don't have Stealth, you will be shot down by AA missiles before your manage a kill, and it has only gotten worse for newbies since then.

I can sorta follow the line of thinking that you unlock the items as you learn the game, but it actually does take a very, very long time to unlock some of these things, and you will certainly have learned what needs to be learned long before you unlock the last item in any of the progression trees.

Calling it "Pay to Win", when it's only really useful for new players coming in, seems somewhat ignorant to me, I have to admit.

At least, I know I've been in places, both when I started out in BF3, but certainly also in other games, where this sort of thing would have added to the enjoyment quite a bit, while not really making a difference for other players.


------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, what the hell is up with everyone going "OMG!!! F2P!!! 4Shame EA! /cry"

Paying for this is not gonna make your performance better. Are some weapons arguably better than others in the same class? Sure. But it's still 85% skill + 10% weapon familiarity + 5% actual weapon that makes that happen. The weapons themselves are such a tiny part of the equation.

And as I said above, theres a huge difference between it being an option now, or at release. At release, I would have been up in arms, surely, but right now we have everyone and their mums running around with all of this stuff anyway, which means it's only really useful as a shoe-in for new players. I don't see the harm.

 

[CCountZero]

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 handful of basic weapons, to earn your variant and specialized weapons, someone not having to pay the same dues, and just getting the payoff and step in with equivalent 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.

As far as I can see, your whole "status symbol" issue is taken care of. First of all, having all weapons in BF3 is not a status symbol, but rather the "mastery" dog-tag unlocks are, as well as your experience level. Both of those won't be affected by this.

The foot-soldier equipment is only gonna have a very small effect on game balance. A bad players with a huge gun is still gonna get decimated.

Some of the vehicle unlocks are downright necessary to start using vehicles at this point, as without them you will be killed long before you have a chance to get unlock points. That's sort of a broken system, and there are better ways to fix that, but at least this is a way to get around it for whomever really wants to fly those planes so bad.

About the whole "defeats the point of the competition", you're kinda looking at it wrong. The competition isn't and has never been about the unlocks. Just look at the scores, and who wins. Who has what weapons and how they got them shouldn't be an issue, unless those weapons aren't obtainable for you.

Honestly, I don't wanna instigate anything, but that part just made it sound like you have low self esteem and vanity issues.

 

[Dastardly]

I'm glad I'm not invested in it. I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimatly winds up giving the rich an advantage.

As far as "funding the war effort goes" cute line, but in the end people already paid $60 for this. This is an example of the industry getting too greedy, with the greed undermining the integrity of the games.

Of course it really doesn't surprise me, it's the same basic thing EA is doing with ME3's muliplayer, except without the randomization inherant in the packs.

It's really good to notice EA listening to it's fans, especially seeing as that was part of what all the bile over ME3 is about. The paid multiplayer being connected to the ending dispute because to even see all of the crap ending you need to do it, and they are selling the same kind of "shortcuts" for real money which amounts to having monetized the ending.

In this case, I don't see "pay to win." People who are just now getting the game, logging in to play, and getting stomped aren't having much fun. I've been "that guy" in plenty of games like that. The problem? After awhile, new people just stop coming, and the game slowly becomes a ghost town without new blood.

You've got plenty of vets that really want new people to play with/against. And you've got other vets that... what? Want new people to join the game, but spend the first few weeks as easy targets to pad the vets' kill scores?

Now, when I first read the title, I thought this was going to be about some kind of shortcuts through the map that would only be accessible to those that buy them. That would be "pay to win," for sure.

 

[Dogstile]

Tough shit, everybody else had to do it the same way and they should too... fair play and all, I couldn't care less about how much they "value their time", maybe they shouldn't be playing then?

I hear you. Man, I don't get why people would even think about being casual gamers. What's the point of even playing a game if you're not going to practice at least 12 hours a day on it? They're what's killing competitive gaming.

I think you messed up the quotes.

Either that or the man is being sarcastic. I kinda got that vibe.

OT: Eh, I could care less, I stuck to my boycott of not paying for any game EA put's stupid requirements on. I'll just ask a friend for a copy down the line instead if i really want to play it.

 

[Amnestic]

I dont see a problem with this.

So long as all the content in the packs can be unlocked normally, its a nice grey middle ground.

if this content that can be "unlocked through normal play" was "end game" level gear in another game...like say WoW...you'd see the problem all right...it would probably crash the internet...or at the very least Blizzards web server.

as for the server rentals thing...kinda sickened that its come to this tbh

Logical fallacy. Try harder

really ? which one ?

not that i care after the "try harder" remark.

ah, to be a teenager before you realised "logic" was bullshit...

It's fallacious because it's a false equivalency. In WoW, the endgame items are demonstrably better than other items. An Experimental Specimen Slicer is quite clearly better than a Pit Lord's Destroyer. A Dragonwrath, Tarecgosa's Rest is better than a Ti'tahk. A Maw of the Dragonlord is better than a Scepter of Azshara. There's no two ways about it. That's just how it is.

In BF3, it's more of a matter of taste and feel. (In theory) The guns should all be pretty much equal to one another, whereas in WoW that's quite clearly not the case.

Check out the Best in Slot (BiS) list for WoW and then try to find an equivalent, vetted and generally agreed upon list for BF3. I can almost guarantee that no such list exists.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

Have they fixed the bugs yet?
Like, being unable to connect, freezing and not having a gun?
No, seriously. Are they going to fix the game or just shove more crap in it?

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

Completely pointless considering some of the stuff you start off with are still some of the best weapons you can get.

-cough- M16A4 -cough-

 

[Megacherv]

Mneh, I've seen this sort of stuff before, and I think it's alright. They're not selling a permanent advantage, and it's only going to help people who are A) Lazy and will probably stop playing in a short while or B) people who don't have much time to play.

So yeah, go them...