well there's yer problem!Dennis Scimeca said:ormally, when Battlefield 3 players wanted to get into a game they would select the game mode they wanted and connect to a server automatically.
Console games aren't PC games. You've entirely missed the point.mindlesspuppet said:Welcome to how nearly every FPS ever made for PC works.
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?
This.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.
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.
They ran the central servers and their official servers, charged people $10 for online. Now they run the central servers and rent their official servers out for many times the price a PC server host rents servers... and they're still charging $10 for online.NLS said:Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
I think the main issue is the asshats that run the servers booting people. I play on PC and have no issue with the servers having different rules but from the sounds of it there are people just being booted for being good which ruins the fun and it isn't something that I have encountered on PC.SecondPrize said:I'm kind of mystified by the complaints, but I really don't know how the filter/favorites/history works on the consoles. What should happen is you do a little work up front, and then whenever you want a quick game you check your list to see what's handy.
If the interface for finding a match is so damn clunky you have to start from scratch every time, then ok, I can see that getting old fast, if there's even history though...
For those console gamers who might not recognize it, this newfound thing that's confusing you is called choice in who you play with and how you play. You shouldn't be afraid of it, it's actually your friend. In fact, it's one of the the big reasons us elitist PC gaming jerkasses use to convince ourselves we're superior to you.
The 10$ is a one time fee, and not even existent if you bought the game new. Server maintenance costs are recurring costs to EA. Yes, they might be trying to cash in on hungry console-gamers, but in the long run, those 10$ won't be enough to cover all costs.Dryk said:They ran the central servers and their official servers, charged people $10 for online. Now they run the central servers and rent their official servers out for many times the price a PC server host rents servers... and they're still charging $10 for online.NLS said:Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
Isn't it amazing that companies like ArenaNet will gives us Guild Wars 2 without any subscriptions, or other server fees? I wonder how they can afford it.NLS said:The 10$ is a one time fee, and not even existent if you bought the game new. Server maintenance costs are recurring costs to EA. Yes, they might be trying to cash in on hungry console-gamers, but in the long run, those 10$ won't be enough to cover all costs.Dryk said:They ran the central servers and their official servers, charged people $10 for online. Now they run the central servers and rent their official servers out for many times the price a PC server host rents servers... and they're still charging $10 for online.NLS said:Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
Sadly, that's exactly the case. Instead of "provide the best gaming experience so we can keep our customers" it's now "chute 'em and shear 'em".RvLeshrac said:As long as people continue to buy the games, why does EA care what you or anyone else thinks?
The answer to that is simple - don't sell the same server TWICE. That's what they're doing with both online passes and renting out 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.