EA sabotaging BF3?

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm honestly thinking that EA is trying to purposefully sabotage Battlefield 3. To what end? I don't know.

First they take BF3 off of steam. Not that big a deal, but definitely not the best business practice.

Next they force you to use Origin, and to constantly have it running when you're playing Battlefield 3. Again, not that big a deal, it's the same thing that steam does, but it's another inconvenience to the consumer, especially if they ALREADY HAVE STEAM.

Next they make it so that you can only launch the game through a web browser. They try to mask it as if it's better than having an in-game server browser, but truthfully, all it shows is that EA and Dice are too lazy to code a proper server browser, or to fix the one from BFBC2, and that they feel like they need an extra layer of intrusive DRM in the game, since you can't play the single player without using their web browser. Again, another inconvenience to the user.

Then, finally they manage to completely screw up the Battlefield 3 beta. "How?" you might ask? Simple, by only giving us one map, which has absolutely no vehicles in it, and barely anything destructible in the environment. All the fun of battlefield is the huge open maps, with tanks and helicopters, where you can blow the shit out of a building full of campers with your tank. That's what distinguishes the Battlefield franchise from Call of Duty, but instead the beta just ends up looking like call of duty but with beta graphics and animations.

Seriously, EA has shot itself in the foot SOO many times with this game that their foot must look like Swiss cheese. Does the game still look fantastic? Yes, it does, but how many more hoops do we need to jump through before EA is satisfied?!

 

[Zyst]

Yeah... I'm really underwhelmed, in the process of canceling my pre-order as I write this. Maybe it's dumb, but who knows. By the only experience I have been getting so far (Metro Rush) This feels like Battlefield is trying to be call of duty, but then Call of Duty is better at being call of duty.

And I'm fucking sick of getting sniped by every god damn weapon, this game is so campy..

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Yes, the beta sucks. But the full game will be much better.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

Not including the EULA crap where they tried to steal their users information, or the fact that the server browser has NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO EXIST. Since they use a standard one on the consoles.

Oh and the bst bit? Forcing us to use Origin? Ya I don't mind that, as you say its just like Steam. Whats different though? STEAM HAS BEEN OUT FOR YEARS. Origin..has not, they wont of bug tested it or been able to run it through massive amount of checking and what? They release a huge AAA game on it, this untested service that could literally crash at any moment or have compatibility issues up the ass? No thanks.

And this..is why I am boycotting this game. EA..no..no you may not have my money. The game may be great but I don't give a damn. If you treat your customers this badly then you don't deserve a thing.


/rant

 

[Gennadios]

Take BF3 off the pedestal, mate.

BF3, while nowhere near the level of MW, is still a massive game for EA. Any chance the invasive POS that is Origin has to be accepted rests on forcing as many players as possible to use it. That means making a few games exclusives, at least temporarily, until Origin fails.

EA has money, they don't give a damn about BF3 one way or the other and can afford to have it fail. It's just a bargaining chip.

If that bothers anyone, I think MW3 is due to be out only a few weeks later...

 

[Valiance]

I'm honestly thinking that Valve is trying to purposefully sabotage Half-Life 2. To what end? I don't know.

First they make it require online activation. Not that big a deal, but definitely not the best business practice.

Next, they force you to use Steam, and to constantly have it running when you're playing Half-Life 2. Quite the inconvenience to the consumer, especially if they're already connected to the Internet for single player.

Next, they make it so you can only launch the game through Steam! Then they try to mask it as if it's better having Steam handle all your game-launching. Truthfully, all it shows is that Valve is too lazy to code a proper .exe, or to re-use the fine one from Half-Life, and that they need an extra layer of intrusive DRM in the game, since you can't play the single player without using Steam. Again, another inconvenience to the user.

Then, they finally manage to completely screw up the launch. "How?" you might ask? Simple, by only allowing activation online! There are no alternate methods of activation such as via telephone or fax, which causes the system to deny access to those without Internet connections. The first temporary system failure affected Europe on November 2004 just after Half-Life 2 was released, and dozens of thousands of players were unable to authenticate their copy, and thus left unable to play.

Seriously, Valve has shot itself in the foot SOO many times with this game that their foot must look like Swiss cheese. Does the game still look fantastic? Yes, it does, but how many more hoops do we need to jump through before Valve is satisfied?

 

[Smooth Operator]

They are actually trying to outsell CoD, they also want to force feed you Origin, so why are they doing what they are doing:
- pull EA games off Steam, enforce Origin... best way to establish your own market (and origin will make them more money while giving them the power to control all sales/servers)
- web page interface, so they can split off the work and get it done on the cheap from a random web developer
- people already threatened with account ban for modding the beta (yes this would loose you all Origin based games)

Just remember that EA doesn't give a shit about good will or their developers, they will simply take the path of most cash, if they haveto ass fuck BF3 to spread Origin then so be it.

 

[Nouw]

They're trying to attract Call of Duty fans. My mate thinks that it's far better so it's worked for some of the sheep.

Snip

An excellent comparison between EA's Origin and Valve's Steam.

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

EA does seem to be seriously mishandling BF3...it's still high on list of multiplayer shooters to get, but it's dropped from a 'must buy' to 'I'll wait until it's in a discount pack'.
Origin is a massive pain, and it looks like I can't even get it running without jumping through hoops. Say what you will about Steam, but at least it works. And I'm not so sure EA is going to be offering prices anywhere near what Steam would, given their history.

I tried the beta on PS3 as a workaround (really not liking the way it handles on consoles), and it just seems...underwhelming. I can see the potential, but the choice of map is...confusing. It just seems so FPS-typical without offering the Battlefield edge. Don't get me wrong, it'd make for a decent map when alongside others, but as a stand-alone it just seems like they're showing off the map that's notable for being a change of pace for them without giving the ones it's a change of pace from.

I won't be getting it on console anyway, but it seems to waste a lot of processing on the textures. By which I mean the highest quality textures are slow to load from their lower LODs and need to be viewed so closely that it seems like a waste to include them at all. A minor complaint, I'll admit, but something I noticed. Debilitating bug-iness was annoying too, but hey, it's beta.

Combined with the concerning TOS, this just seems like they're doing everything they can to convince me that it's not worth buying. The game itself might be spectacular, but EA has done a damn good job of convincing me that it's not going to be worth the hassle. If nothing else, EA has shown that they shouldn't be supported, which is exactly what paying for the game anyway will be doing. Maybe if Origin is worked out, it goes on special, and it gets good reviews I'll get it, but not before.

...does that technically mean I'm boycotting it? Eh, whatever.

 

[42]

I'm honestly thinking that Valve is trying to purposefully sabotage Half-Life 2. To what end? I don't know.

First they make it require online activation. Not that big a deal, but definitely not the best business practice.

Next, they force you to use Steam, and to constantly have it running when you're playing Half-Life 2. Quite the inconvenience to the consumer, especially if they're already connected to the Internet for single player.

Next, they make it so you can only launch the game through Steam! Then they try to mask it as if it's better having Steam handle all your game-launching. Truthfully, all it shows is that Valve is too lazy to code a proper .exe, or to re-use the fine one from Half-Life, and that they need an extra layer of intrusive DRM in the game, since you can't play the single player without using Steam. Again, another inconvenience to the user.

Then, they finally manage to completely screw up the launch. "How?" you might ask? Simple, by only allowing activation online! There are no alternate methods of activation such as via telephone or fax, which causes the system to deny access to those without Internet connections. The first temporary system failure affected Europe on November 2004 just after Half-Life 2 was released, and dozens of thousands of players were unable to authenticate their copy, and thus left unable to play.

Seriously, Valve has shot itself in the foot SOO many times with this game that their foot must look like Swiss cheese. Does the game still look fantastic? Yes, it does, but how many more hoops do we need to jump through before Valve is satisfied?

To take a quote from Guy Ritchie's insanely good follow-up to Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch from the character Bricktop: Are you taking the piss?

in all seriousness i find your argument a bit silly as it really doesn't have an extra layer of DRM. but then again this is purely based on my experience with Steam.

OT: Pfft EA isn't also sabotaging it but raping the fresh corpse of it already with these stupid Day 1 DLC, Online Multiplayer activation codes, and the release of unlock weapon codes. and you know what let EA carry on, but up to the point soon enough, Consumers and gamers alike will turn their back on EA, not through boycott on any immediate future game, because knowing gamers they'll buy it anyway if previous boycotts are anything to go by. but if EA tried this shit again then i would call for a boycott on EA entirely. i would even bring the developers in on this boycott. but for it to have any actual effect, people need to KEEP to this actual fucking boycott. Jim Sterling has covered this issue quite well in Jimquisition.

 

[Doclector]

Yeah... I'm really underwhelmed, in the process of canceling my pre-order as I write this. Maybe it's dumb, but who knows. By the only experience I have been getting so far (Metro Rush) This feels like Battlefield is trying to be call of duty, but then Call of Duty is better at being call of duty.

And I'm fucking sick of getting sniped by every god damn weapon, this game is so campy..

Yeah, I'm thinking of getting it a bit after launch. The beta seems good sometimes, even refreshing with it's comparitive realism when compared to BC2 and the call of duty franchise, and of course, the graphics are gorgeous, not that it's the be all and end all, but it has to be said, but then there's times when I absolutely despise it. Times when I'm shot over and over again by enemies I never get a chance to see, times when I get disapointed that frostbite 3.0 just ain't as destructible as it should be, and times when I can't help but wonder why EA gave us a map with virtually no vehicles. Hiding something?

Honestly, I kinda wonder whether this is a game made for people like me, who didn't get a chance to play BF2 online and played BC2 to death? It seems the more realistic feel is catered towards old BF fans. In any case, I'm finding a launch purchase for BF3 too risky at the moment.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I'm honestly thinking that Valve is trying to purposefully sabotage Half-Life 2. To what end? I don't know.

First they make it require online activation. Not that big a deal, but definitely not the best business practice.

Next, they force you to use Steam, and to constantly have it running when you're playing Half-Life 2. Quite the inconvenience to the consumer, especially if they're already connected to the Internet for single player.

Next, they make it so you can only launch the game through Steam! Then they try to mask it as if it's better having Steam handle all your game-launching. Truthfully, all it shows is that Valve is too lazy to code a proper .exe, or to re-use the fine one from Half-Life, and that they need an extra layer of intrusive DRM in the game, since you can't play the single player without using Steam. Again, another inconvenience to the user.

Then, they finally manage to completely screw up the launch. "How?" you might ask? Simple, by only allowing activation online! There are no alternate methods of activation such as via telephone or fax, which causes the system to deny access to those without Internet connections. The first temporary system failure affected Europe on November 2004 just after Half-Life 2 was released, and dozens of thousands of players were unable to authenticate their copy, and thus left unable to play.

Seriously, Valve has shot itself in the foot SOO many times with this game that their foot must look like Swiss cheese. Does the game still look fantastic? Yes, it does, but how many more hoops do we need to jump through before Valve is satisfied?

I know this is satirical but come on the Server browser thing that are doing for BF 3 is ridiculously obtuse and unneeded. Personally, I might give Origin a go as long as it does have some sort of offline mode which is something I need to look into. If the server browser acts how they said it does(ie minimise game) it is quite a big inconvenience.