PC Battlefield 3 Lacks Key FPS Feature
- Thread starter Marshall Honorof
- Start date
Yep, the only way I can see this redeemin itself is in the beta, and they add the com rose 6 man sqaud, etc. but I highly doubt that will happen. This BF fanboy will remain determine one last time. If it ends up not changing....at all, then Ill be switchin my pre-order to Skyrim.TheAmokz said:
"EA you've done it again!" and by done it, I mean, cocked it up. What the hell is wrong with you EA? My god man, just delay the release and develop the damned code already, no one (important), are going to 'instead' buy MW3, most of them (99.9%0 are just going to wait till you've done it properly. Or better yet, do the best of both, release the console versions, then, release the PC one a week or two later, no big deal, but this? This is just so pathetic; this is meant to be one of the showcase games, and what happens? You need to exit the game, just to find a server? I could find servers in game for the last 10+ years, ever since my first online experience, which was Diablo II (pre-expansion even).Marshall Honorof said:PC Battlefield 3 Lacks Key FPS Feature
EA thumbs its nose at the PC by restricting in-game server browsing to consoles in its upcoming shooter.
In-game server browsers have been a mainstay of PC first-person shooter games for many years, so it was only logical to expect the upcoming Battlefield 3 to use them as well. That expectation turned out to be incorrect. While the next installment in the hit Battlefield series will allow console players to seek out new games from within the game itself, PC users will be required to exit the game, find a new server with an Internet browser, and then restart it.
Alan Kertz, a game designer with Battlefield 3 developer DICE, confirmed the news earlier today via Twitter. DICE announced only yesterday that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of the game would get an in-game browser for multiplayer servers. According to Kertz, PC gamers will have to use the browser-based Battlelog service instead.
While Kertz stated that the game "starts up REAL fast," fan blog Battlefield3Blog points out that Battlefield 3 will be the only PC shooter in recent memory to eschew the use of an in-game browser.
When developing the same game for different consoles, it's reasonable to expect a few minor differences between versions. However, EA is risking PC gamers' ire by removing one of the features they've come to expect from almost every other FPS on the market. Both console and PC gamers can see how the in-game server vs. Battlelog debate plays out firsthand when the game arrives on October 25, 2011.
Source: Battlefield3Blog [http://bf3blog.com/2011/08/battlefield-3-pc-version-wont-have-in-game-server-browser/]
Permalink
Very very poor form EA, extremely disappointing, and moreover, just pure laziness on your part, perseverance would've been so much more appropriate, there's no excuse for this farce of a display you've done here, with regards to this feature. Shame, be on, you.
I'm not getting this on consoles due to the terrible controls usually associated with console FPSs.
The lack of mod support really kills the longevity of the game and basically forces the only 'mods' to be the DLC mappacks that will eventually be churned out for money.
Forcing the game on Origin and this... awkward... decision for selecting servers is just bad business. I refuse to preorder this game. Release a demo and maybe I'll consider buying it when it goes down in price.
EA made a nice move by featuring Battlefield 3 on PC. Many people forgave EA for its past greed and sins because it was finally set to take down Activision. With EA's recent mudslinging and just terrible treatment of its franchises and fans, it reminds the world that EA is just as scummy as Activision.
The goal of resurrecting a franchise is to make people like it. If you're trying to take down CoD, you're going to need people on your side.
The lack of mod support really kills the longevity of the game and basically forces the only 'mods' to be the DLC mappacks that will eventually be churned out for money.
Forcing the game on Origin and this... awkward... decision for selecting servers is just bad business. I refuse to preorder this game. Release a demo and maybe I'll consider buying it when it goes down in price.
EA made a nice move by featuring Battlefield 3 on PC. Many people forgave EA for its past greed and sins because it was finally set to take down Activision. With EA's recent mudslinging and just terrible treatment of its franchises and fans, it reminds the world that EA is just as scummy as Activision.
The goal of resurrecting a franchise is to make people like it. If you're trying to take down CoD, you're going to need people on your side.
I had no interest in buying this game, but if I did that would probably make me thing twice about it. Why do the developers constantly shit on the PC market like this. Sometimes I think they real rage between platforms is caused by the developers itself.
So it seems that the key feature of a FPS would be players right OP?
So it seems that the key feature of a FPS would be players right OP?
Has anyone who is upset about this actually experienced it?
There is no difference in time from an in game server browser that I could tell. If the time is the same, why do you care if you leave a game to the in game server browser or to a webpage? If anything it seemed more efficient, and certainly more organized (probably do the fact they don't have to create a browser from scratch in game, which often sucks). Consoles get it because they don't have a web browser with an intuitive interface for this type of thing.
Honestly, someone please answer this. Why is quitting from a game to a an in game server browser better than one that take you to a webpage you already have up? Heck, with the browser you don't need to go through all the launch crap when you start a game. Open browser, go to bookmark, click on map and it gets you going right into a multiplayer map. Why is this worse?
There is no difference in time from an in game server browser that I could tell. If the time is the same, why do you care if you leave a game to the in game server browser or to a webpage? If anything it seemed more efficient, and certainly more organized (probably do the fact they don't have to create a browser from scratch in game, which often sucks). Consoles get it because they don't have a web browser with an intuitive interface for this type of thing.
Honestly, someone please answer this. Why is quitting from a game to a an in game server browser better than one that take you to a webpage you already have up? Heck, with the browser you don't need to go through all the launch crap when you start a game. Open browser, go to bookmark, click on map and it gets you going right into a multiplayer map. Why is this worse?
"Hey guys, you want to eat more donuts and give those boys in website design more work, right?" "Hell yeah!" "Let's skip putting a server-browser in the game, I'm sure no one will complain."
And give up 64 player battles and 1080p at decent FPS? Fuck no.Jonci said:
OT: I didn't found it a grievance and it really booted up fast when I tried the alpha but I only saw it as a good compliment to the supposed in-game menu. Making an internet browser the main menu is so retarded that I simply have no words for it. Plus the fact that you first have to log in to Origin and then seconds after log-in to an internet browser just play the fucking game. And a shout-out to Ea: You know why Call of Duty, Farmwille and its ilk are popular? Because it's accessible and that seems to be your glorious plan for Battlefield 3 as well. However, taking away complexity in-game and adding frustration to the work leading up to just booting your damn game isn't a smart strategy but I'll guess EA feels we can take all this crap for having the better version of BF3 gamewise while paying less money for it.
Also, I can't really drop the fact that they're announcing this news and thinking that something good will come out of it. In the mean time Activision is just around the corner announcing Dedicated servers for MW3 that can be player-run like CoD 4, see that awarded them a but from me. It's a strange world when Battlefield is removing basic PC features while Call of Duty is adding them.
One step forward and two steps back!
I can only see E.A. doing this to purposely create an excuse to not develop for the pc due to low sales.
How is convoluting and decentralizing something that has work fine for the past fifteen years a step forward? Was it really so hard to actually make a main menu?
P.S. What is this I hear about BF2 and BFBC2 having slow server menus? Bullshit. Buggy and feature lacking but not slow. Does having to launch through a website completely eliminate offline play, this is a serious question as I do not know?
I can only see E.A. doing this to purposely create an excuse to not develop for the pc due to low sales.
How is convoluting and decentralizing something that has work fine for the past fifteen years a step forward? Was it really so hard to actually make a main menu?
P.S. What is this I hear about BF2 and BFBC2 having slow server menus? Bullshit. Buggy and feature lacking but not slow. Does having to launch through a website completely eliminate offline play, this is a serious question as I do not know?
I initially wanted Battlefield 3. Even with all the publicity going on, I wanted both games, but I was willing to buy Battlefield 3 even if EA were sort of being the bad guys.
Then EA said that on PC you get to have, what is it, 64 players? While consoles get 24? That's fair, sure, I'll get it on Steam then. But oh noes! EA said that that wasn't going to happen because Steam made it impossible. Fortunately enough, EA's brand new digital distribution service that needs some momentum would turn out to be the perfect candidate to host the game on, what are the chances!? So after debating for a bit, I said, fine, for mods, for more players, for whatever other reason my mind made, I decided I would get it on Origin anyways, use their stupid service to play it.
But now this...Really? WHY?! Why are you going to make it more inconvenient for me? So now I've decided to opt against buying it on PC, and possibly even on console. I don't want to have to deal with all these small little problems that are popping up last minute. EA usually has their own EA games log in BS that happens on consoles and handhelds. When booting up a new EA game, you have to remember whatever email you used with it and password and...jeez, like, even describing it, I feel like a dumbass because it doesn't even make sense, but I swear it's true. I don't remember all the details because I pretty much refuse to play any EA games online (something about buying Madden and NHL each year doesn't really appeal to me...), but I was going to jump back to them for this one.
I think DICE are very talented developers, but I'm gonna pass on Battlefield 3, before another announcement is made.
Then EA said that on PC you get to have, what is it, 64 players? While consoles get 24? That's fair, sure, I'll get it on Steam then. But oh noes! EA said that that wasn't going to happen because Steam made it impossible. Fortunately enough, EA's brand new digital distribution service that needs some momentum would turn out to be the perfect candidate to host the game on, what are the chances!? So after debating for a bit, I said, fine, for mods, for more players, for whatever other reason my mind made, I decided I would get it on Origin anyways, use their stupid service to play it.
But now this...Really? WHY?! Why are you going to make it more inconvenient for me? So now I've decided to opt against buying it on PC, and possibly even on console. I don't want to have to deal with all these small little problems that are popping up last minute. EA usually has their own EA games log in BS that happens on consoles and handhelds. When booting up a new EA game, you have to remember whatever email you used with it and password and...jeez, like, even describing it, I feel like a dumbass because it doesn't even make sense, but I swear it's true. I don't remember all the details because I pretty much refuse to play any EA games online (something about buying Madden and NHL each year doesn't really appeal to me...), but I was going to jump back to them for this one.
I think DICE are very talented developers, but I'm gonna pass on Battlefield 3, before another announcement is made.
Uh... You do realise that its still a server browser, right? Just a non-ingame server browser... wow people get worked up over nothing. I mean, why aren't we all complaining about the lack of mod tools? I'm a Battfield fanboy and even I can admit some things I dislike, but I think the escapist is sensationalising to be honest.
It's worse for several reasons.scott91575 said:
First, alt-tabbing in and out of full-screen apps can be a tricky business with some OS's and some systems in general. (hardware) Even if you don't have to close down BF3 to change servers, having to constantly alt-tab can lead to instabilities and crashes. Not to mention just the unnecessary inconvenience of the act.
Second, it appears that one has to launch the game from this site. They apparently aren't even putting a main menu in. You have to launch the game from the website, even for solo campaigning. This, as obviously stupid as it is, lends itself to...
...Reason number 3. What happens if you lose access to the site? I guess the idea of playing BF3 AT ALL goes out the window. Let alone giving the players the capability to LAN or even direct-connect using a known servers IP. Let's not even start on the nightmare potential mod teams will have.
I, for the life of me, can't see how people are defending this. I really can't. Explain that to me? Every week EA comes forth to dump yet another pile of bullshit on the prospective BF3 PC players, and large swaths of them are just taking it in with open arms. It's like watching Tarantino fans defending all the garbage he's made after his early work.
It's just unbelievably lazy to not only fail to integrate a server browser in to the game (one that could STILL use the Battlelog site, but just displays everything in game), but to not even have a main menu. Seriously DICE. What the hell happened to you?
[edit] I would just like to add that I sincerely hope I end up being wrong about the menu thing. Here's hoping DICE changes it's mind on that, in the very least.