OK let me explain what in development circles a web page UI translates to "laziest bodge job known to man", only seen in the shittiest of indie games, a triple A title with that... there was none before this.
Alt-Tab is the direct opposite of efficient. Besides, it suffers EXACTLY the same issues as "Always-On DRM". You know, the most reviled thing that developers have done, ever.
You dont have to Alt-Tab out. You hit exit game and it takes you directly to your browser, which has the server browser on it. I'ts really quick, easy to use, and makes sense. ive used it, and it works a hell of a lot better than a lot of other browsers I have used.
Even then you most likely bought Battlefield for the multiplayer also, which means you have an internet connection that can handle 64 players on a server, which means you should have a good enough connection to get on the website at least once, which means that it shouldn't really be a problem most of the time.
Plus, no one has proof that the singleplayer will have to be accessed through Battlelog.
Hmm...
I was passively observing this topic (for most of the time), and I think it's time to write everything I've noticed down.
I've never played any Battlefield game. Most of the things I'll write about them was said by others in this toppic. I also assumed, that "no main menu" means, that you will have to launch the game from the website no matter if you're going to play singleplayer or multiplayer. Some of my arguments might become irrevelant if the game will use some sort of menu for singleplayer.
From what I've noticed, this might be either EA's attempt to get more money or a excentric improvement, with it's own flaws.
First of all, you're forced to instal Orgin (yes, I know it's kinda unrelated). I neither love nor hate Orgin (at least I'm trying to), but from what I've heard it's one of the cons. Orgin running in the background will eat your processor's cycles. I know, that it might be lightweight, but still- cycles are cycles. With multiple programs on (your browser, Orgin and the game itself, possibly Steam), it might take a big chunk of your PC's power away. Sure, you can close the browser and turn off Steam every time you start a game, but it's pretty inconvenient- turning the browser off will force you to reopen the website every time you want to change the server.
Secondly, the main menu is a website. Websites can be brought down pretty easily- get hacked, DDoSed, or simply clogged by the traffic. Also, it gives the game an equivalent of always-on DRM when it comes to singleplayer- if you can't access the website, you can't even play the campaign. It might, however, be faster- or so people say. The problem is, that the servers that ran just fine during the Alpha might not be as good after the release, when the trafic increases.
Thirdly, it might be just an attempt to cash in on the players- if people had to leave and enter that site every single time they wanted to change the server, placing one or two adds would give EA a considerable profit. It might not affect players directly, but people tend to dislike companies that give you arguably better solution just to get more money per purchase.
Fourthly, people are used to having a main menu in their games. The main menu contains such things like settings or graphics options- it allows you to change them without starting the actual game first, which has many benefits: for example, some settings might cause the game to become too unstable to join a game/play singleplayer without crashing immediatelly. Without a main menu, the only hope for fixing such issue is by editing config files.
Fifthly, I think it could have been implemented into the standard main menu. If chosing to play multiplayer caused the game to display a Steam-esque overlay or a pseudo-window with a webbrowser fixed on the server selection site, you would get both the benefits coming from launching multiplayer from a website AND the main menu.
Sixthly, lack of main menu forces you to close the game or Alt+Tab every time you want to change the server. Turning the game off is a rather slow solution- for obvious reasons. Alt+Tab on the other hand might cause errors and crashes- some computers and systems don't like when a fullscreen game gets out of focus.
Seventhly, launching the game through a website means no EXE file, thus inability to add the game to Steam. Some people want to have some of it's functionality in their non-Steam games- screenshot capture, for example. Others just want their profiles to display, that they're playing it. Neither of these can be achieved if teh entire game will be launched from a website.
To sum up: it's a controversial idea, that has both pros and cons. It is said to be faster than the built-in browser in the previous game, but in that case, a website-based server browser could have been implemented into the standard main menu. The website is obviously impossible to access while offlne, rendering you unable to play alone without an internet connection, thus the game effectively has always-on DRM. Since it will be the exact same website for every player, the servers hosting it might get clogged by the trafic, also one DDoS/hacker attack on the website would render every single player unable to play their game. Being forced to either Alt+Tab or close the game every time you want to switch servers gives you a choice- you can either start the game up ocer and over again or risk the game crashing or malfunctioning. The browser running in the background gives you another program eaing your PC's cycles- you can close the browser, but it will force you to wait for that page to load over and over again.
Well, assuming that you are correct about this. You probably need to copy and paste this into 30 different posts here becase in general, people don't actually read these posts, they just click on them to respond to the story in question( ergo: no one wants to engage in a coversation, yet everyone has an opinion they want to share).
That about sums it up. If Battlelog works as promised, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. I thought the Alt+Tab solution was pretty obvious. I mean, you'll only be using the overlay for it, but wasn't Origin made for Battlefield 3 anyways?
How about everyone here who hasn't used it wait for beta (not far off) and then try it before complaining. It's an open beta. You will get your chance to try it out for free.
OK let me explain what in development circles a web page UI translates to "laziest bodge job known to man", only seen in the shittiest of indie games, a triple A title with that... there was none before this.
I have low standards for having a different opinion. Wow.
But really, I can see this as an improvement. BF3's Battlelog (from what I've seen) is the website where your stats are recorded, where you can talk to your BF3 friends, and where you start the game. Doing this lets you be able to search for a game while doing other things. Hell, Team Fortress 2 uses an almost exact same thing.
And once more, consoles have to have a server browser because it's damn near impossible to effectively use a browser without an external mouse to use.
I'd like to say one more thing to a part of you reply:
Mr.K. said:
OK let me explain what in development circles a web page UI translates to "laziest bodge job known to man", only seen in the shittiest of indie games, a triple A title with that... there was none before this.
It's good when the "new thing" is good.
You wouldn't call a steak dinner good when they smear it with pigshit, even tho they tried something new.
If you want to like it I really can't convince you otherwise, but from an engineering standpoint this is the laziest UI production ever seen in triple A titles.
There's a fine line between good and bad and its clear EA are walking it.
Personally, I've played on TF2 and Counter Strike servers and they are all brilliant. The difference between Valve and EA is that Valve have already integrated personal server's into their lists of games 'in game' and they are also not afraid to give people rights well beyond the normal publisher.
Could this just be EAs way of allowing personal servers without having to integrate it into main game. If so then they are well behind Valve.
This sounds stupid, however a lot of the alpha testers actually didn't mind it. I think it's a little early to call boycott.
The dumbest thing here is that EA/DICE haven't explained this properly. They should release a video demonstrating the system in action rather than just leaving us with "no in game server browser".
I for one am buying this game regardless of this rather stupid development because DICE still retains some of my loyalty and the game looks godamn awesome. No IG server browser may be a barrier to the gameplay but so long as there are dedicated servers it won't actually EFFECT gameplay and that's the primary concern here.
Also to all those people who keep saying "Welp, that's it back to CoD" I'll remind you that there was an actual boycott of Modern Warfare 2 because it didn't have dedicated servers and that fell to pieces because those guys actually liked the game (for some reason). If something like this can really turn you off you probably weren't all that interested in the first place.
I saw that episode and I agree that boycotts are generally mishandled. However, I do think this is cause for a boycott. And it's not just the no ingame browser, it's all the other stuff as well. It's downloading Origin (whose EULA states that it has every right to scan your computer for pirated games and reporting back to EA), and no mod support. I love DICE and I think this game will be awesome, but because of all this I'll be boycotting the PC version and getting it on console.
In TF2 u have the ability of using Steam to search for server without even starting a game.
Once u are connected and have entered the server map, if u don't like the particular game, you can search for servers while being still connected to a server - with an INGAME server browser.
You can use predefined filters or custom string based.
Or you can just hit PLAY NOW, and be taken to a server chosen according to Source
matchmaking criteria.
You have LAN,favorites, history, list of blacklisted servers, you can connect directly to a particular IP.
When server is FULL, u can chose to be alerted when slot is available, or just join immediately etc etc,
so please don't compare TF2 server browser with... this.
This sounds stupid, however a lot of the alpha testers actually didn't mind it. I think it's a little early to call boycott.
The dumbest thing here is that EA/DICE haven't explained this properly. They should release a video demonstrating the system in action rather than just leaving us with "no in game server browser".
I for one am buying this game regardless of this rather stupid development because DICE still retains some of my loyalty and the game looks godamn awesome. No IG server browser may be a barrier to the gameplay but so long as there are dedicated servers it won't actually EFFECT gameplay and that's the primary concern here.
Also to all those people who keep saying "Welp, that's it back to CoD" I'll remind you that there was an actual boycott of Modern Warfare 2 because it didn't have dedicated servers and that fell to pieces because those guys actually liked the game (for some reason). If something like this can really turn you off you probably weren't all that interested in the first place.
I saw that episode and I agree that boycotts are generally mishandled. However, I do think this is cause for a boycott. And it's not just the no ingame browser, it's all the other stuff as well. It's downloading Origin (whose EULA states that it has every right to scan your computer for pirated games and reporting back to EA), and no mod support. I love DICE and I think this game will be awesome, but because of all this I'll be boycotting the PC version and getting it on console.
Sounds counter productive to buy the game on console to me. If everyone did that the numbers would be; console market is huge even though they're getting a gimped product while the PC market is small even though they have the "best" version of the game.
By "gimped" I don't mean you're playing on a console without a mouse so it sucks (even though I think a mouse is more fun for FPSes), I mean you don't get 64p maps which are a hall mark of Battlefield in my mind.
As for mods I'm pretty sure most of the recent Battlefield games had no mod support. This doesn't mean mods won't exist, just that the devs aren't going out of their way to make it easy for people.
The Origin scanning thing if that's true is ridiculous and deserves a boycott all on its own. I won't be boycotting though because I'm weak and need my airplane shooting action stuff. Also all my friends are getting it.
the game could load instantly, and the browser based server system could be God's gift to man. BUT YOU WERE STILL INEVITABLY GOING TO HAVE THIS NEGATIVE PUBLICITY!!!!
they even MOCKED COD over their beating for similar issues! how the F*** could they be so stupid.
just put it in there. just do it. ffs. why create the headache for yourselves?
I would like to clarify that I'm not saying their idea is bad, it may indeed prove to be the better way of doing it for some reason - why bother implementing a gimped in game browser when people already have a full featured browser? - but, it was just not worth the PR headache...
honestly, It sounds a bit dubious anyway... some way for EA to dig more claws into you. it is one of the most iconic MULTIPLAYER FPSs in the world. just give it the features people expect..
ffs...
just do it...
what the hell is wrong with developers...
I remember back in the day when developers would make games with 'customer satisfaction' first, and money making a distant second... (actually, fun and challenging work environment probably came first)
and you know what? I don't remember too many devs going broke... they were always well paid, and the only thing that would send a big name broke was shit games... as it should...
ironically, most of the big devs that are now screwing us apparently in such a desperate grab for money, were born and grew in this golden age environment of FUN!
financials and investors have been nothing but a liability to games...
I've googled for actual experience of this battlelog feature, and it actually looks pretty good. You don't need to close the game, just alt-tab, and you get lots of other features too.
Plus you can use the origin in-game browser to open that shit up in game anyway. Origin [http://nogamenotalk.com/2011/08/15/everything-you-need-to-know-before-buying-your-next-game-from-ea-origin/] is actually pretty good, both in my experience and that of others.
All this vitriol is totally baseless and stupid, as are those who choose to miss out on one of the biggest games in years, with so much entertainment potential, because its developer is daring to challenge the almighty monopoly that is steam. That is not, of course, saying that I don't like steam (it's awesome for me), I'm just not a throw-shit-at-the-walls unthinking fanboy.
Hell, I say MORE POWER to EA for taking that behemoth on.
All this vitriol is totally baseless and stupid, as are those who choose to miss out on one of the biggest games in years, with so much entertainment potential, because its developer is daring to challenge the almighty monopoly that is steam. That is not, of course, saying that I don't like steam (it's awesome for me), I'm just not a throw-shit-at-the-walls unthinking fanboy.
Hell, I say MORE POWER to EA for taking that behemoth on.
This sounds stupid, however a lot of the alpha testers actually didn't mind it. I think it's a little early to call boycott.
The dumbest thing here is that EA/DICE haven't explained this properly. They should release a video demonstrating the system in action rather than just leaving us with "no in game server browser".
I for one am buying this game regardless of this rather stupid development because DICE still retains some of my loyalty and the game looks godamn awesome. No IG server browser may be a barrier to the gameplay but so long as there are dedicated servers it won't actually EFFECT gameplay and that's the primary concern here.
Also to all those people who keep saying "Welp, that's it back to CoD" I'll remind you that there was an actual boycott of Modern Warfare 2 because it didn't have dedicated servers and that fell to pieces because those guys actually liked the game (for some reason). If something like this can really turn you off you probably weren't all that interested in the first place.
I saw that episode and I agree that boycotts are generally mishandled. However, I do think this is cause for a boycott. And it's not just the no ingame browser, it's all the other stuff as well. It's downloading Origin (whose EULA states that it has every right to scan your computer for pirated games and reporting back to EA), and no mod support. I love DICE and I think this game will be awesome, but because of all this I'll be boycotting the PC version and getting it on console.
Sounds counter productive to buy the game on console to me. If everyone did that the numbers would be; console market is huge even though they're getting a gimped product while the PC market is small even though they have the "best" version of the game.
By "gimped" I don't mean you're playing on a console without a mouse so it sucks (even though I think a mouse is more fun for FPSes), I mean you don't get 64p maps which are a hall mark of Battlefield in my mind.
As for mods I'm pretty sure most of the recent Battlefield games had no mod support. This doesn't mean mods won't exist, just that the devs aren't going out of their way to make it easy for people.
The Origin scanning thing if that's true is ridiculous and deserves a boycott all on its own. I won't be boycotting though because I'm weak and need my airplane shooting action stuff. Also all my friends are getting it.
Read the Origin EULA, it's scary. That's the big reason not to get it on PC, and even though I know it's gonna be better on PC, I just feel like I have to hold to my principles and get it on console.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
