Yeah, reading what people who know what they're on about certainly makes it seem like an improvement on their absolutely abysmal server browser that BFBC2 launched with. That said, I am very leery of having such a blatant weakness in being able to run the software - DDOS attacks, server downtime etc etc - especially if it impinges on the ability to launch the single player game. I'm VERY fed up of single player games that require internet connections to play, and I really hope EA hasn't done this here as it could really sully what looks otherwise to be an absolutely fantastic game.
Hey did anyone else actually check how bfbc2 works for on-line. You can't browse for new servers while your inside a game. perhaps maybe if you have the magical shift tab of steam to browse ingame but straight bfbc2 didn't. Don't be pissed at this, be pissed that it won't be on steam. Pray that origin has similar features as steam. And allows you do have friends and search servers and join them depending on what games you have installed while ingame.
You are lucky this is all they are changing. They could just say "For purposes of streamlining and ease of access for new users online play now has an auto-target function that can't be turned off... SO THAT WE ARE ALL EQUAL BUT DIFFERENT AT THE SAME TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting... I want info from EA. How much money in ads do they get from BattleLog? Because in a given day if I switch servers 4 times, and I visit BattleLog 4 times, and EVERYONE that day visits BattleLog an average of 4 times, they could stand to make a killing on ads. That is my theory.
Am I the only one who thinks this could be a good thing?
Honestly now, in-game server browsers aren't often given enough attention. In fact they're quite often atrocious, resources being consumed elsewhere.
If the server browser is running in.. well.. a browser then the opportunities are unlimited. Perhaps BF is launched via a command line with args determining target server, in which case we (the players) can develop our own, superior server browser. Better than anything Dice could ever develop in their constraints.
Think clan-stylized browsers, extra features, launch profiles, stat tracking..
And if not there's always a greasemonkey script or twenty.
If i had not been in the alpha for it, i would think this would be a horrible idea, but the battlelog thing actualy worked fantastic. Sure I would like a normal one but if the new way works why not give it a shot
Honestly, what's the big deal? The browser app actually worked ok in the Alpha. Quake Live used a browser app for a server browser and that was fine. If it works with the same functionality I don't see what the problem is.
Can the people who know nothing about how it works on account of not being on the alpha just kindly shut the fuck up?
This is beyond ridiculous, EA makes a change that seems weird for PC users, a change that may I add was something that most of the people who are playing the alpha, ie: The people who know what the fuck they are talking about, have actually embraced, AND EVERYONE FLIPS THEIR SHIT ON EA, DESPITE REASSURANCES FROM THE PLAYERS, PEOPLE LIKE YOU, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE ALPHA THEMSELVES.
Jesus Christ, I get the EA hate, I get that they destroyed Bullfrog, Origin, Westwood, etc, I get that some people don't like the direction Bioware has taken in recent games, hell I might even get that some people hate BF3 being a Origin exclusive and not being on Steam despite the fact that Valve did this themselves with Half-Life 2, a Singleplayer title, back when Steam was in way worse shape than Origin is now.
But that does not justify the ignorance I'm seeing in this thread, the sensationalist news bullshit doesn't help either.
So much for the Escapist being the place for "smarter" discussions, huh.
You can now alt-tab to reach it.
Also: http://forums.electronicarts.co.uk/battlefield-3/poll-29774-what-your-opinion-using-battlelog-server-browser-bf3.html
Wait, so the PC version doesn't have it but the console version does? EA is really trying hard to make PC gamers buy Modern Warfare 3, and I for one think it's a kind gesture for them to sabotage their own game to build a friendship between companies of competing "barely-realistic modern day soldier" games.
I wanted to get it for the console anyway, but this is absolute insanity. I really want to defend the game, but this is simply undefendable. How can you expect your players to exit the game to be able to play a new one? This is ridiculous.
To be fair, I could be missing something about how this works, but it just sounds crazy.
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.
This doesn't really make me mad, and it probably won't affect me buying the game (although since I can't just wait until a steam sale to get it now, that may or may not happen), but my main question is why?
It's such a awkward way of doing matchmaking that I would expect from a low budget indie dev, not a giant AAA studio.
I would feel bad for pc gamers, but they do like to think they are the gaming master race... so suck it haha!
nah, but really what the hell were they thinking? Thats just gonna be a huge waste of time and really just lag everything if your computer is the apex of gaming electronics
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?
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.
