Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

[chadachada123]

I don't have a problem with this because each unlock set only takes a few dozen hours of fun gameplay, and the unlocks aren't particularly important for the battlefield. If someone has money to blow, let them, I'll take the free and fun route. As long as they can still be gotten by normal grinding, I've no qualms.

 

[chadachada123]

While I have BF3 on Xbox 360, the fact that this was only done for PS3 and not the other two platforms makes me think that perhaps PlayStation owners don't really give a toss about Battlefield 3.

360 is getting the same update and the same shortcut options, actually. The update is just being released a little bit later. Which sucks for me because I want those damn USAS+Frag assholes nerfed right goddamn now.

But anyway, without stats on how many people are actually buying the shortcuts (these shortcuts were also sold in BF:BC2), we can't say that PS3 players are that thrifty with their money just yet.

 

[krazykidd]

Wait , how is this fair? Rank 1 people will have the advantage on other rank 1s if they pay more . This is terrible . Everyone seems to be focus on the experienced players and ignore the new rank 1s that don't pay .

Captcha : public good .

Anyone else is startin to thing that the captcha can read their minds?

 

[Metal_Head]

Paying for a Custom server is shit.

But this whole anger makes me laugh. I am currently rank 49 and look forward to new players. Give a noob access to the M60, which is unlocked at a later stage, the noob will still be crap if he was just using the starter LMG. Time makes players better at the game, not weapons. I for one, would like the Co OP guns, but hate the missions. If I could get them like this, I would probably do it. Anyway, with this huge patch being realised soon, that fixes glitches and bugs, even noobs with good guns will find it hard to spam.

Its not like the noobs will suddenly turn into gods while playing, just because they have early access to say, the P90.

Also, get over it. IT IS A GAME PEOPLE! I'm sure if given the chance, some of you complainers would have jumped at the chance to use the M98B or the AS VAL when you got the game during the early stages.

 

[teqrevisited]

I've no problem with this. It makes no difference how long it takes someone to unlock a weapon. Now, if only they could fix the commo-rose spam bug.

 

[Mortuorum]

Well, as I have the service star for each class and already reached level 45, I see no real problem with this. In fact, I see it as decent idea from one stand point: How do we get money from those stupid people playing this game?

I think that's a pretty healthy attitude. Let's be honest -- you're still going to kick their butts even with their shiny new toys. You have experience with the weapons, the maps and the nuances of classes that they just won't be able to match.

 

[Wolfram23]

...although perhaps the other most controversial feature will be the ability for players to rent their own servers. Instead of using the standard Battlefield 3 servers, players can now rent their own and customize all parameters, from respawn time to minimap display.

What? Did you just call that controversial? A feature that has been around on PC games since forever, and that BF3 itself has had on PC since day 1?

How in the world is that controversial? Because it's new to consoles?

Should I ask more questions?

Anyway, as for the weapon unlocks: meh. I got the L96 sniper rifle with Back to Karkand and it's the 2nd best rifle available until the M98B which I just unlocked.

All in all I've got under 70 hrs played with all the Main Battle Tank unlocks, most of the Recon, a bunch of Engineer (1 past Javelin I think), and making headway on Support and other vehicles (just got the extinguisher in Attack Helicopters).

I think as far as class weapons go the only somewhat OP one to purchase is the Javelin as that is the ultimate anti-vehicle weapon (besides a tank). However, when it comes to vehicles, there are some pretty powerful upgrades. I drive around in a tank with reactive armor, infrared, and a side machine gun. I can basically mow down any number of infantry and usually take out enemy tanks as well with ease. Granted, a noob driver will probably die to my tactics, but it's still a powerful setup even for a beginner. So that's kind of unfair, I guess. I don't really mind though.

 

[Frost27]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Marshall Honorof]

...although perhaps the other most controversial feature will be the ability for players to rent their own servers. Instead of using the standard Battlefield 3 servers, players can now rent their own and customize all parameters, from respawn time to minimap display.

What? Did you just call that controversial? A feature that has been around on PC games since forever, and that BF3 itself has had on PC since day 1?

How in the world is that controversial? Because it's new to consoles?

"Controversial" only in that you're required to pay for them. I admit I'm not a huge competitive multiplayer guy, but is it common to pay for rental servers in other multiplayer shooters (save for other Battlefield games, anyway)?

 

[Weaver]

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.

Are we really getting new players? If I was going to buy a game for $60 and then then I also had to pay another $40 just to make the multiplayer fair I'd shit myself laughing at the audacity.

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.

 

[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.

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.

There is nothing to disagree or agree with. It's not your opinion, it's your ignorance. You have not played the game, ergo you are not qualified to decide the merits or potential game-breaking manner of any DLC/shortcuts that are offered for it.

Get over it. If you have played Bad Company 2 (which I doubt you have), you'd know they did this as well but it did nothing whatsoever to break the game. Why? Because the game is not affected by what gun you use or what attachment you use. If you don't understand how the game works, you're not going to win your games just because you have guns and attachments unlocked. It is not an RPG, it's a well-balanced FPS.

You can keep throwing me your walls of text, but all you keep saying is "Uh, no, I've read about it, I don't need to play it, and don't bother trying to argue with me, because I'm right and you're wrong and you don't get it, even if you've played this game and it's predecessor and know that it doesn't mean anything". You're hilarious. And sad

 

[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.

 

[Weaver]

...although perhaps the other most controversial feature will be the ability for players to rent their own servers. Instead of using the standard Battlefield 3 servers, players can now rent their own and customize all parameters, from respawn time to minimap display.

What? Did you just call that controversial? A feature that has been around on PC games since forever, and that BF3 itself has had on PC since day 1?

How in the world is that controversial? Because it's new to consoles?

"Controversial" only in that you're required to pay for them. I admit I'm not a huge competitive multiplayer guy, but is it common to pay for rental servers in other multiplayer shooters (save for other Battlefield games, anyway)?

Now-a-days it is, or if you wanted anything with a high capacity load. Back in the old days (and Crysis, god bless 'em) anyone could essentially run a server whenever they wanted. The games just came with the sever software and you would just turn it on and allow people to connect to you.

Now most games have official "sanctioned server providers" so to speak, so they can eliminate the servers that allow pirated copies of the game to connect to them. You have to pay money for these.

This isn't the best solution because now you can't run a game on a LAN. I remember last LAN party myself and friends had we all tried to play bad company 2. You ever tried to get 20 people online with a single home internet connection? We all had like a 900 ping.

 

[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.