Trade In Battlefield 3 And Get Modern Warfare 3 For 99p

[Legit101]

................

 

[JdaS]

There are people who are going to play BF3 on a console?

Hah!

Look at it this way: Console gamers don't have to go to a fucking website or download Origin to play. And they get a server list inside the game.

Discussion. Over.

OT: Going with Battlefield 3 regardless, and even then it's only so I have something to play with my non-fighting game enjoying friends.

 

[EvilPicnic]

I think this is less about BF3 vs. MW3, and more about GameStop being a completely unknown quantity in the UK, with no physical shops under that brand name, launching an online store and trying to attract some media attention with a pricing-stunt.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

As intrigued as i may be i really won't be buying into this. I'm not a big FPS fan so i'm not really planning on getting either one, but if the trade had worked both ways i might've gotten CoD and then BF3 'cause that seems quite a bit better.

Also, i play on the PS3 so no Origin for me even if i did get BF3. Oh, and there's that personal policy i have never to actually own a CoD game >_>

 

[Bvenged]

Here's a thought. Buy Battlefield 3, return it, get MW3, you now have all your money back. Then, go buy Battlefield 3 again. So, you got MW3 for 99p, and you already bought Battlefield.

Your trollscience fails. If you give them your BF3, they will give you MW3 for just 99p on top of your trade-in. Therefore, BF3 + 99p = MW3. If you now buy BF3 again, you have just paid for MW3, 99p & BF3; making you 99p worst off than just buying both.

now that's not taking into account the value of money changing between Oct. 28th & Nov. 7th, assuming those are the dates you purchase the games. Nor does it take into account the exact prices of each game, where you buy BF3 from both times, re-purchase BF3 used or whether you use vouchers or not.

DO DO DO DOOOOooooooOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOO...

 

[Jegsimmons]

See what they are trying to do is ruin Battlefield 3 by injecting a horde of deathmatch addicted CoD players who only care about K/D ratios and don't play the objective.

well i find it a blessing, they will experienced us BF players are, and we'll run their asses over to where they wont even have enough kills to register a k/d ratio while everyone else gets a boost.

then soon after they will all rage quit and go to COD while a signification amount will stay with BF because they realize how much better it is. Either way Activision loses money and Dice gets some.

and it will be extremely funny in the gameing history books as the failed COD invasion of BF3. Like invading russia in the winter while your french.

 

[Flames66]

I don't know the difference between them and I have no intention of finding out.

 

[Jegsimmons]

I'd laugh my ass off if bf3 changes their releases just because of this XD

i kind of wan them to do that so i have time to get an updated PC.

best trolling ever.

 

[searanox]

You mean there is a difference between the two games? I figured they were the same old generic army game that's been regurgitated out by lazy developers for the past half decade in shiny new packages. I suppose your average shooter fan these days isn't bright enough to notice though. Then again your average shooter fan these days probably isn't capable of reading the advert . . .

All that being said, it sure would be swell if developers would stop tripping over themselves to be the first in line to blow the knuckle dragging unwashed masses and actually produce games of substance again. That'd just be fucking awesome.

I love you. Take me now.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Google is failing me and saying 99p is roughly 156 USD, which is absurdly expensive for any game.

Please clarify.

I think the internet means $1.56, not $156

There are people who are going to play BF3 on a console?

Hah!

Look at it this way: Console gamers don't have to go to a fucking website or download Origin to play. And they get a server list inside the game.

But... but... the game starts up real fast. And not a problem for some people. So therefore you are wrong and should stop complaining about having to install Origin, use it to launch your browser, and use that browser to play single or multi-player. What's the problem? You installed Steam for games, so therefore that mean's you're willing to install any other service to play any other game.

Fuckin' gamer logic man.

Lovely sarcasm my good man. I applaud you.
In all honesty, I'm not planning on buying either BF3 or MW3. I'm stuck in University with a 2009 laptop and no running money. I just hate being jerked around like EA is so prone to.

 

[Frostbite3789]

You mean there is a difference between the two games? I figured they were the same old generic army game that's been regurgitated out by lazy developers for the past half decade in shiny new packages. I suppose your average shooter fan these days isn't bright enough to notice though. Then again your average shooter fan these days probably isn't capable of reading the advert . . .

All that being said, it sure would be swell if developers would stop tripping over themselves to be the first in line to blow the knuckle dragging unwashed masses and actually produce games of substance again. That'd just be fucking awesome.

One can obviously see you've never played any of the games at any one point. Battlefield isn't about "shooting as many peoples as fast as possible" but Objective-based teamplay, it rewards that way of playing over anything else too and is quite far away from "your average shooter". It's also right up there as far as "substance" and "shooter" goes together...
It's the thinking man's shooter xD

This, pretty much. During the beta once I finally got my magic shock paddles, I was able to fulfill that medic/support role I love.

I ended up in second place on my team, third overall in the game with only three kills or something stupid. Between taking an MCOM station, and being Captain Badass of the Medic Brigade, I racked up a ton of points.

And that's what I love about Battlefield, it actually rewards teamplay, and makes it worth your while. Reviving a squadmate is actually worth more points than a kill.

 

[Jimi Bove]

Google is failing me and saying 99p is roughly 156 USD, which is absurdly expensive for any game.

Please clarify.

.99 UK£ = 1.565091 U.S. dollars

// Ninja'd. TWICE. What is this.

Actually, am I the only one who isn't bothered by Origin? Or Battlelog?

Personally, I'm not, either. The only two backups I'll trust are Steam servers and my hard drive of ISOs, so I'm fine as long as I can get BF3 retail. I appreciate that Origin really isn't much of a hog, and even if it was, I'm running a beast, so I can't complain.

What I don't like is how many people EA/DICE is cutting out of the picture by making the game require a wannabe Steam (that steals ideas and SUUUUCKS in comparison) AND their browser at the same time. Computers that aren't overkill with BF3 will suffer for having to run all those programs to play the game, not to mention you have to use a browser plugin? One made to work on all the browsers? I imagine the average amount of people who have issues with a game on launch week will be tenfold for BF3.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

There are people who are going to play BF3 on a console?

Hah!

Look at it this way: Console gamers don't have to go to a fucking website or download Origin to play. And they get a server list inside the game.

But... but... the game starts up real fast. And not a problem for some people. So therefore you are wrong and should stop complaining about having to install Origin, use it to launch your browser, and use that browser to play single or multi-player. What's the problem? You installed Steam for games, so therefore that mean's you're willing to install any other service to play any other game.

Fuckin' gamer logic man.

Thank YOU! At first I was opposed to the no in game menus thing, but then I realized it just meant no splash screen on start up. Honestly Battlelog has produced no discernible difference to loading up into a game menu with server browser, except that I get to see tons of stat progression, and no that DICE has promised in game squad management, I have no problem with Battlelog, it actually seems really cool.

As for Origin, I didn't like it at first either, having an embarrassingly large Steam games list, I am a little in love with that distro system. But hearing all the gripe against Origin made me think one thing:

FOR all the complaining PC gamers, like me, do about shitty ports and devs not giving them enough love, they are sure quick to hate on anyone who does. I mean COME ON! EA takes this huge financial risk on PC gamers, and says, "Ok we trust you as a source of income, and respect you as a platform, we might not know you as well as Valve, but we'll give it a go" and PC gamers respond with a collective middle finger.

I never thought of PC gamers as quite so narrow minded or afraid of change as this. Frankly its embarrassing, show a little love and get a little love people. SO THANK YOU IRRIDIUM for being one of the first reasonable people I have seen on this topic.

I'm laughing at the irony of this quote and who it was responding to.

 

[Jimi Bove]

You mean there is a difference between the two games? I figured they were the same old generic army game that's been regurgitated out by lazy developers for the past half decade in shiny new packages. I suppose your average shooter fan these days isn't bright enough to notice though. Then again your average shooter fan these days probably isn't capable of reading the advert . . .

All that being said, it sure would be swell if developers would stop tripping over themselves to be the first in line to blow the knuckle dragging unwashed masses and actually produce games of substance again. That'd just be fucking awesome.

Oh, calm down. We still see an average of probably 3-6 truly amazing substance games every year, and that's plenty for me. The devs who just stick to what's popular will continue to do that. I'm glad they're staying out of the masterpieces that they would taint and ruin. It's the same story with all media, BTW. Capitalism likes to beat down art and masterpieces. What else is new.

Meanwhile, I can still enjoy BF3 and Red Orchestra 2, because they're damn good games. It doesn't matter that they're yet more war games in a sea of them if you don't go out and buy every one.

 

[gigastrike]

"p" is "pence", right? Like cents in American? Interesting idea, but it's kinda stupid that it doesn't go both ways.

 

[redisforever]

Here's a thought. Buy Battlefield 3, return it, get MW3, you now have all your money back. Then, go buy Battlefield 3 again. So, you got MW3 for 99p, and you already bought Battlefield.

Your trollscience fails. If you give them your BF3, they will give you MW3 for just 99p on top of your trade-in. Therefore, BF3 + 99p = MW3. If you now buy BF3 again, you have just paid for MW3, 99p & BF3; making you 99p worst off than just buying both.

now that's not taking into account the value of money changing between Oct. 28th & Nov. 7th, assuming those are the dates you purchase the games. Nor does it take into account the exact prices of each game, where you buy BF3 from both times, re-purchase BF3 used or whether you use vouchers or not.

DO DO DO DOOOOooooooOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOO...

...crap. Oh well, I don't live in the UK anyway, and can't play either game because I lack the hardware needed. And the money needed.

 

[RA92]

I'm having a hard time believing all those people saying they will be playing it on their consoles instead of their PCs due to Origin, lack of in-game server browsers (even though it results in faster performance), etc. It's just so hard for me to believe someone would give up M&K for a gamepad in an FPS... >_>

 

[6unn3r]

So battlefield gets more money and we thin out the COD players from our glorious Battlefields?

Win win i say.