EA Pulls A Fast One WIth Battlefield 3

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
This is how things work on PC. The standard game is imbalanced. Snipers should be banned and then have their internet connections removed and left in a darkened room for 12 hours a day.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
Just gonna leave this here.

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/05/11/ea-clarifies-disappearing-battlefield-3-servers.aspx

For the lazy:

"DICE is not shutting down servers. If DICE-managed servers appear unavailable, it is because they have been rented and customized by players. DICE will continue to add servers and will reserve a percentage of servers for players who prefer to connect through DICE-hosted servers."
 

Alexnader

$20 For Steve
May 18, 2009
526
0
0
Custom servers should in theory give players the ability to play how they want and for the large part they seem to do that in my experience on the PC. The time I spent on TF2 and BF3 was made much more enjoyable by the various tweaks the admins put in place on their servers.

Yet somehow as soon as this power is given to the unwashed console masses it all goes to hell. Now this either suggests that DICE hasn't done a good job implementing the server finding functionality or that there are intrinsic differences between console and PC gamers. I'm thinking it's a bit of both.

As such I don't think it's fair to label this as an inherently bad move by DICE, akin to online passes or DRM. Just that that the execution of it was poor. The only 'fast one' they're pulling is that they're still charging for online passes.

If they added better search functionality so that you could reliably find the official servers or servers running "vanilla" BF3 then I think that would solve nearly all of the complaining. Maybe the number of people playing custom servers would drop, then again maybe it wouldn't. Think about it, if the only servers you can find are custom servers then maybe it's because the majority of gamers want what those servers have to offer.
 

loc978

New member
Sep 18, 2010
4,900
0
0
...the only problem I see here is that they're renting official servers to players. Player-run servers can be a great thing, but not when they're limited in number by what the devs have set up.
Also,
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.
well there's yer problem!
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
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?
Console games aren't PC games. You've entirely missed the point. :)

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.
This.
 

MagmaMan

New member
Apr 2, 2012
91
0
0
If only more people were playing Bad Company 2, this shit they are pulling off with 3 made me sell it. Ah well, back to War for Cybertron, Fallout, and Mass Effect for me.
 

NLS

Norwegian Llama Stylist
Jan 7, 2010
1,594
0
0
Don't forget that EA also needs central servers to track your stats. The game-servers aren't the only ones that cost money.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
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.
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.
 

Runegrace

New member
May 18, 2009
7
0
0
I always thought that the LIVE Gold membership was supposed to pay for the whole "online" thing...

As far as finding vanilla servers...it's hell. Whenever I search there's an official server once every 5-10 pages or so, hidden between all the 500% ticket games handgun and knife only! Karhg Island 24/7! If you search for DICE you get a lot of people putting that in their title, some trying to perfectly imitate the appearance of a DICE server.

Let's ignore the insanity of someone wanting to pay for a server that's normally free, and move on to the real kicker: when you search for a term, the rest of your search parameters don't apply. Not only do you get every game type, but every region. When I first tried searching for DICE, I thought the newest patch caused the game to become laggy as hell. Turns out, playing on European servers makes the game really laggy. So even searching DICE, you still need to select the servers, one by one, to make sure you're not connecting to something halfway around the world...In addition to fanning through pages looking for the proper game type.

Yes, there are favorites. However, anytime I add a vanilla server to my list, whenever I look at my favorite list all the official servers are full, and I can only have 1 page of favorites. It's not that there are custom servers, it's that it seems EA purposely made it aggravating to get into a vanilla game so the people buying servers get their money worth. They've found a way to make money at the cost of other people's enjoyment of the game.

I don't care how things work on PC, because that's not the experience I want. Skyrim I got for PC, because the whole appeal of that game is modding everything. BF3 I got for console, because it's harder to cheat, I dislike the twitch gaming when you have pixel-perfect mouse aiming, and I absolutely refused to put Origin on my computer.

Here's the biggest issue for me: I used to have 6 people that would play BF3. They stopped. One of my friends said it's like a different game than the one he bought...he used to think that BF3 was the best shooter on the market, and now he's done with it. Telling him "this is how the PC does it" isn't going to make him suddenly decide that he must have been having fun the whole time. We got the game, on a certain platform, for a certain experience. That experience simply isn't as good as it used to be.
 

Technocrat

New member
Nov 19, 2008
325
0
0
As someone who regularly plays the Metro 5000 ticket conquest servers, I can so I really don't mind that much.

Sometimes I'm a little irked by servers that ban sniper rifles, I get around it with this kind of tactic. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AFPGc15bn8]

"Remember kids: recon is for pussies!"
 

Nuclear_Suspect

New member
Jun 1, 2010
153
0
0
They should do like Team Fortress 2, so when you use the quick connect feature you'll only join 'vanilla' servers.

If you want to join a custom server THEN you have to rummage through the server list to find what tickles your fancy.

Granted, I'm not a console player (Or even a BF3/CoD player) but user-run servers can often be a great thing, opening up a lot of new gamemodes and playstyles.
 

getoffmycloud

New member
Jun 13, 2011
440
0
0
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.
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.
 

NLS

Norwegian Llama Stylist
Jan 7, 2010
1,594
0
0
Dryk said:
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.
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 $10 for online.
The 10$ 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.
 

fwiffo

New member
Sep 12, 2011
113
0
0
NLS said:
Dryk said:
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.
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 $10 for online.
The 10$ 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.
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.
 

Dennis Scimeca

New member
Mar 29, 2010
217
0
0
fwiffo said:
NLS said:
Dryk said:
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.
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 $10 for online.
The 10$ 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.
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.
Mircotransactions. That's how.
 

w00tage

New member
Feb 8, 2010
556
0
0
RvLeshrac said:
As long as people continue to buy the games, why does EA care what you or anyone else thinks?
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".
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.
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.

There's a lawsuit in here, I bet.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
This is why you look for a server named "original" or something along the lines. Just look for the original rules and take that. Seriously, people ***** and moan about this game more than MW3.

I don't angry over battlefield being hated or complained about. It's little things that apparently are a big deal that make me angry.

Besides, some guns are overpowered or cheap, that is why they are banned in player owned servers.

Capcha: get over it