On PC. Of all places not to have a server browser. But the consoles will!
The tables have turned. A day after we gladly reported that console gamers would be getting this great PC feature called “server browser”, we can now report that PC gamers won’t have an in-game server browser. DICE’s Alan Kertz has confirmed that in order to switch servers, you have to exit Battlefield 3, and use Battlelog to find another server and join.
Granted, Kertz points out that BF3 “starts up really fast”, but we can’t imagine it being more effective than having an in-game server browser, which has been the norm in PC games for decades — in fact, there’s no other game that requires you to exit in order to switch servers.
Considering that server switching is frequent among gamers, either because of rage quitting or trying to find a better game, or something third, this could cause some annoyance. We’ll have to wait and see how it plays out (no pun intended) when Battlefield 3 is released. So far, it’s kinda disappointing news, but we’ll see how it turns out in the end.
Console gamers now have in-game server browser, while PC gamers don’t. Oh the irony.
As far as PC goes, it's like putting a sign in front of your store that says "Get lost."
MrH wrote:It's a non issue, the Battlelog worked just fine in the alpha.
I'll await its imminent crash when it has to deal with release load. EA can't get a normal server browser to work (Shocking when one considers it a technology perfected in like, the late 90's). I have absolutely no faith in their ability to get some hack crazy concept that should never be seen outside a flash game to function. Now that I think of it, nice looking web pages are one of the few things EA is really good at...
I really do hope this game does not sell. This, coupled with the Origin fiasco...it would really say something about consumers if it sales really well, that's all im saying.
Necroshea wrote:I really do hope this game does not sell. This, coupled with the Origin fiasco...it would really say something about consumers if it sales really well, that's all im saying.
I couldn't disagree with this comment more. If it sells well, which it should it is an indication that gamers still appreciate amazing games that push the envelope. Having to install Origin is hardly a "fiasco", I suppose you was one of the people outraged at Steam in the beginning? And look how well that turned out. If anything the Battlelog makes joining games easier and faster, just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad, you'd know this if you actually played the alpha.
MrH wrote:Having to install Origin is hardly a "fiasco", I suppose you was one of the people outraged at Steam in the beginning? And look how well that turned out.
I take it you're a person who will have no problem installing every publisher's online service when they start wanting a piece of the pie? My problem isn't with the idea of Origin/Steam. It's with EA pulling games from Steam (the DLC issue is just a convenient excuse for them) and only offering them on Origin. I will not download every publishers trash program.
If anything the Battlelog makes joining games easier and faster, just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad, you'd know this if you actually played the alpha.
Alpha means nothing more than that the code runs. I'm sure the server browsers for BLOPS, BFBC2, and Medal of Honor were all wonderful in alpha. Too bad they weren't properly stress tested.
MrH wrote:Having to install Origin is hardly a "fiasco", I suppose you was one of the people outraged at Steam in the beginning? And look how well that turned out.
I take it you're a person who will have no problem installing every publisher's online service when they start wanting a piece of the pie? My problem isn't with the idea of Origin/Steam. It's with EA pulling games from Steam (the DLC issue is just a convenient excuse for them) and only offering them on Origin. I will not download every publishers trash program.
If anything the Battlelog makes joining games easier and faster, just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad, you'd know this if you actually played the alpha.
Alpha means nothing more than that the code runs. I'm sure the server browsers for BLOPS, BFBC2, and Medal of Honor were all wonderful in alpha.
Honestly I have bigger things to worry about, installing a handful of apps isn't anything to cry about in my world.
It worked great in alpha and it'll work great in retail, plus they're doing an open beta which will stress test the battlelog, that's the point of these tests.
MrH wrote:Honestly I have bigger things to worry about, installing a handful of apps isn't anything to cry about in my world.
It worked great in alpha and it'll work great in retail, plus they're doing an open beta which will stress test the battlelog, that's the point of these tests.
If you've ever done an EA beta before, you know that they don't use them to test they use them to demo. BFBC2 was actually worse in release than in the beta. Medal of Honor should never have even been in beta at all. They should have realized it was horrible in alpha
LordofHats wrote:If you've ever done an EA beta before, you know that they don't use them to test they use them to demo. BFBC2 was actually worse in release than in the beta. Medal of Honor should never have even been in beta at all. They should have realized it was horrible in alpha
There's just no point complaining about it now, the battlelog isn't going anywhere and so far it's working great, if it sucks at launch then have at it and complain until you're blue in the face, hell, I'll join you. Battlefield 3 isn't just any game, it's not a rushed to release MoH, it's not a placeholder title like BC2, it's their baby, their crown jewel, it's their one big shot to take down Call of Duty and from what I've seen and played they're going to do just that, even if sales don't reflect it (it's near impossible to convert a CoD zombie). For me BF3 is a breath of fresh air in a stale genre, and I can't wait to play it on October 25th.
MrH wrote:I couldn't disagree with this comment more. If it sells well, which it should it is an indication that gamers still appreciate amazing games that push the envelope. Having to install Origin is hardly a "fiasco", I suppose you was one of the people outraged at Steam in the beginning? And look how well that turned out. If anything the Battlelog makes joining games easier and faster, just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad, you'd know this if you actually played the alpha.
You might want to look into situations more before you think you know about them. The reason Origin is a fiasco is because in the terms that you agreed to, you told EA that they have the right to look through your entire computer and get whatever information they want, and give it to whoever they want.
This also relates to how you are wrong about my opinion of steam. I have it, I've always enjoyed it.
MrH wrote: For me BF3 is a breath of fresh air in a stale genre
Battlefield is the CoD of it's particular flavor. The only reason it wouldn't be considered 'stale' is because so few games in its imitation are any good. Battlefield has hardly changed its formula at all since BF1942.
Now I don't hate battlefield. I hate EA and the continuing legacy of the mega publishers in making absurdly stupid design choices and decisions for the sake of stopping pirating (by irony, their attempts have increased it).
MrH wrote:I couldn't disagree with this comment more. If it sells well, which it should it is an indication that gamers still appreciate amazing games that push the envelope. Having to install Origin is hardly a "fiasco", I suppose you was one of the people outraged at Steam in the beginning? And look how well that turned out. If anything the Battlelog makes joining games easier and faster, just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad, you'd know this if you actually played the alpha.
You might want to look into situations more before you think you know about them. The reason Origin is a fiasco is because in the terms that you agreed to, you told EA that they have the right to look through your entire computer and get whatever information they want, and give it to whoever they want.
This also relates to how you are wrong about my opinion of steam. I have it, I've always enjoyed it.
Look at you, wearing your big boy pants. I know about the terms and once again, I have bigger things to worry about. People like you are only happy when they're complaining, usually about petty stuff that has no actual impact on their life. And just FYI, they've already amended the EULA so your top secret files are once again safe and secure.
Necroshea wrote:The reason Origin is a fiasco is because in the terms that you agreed to, you told EA that they have the right to look through your entire computer and get whatever information they want, and give it to whoever they want.
omg, I went over this. The terms do NOT say that. EA does nothing every other publisher doesn't do (including Steam). Now, I think what they do is a problem and I don't like it, but lets not cry foul over something they're not even doing.
Necroshea wrote:The reason Origin is a fiasco is because in the terms that you agreed to, you told EA that they have the right to look through your entire computer and get whatever information they want, and give it to whoever they want.
omg, I went over this. The terms do NOT say that. EA does nothing every other publisher doesn't do (including Steam). Now, I think what they do is a problem and I don't like it, but lets not cry foul over something they're not even doing.
Thank God! I mean I would hate for anyone to know I like chicks with big butts..... OOPS, the cat is out of the bag, and they didn't even have to scan my top secret files to find out this information.
Necroshea wrote:The reason Origin is a fiasco is because in the terms that you agreed to, you told EA that they have the right to look through your entire computer and get whatever information they want, and give it to whoever they want.
omg, I went over this. The terms do NOT say that. EA does nothing every other publisher doesn't do (including Steam). Now, I think what they do is a problem and I don't like it, but lets not cry foul over something they're not even doing.
Thank God! I mean I would hate for anyone to know I like chicks with big butts..... OOPS, the cat is out of the bag, and they didn't even have to scan my top secret files to find out this information.
No i agree with you on this. The EULA says nothing out of the ordinary. That, and it's the exact same one they've been using since BF2! In 2004! The only problem is that it references the privacy policy which I doubt anyone who is complaining about the "conspiracy" has read. EA has no desire or reason to go digging around anyone's computer.
EDIT: The weirdest part is that media outlets who should know this are complaining about it.
What I find funny is all the people complaining will still buy the game on day one, like they all did with MW2. People just like to be apart of something, so they follow the leader like sheep.
I know. I'm probably the only person on the planet who actually doesn't buy something (not at full price anyway). Which is painful. I've already sworn off Ubisoft since Conviction. Now EA is on its way to my not buying anymore list.
LordofHats wrote:I know. I'm probably the only person on the planet who actually doesn't buy something (not at full price anyway). Which is painful. I've already sworn off Ubisoft since Conviction. Now EA is on its way to my not buying anymore list.
I very rarely buy games on day one also as they usually drop in price after only a few weeks, but there's certain games I have to buy day one, my body won't have it any other way. For example, Diablo 3, there's no way I'm waiting a second longer than I have to.
MrH wrote:Look at you, wearing your big boy pants..
One of us has to
MrH wrote:And just FYI, they've already amended the EULA so your top secret files are once again safe and secure.
Good to know. Also, do try to take notice that they AMENDED it. That means for some reason they decided to change it. Wonder why hmmmm...
MrH wrote:People like you are only happy when they're complaining, usually about petty stuff that has no actual impact on their life.
A legitimate disagreement about invasive practices. Yeah sorry that does sort of impact my life.
I do find your methods of dealing with this entertaining, I truly do. Someone doesn't like what you like? Surely they're wrong! I imagine you're either a fanboy of some sort of really bad troll. Or both, who knows?
By all means, reply to this with all the acid you can muster, because you're totally getting me upset.
Good to know. Also, do try to take notice that they AMENDED it. That means for some reason they decided to change it. Wonder why hmmmm...
They changed it to shut up the whiners, they probably had no intention of scanning your top secret files in the first place, so amending the EULA wasn't a big deal to them.
A legitimate disagreement about invasive practices. Yeah sorry that does sort of impact my life.
I do find your methods of dealing with this entertaining, I truly do. Someone doesn't like what you like? Surely they're wrong! I imagine you're either a fanboy of some sort of really bad troll. Or both, who knows?
By all means, reply to this with all the acid you can muster, because you're totally getting me upset.
Seriously? EA knowing the contents of your hard drive is going to impact your life? Maybe if you have illegal files on your drive, otherwise, no.
It has nothing to do with liking what I like, it has to do with your stupid comment which rubbed me the wrong way. Wanting a great game that's pushing the envelope to fail because of stupid, petty minor annoyances is just dumb, as a gamer you should be hoping BF3 is a massive success, if only to spur on the competition to improve their games.
And I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm no EA/BF fanyboy, I'm just a fan of good games, whoever they're made by and whatever they're called.
I'll reimburse you for the Kleenex you used to rub your teary eyes, sorry about that.
MrH wrote:Seriously? EA knowing the contents of your hard drive is going to impact your life? Maybe if you have illegal files on your drive, otherwise, no.
If you simply cannot grasp why letting a company have full access to your computer and everything stored on it is a bad idea, then there's not much I can do to change that, but I can explain why I personally don't like it. Amidst all the super illegal porn and software that you insinuate I have on my computer, I also have stored passwords to my bank account, as well as other such information. So let's say they have my information, and one of their workers goes postal and steals my information. Now someone has access to my bank account. They may even have my SS#. I'm not going to explain how this is a bad thing.
MrH wrote:It has nothing to do with liking what I like, it has to do with your stupid comment which rubbed me the wrong way.
My comment is stupid because you don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with liking what you like. Wat.
MrH wrote:And I'm sorry to disappoint you but I'm no EA/BF fanyboy, I'm just a fan of good games
It hasn't been released yet, but you're already 100% certain it is a good game. That sounds like a fanboy to me.
MrH wrote:I'll reimburse you for the Kleenex you used to rub your teary eyes, sorry about that.
Considering that you're the one getting upset because I don't like the game, you might want to hold on to that.
If you simply cannot grasp why letting a company have full access to your computer and everything stored on it is a bad idea, then there's not much I can do to change that, but I can explain why I personally don't like it. Amidst all the super illegal porn and software that you insinuate I have on my computer, I also have stored passwords to my bank account, as well as other such information. So let's say they have my information, and one of their workers goes postal and steals my information. Now someone has access to my bank account. They may even have my SS#. I'm not going to explain how this is a bad thing.
Pen and paper. All my passwords are written in a pad on my desk, and the last time I checked, that can't be hacked or viewed without my consent.
My comment is stupid because you don't agree with it, but it has nothing to do with liking what you like. Wat.
It's stupid because it's stupid, sometimes an opinion is just stupid.
It hasn't been released yet, but you're already 100% certain it is a good game. That sounds like a fanboy to me.
I've played it, it is a good game.
Considering that you're the one getting upset because I don't like the game, you might want to hold on to that.
I think you need to think before you hit submit, that doesn't mean I'm "upset", I don't get upset over stupid, petty things (unlike some people).
htj wrote:Could somebody explain this in stupid-terms for us illiterate cavemen? What exactly is meant by a server browser and how will this affect the game?
Pretty much the server browser does what it says, its a browser which lists the servers of said game. The majority of PC game multiplayer modes use them, such as TF2 and Black Ops. It doesnt affect the game in anyway but EA are using a system in BF3 which requires you to quit the game fully before logging into a new server instead of say jumping back a screen or two to the server browser.
htj wrote:Could somebody explain this in stupid-terms for us illiterate cavemen? What exactly is meant by a server browser and how will this affect the game?
Pretty much the server browser does what it says, its a browser which lists the servers of said game. The majority of PC game multiplayer modes use them, such as TF2 and Black Ops. It doesnt affect the game in anyway but EA are using a system in BF3 which requires you to quit the game fully before logging into a new server instead of say jumping back a screen or two to the server browser.
I see. Hypothetically, would this affect co-op gaming? Or rather, gaming with your friends. Would it be impossible to select the same server, instead being luck of the draw?
htj wrote:Could somebody explain this in stupid-terms for us illiterate cavemen? What exactly is meant by a server browser and how will this affect the game?
Pretty much the server browser does what it says, its a browser which lists the servers of said game. The majority of PC game multiplayer modes use them, such as TF2 and Black Ops. It doesnt affect the game in anyway but EA are using a system in BF3 which requires you to quit the game fully before logging into a new server instead of say jumping back a screen or two to the server browser.
I see. Hypothetically, would this affect co-op gaming? Or rather, gaming with your friends. Would it be impossible to select the same server, instead being luck of the draw?
I think it would affect co-op gaming, im not 100% sure since i very rarely play with friends as they all have xboxs lol.
LordofHats wrote:On PC. Of all places not to have a server browser. But the consoles will!
Lulz, that's such fail.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrH wrote:It's a non issue, the Battlelog worked just fine in the alpha.
You might like crappy matchmakers, but I like to actually choose for myself as unlike a poorly written computer program I am intelligent enough to determine when a server is going to not suck.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MrH wrote:I couldn't disagree with this comment more. If it sells well, which it should it is an indication that gamers still appreciate amazing games that push the envelope.
This game isn't "pushing the envelope." In fact it's going backwards in some areas.
MrH wrote:What I find funny is all the people complaining will still buy the game on day one, like they all did with MW2. People just like to be apart of something, so they follow the leader like sheep.
I'm not going to buy it on day one. Or... likely day 100 for that matter.
MrH wrote:What I find funny is all the people complaining will still buy the game on day one, like they all did with MW2. People just like to be apart of something, so they follow the leader like sheep.
I'm not going to buy it on day one. Or... likely day 100 for that matter.
Yeah yeah, we know you hate the game, it's getting stale.
MrH wrote:What I find funny is all the people complaining will still buy the game on day one, like they all did with MW2. People just like to be apart of something, so they follow the leader like sheep.
I'm not going to buy it on day one. Or... likely day 100 for that matter.
Yeah yeah, we know you hate the game, it's getting stale.
It's funny how inane fanboys such as yourself interpret "this game is not going to be the best thing ever produced" as "I hate this game I hate it HATE HATE HATE HATE HAEEEET!"
MrH wrote:It's a non issue, the Battlelog worked just fine in the alpha.
Summed up perfectly
Some people obviously don't seem to know what an Alpha is. I don't doubt that it can work. I doubt that it will work (ignoring of course the numerous flaws of leaving your back end servers directly accessible on the web). I wouldn't even complain so much except for the fact that the server browser is the best possible means I can think of to change servers and a game interface the best way to operate a game. At best this system can only equal a server browser but never exceed it, leaving me wondering why on earth we're bothering with just a silly and annoying system. This is EA hosing the consumer in another hack jack job to combat piracy that won't work and isn't necessary.
I already didn't want to deal with Origin especially with their stupid 2 year clause and the fact I don't want ever publisher following EA's model. I have no interest in financially supporting stupidity in game design. So far BF3 these past few months has been full of it. Oddly similar of MW2 for me actually...
Just replace Marcellus Wallace with LordofHats and Bret with EA. More or less my feelings on the publishers and their idiotic attempts to screw me while not stopping pirates at all.
MrH wrote:What I find funny is all the people complaining will still buy the game on day one, like they all did with MW2. People just like to be apart of something, so they follow the leader like sheep.
I'm not going to buy it on day one. Or... likely day 100 for that matter.
Yeah yeah, we know you hate the game, it's getting stale.
It's funny how inane fanboys such as yourself interpret "this game is not going to be the best thing ever produced" as "I hate this game I hate it HATE HATE HATE HATE HAEEEET!"
Well, either funny or pathetic. Dunno.
It's funny how you go into every topic about BF3, and even those who aren't about it, start saying it's crap, and call everyone who responds a fanboy.
This sounds like a terrible idea. Matchmaking always makes me cringe. Give me a spreadsheet of servers, filter rules, and the option to do a direct IP connect if I want.
This isn't really an accurate topic is it? There is a server browser, its just in your internet browser, and you launch the game from there.
Eh, doesn't really matter to me, the only time I play BF is with my dad, and I just connect to whatever server he is on; hopefully that functionality is still there!
Melissia wrote:You might like crappy matchmakers, but I like to actually choose for myself as unlike a poorly written computer program I am intelligent enough to determine when a server is going to not suck.
You obviously don't know what the battlelog is, it's not a matchmaking system at all, you still pick the server you want to join. You really shouldn't get all "high and mighty" when you don't know what you're talking about.
MrH wrote:You obviously don't know what the battlelog is, it's not a matchmaking system at all, you still pick the server you want to join. You really shouldn't get all "high and mighty" when you don't know what you're talking about.
And yet, it's not a server browser, and you have to exit the entire program to change servers. It's still inferior.
MrH wrote:You obviously don't know what the battlelog is, it's not a matchmaking system at all, you still pick the server you want to join. You really shouldn't get all "high and mighty" when you don't know what you're talking about.
And yet, it's not a server browser, and you have to exit the entire program to change servers. It's still inferior.
But it's not, it's actually faster to join a new server than it is in BC2. You just proved you have no idea what you're talking about and are just spouting rubbish.
Just to reiterate, for all the misinformed, the battlelog isn't a matchmaking system, you can still pick the server you want to join, you can still filter servers by region, ping, player count etc and it's faster than joining a server in BC2. You will all get to try it soon, hopefully then the stupidity will calm down a little.
MrH wrote:You obviously don't know what the battlelog is, it's not a matchmaking system at all, you still pick the server you want to join. You really shouldn't get all "high and mighty" when you don't know what you're talking about.
And yet, it's not a server browser, and you have to exit the entire program to change servers. It's still inferior.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Soladrin wrote:Once again, missing the point.
You never had one.
My point is, that you come into each and every topic about BF3, or any other modern FPS. Say the same things every single time, regardless of what the topic is actually about. And any response you get that doesn't seem to suit you get's shot down with claim of fanboyism.
Infreak wrote:I seems silly to have to exit the game in order to change servers, nevermind annoying. It'd be much faster if you were able to browse severs in-game.
Infreak wrote:I seems silly to have to exit the game in order to change servers, nevermind annoying. It'd be much faster if you were able to browse severs in-game.
Agreed. Heavy emphasis on the annoying part. I can't remember the last time I played an online game of the same sort and just stuck to one server the entire time. Sometimes the map sucks, sometimes the people suck, sometimes you just want a different game mode, etc. etc.
Infreak wrote:I seems silly to have to exit the game in order to change servers, nevermind annoying. It'd be much faster if you were able to browse severs in-game.
You people are so tiresome, you really are.
Then how much faster is it? Can you alt tab out and view other servers while waiting to respawn? I do that if I'm in one server while waiting for another server that a friend of mine has been playing in to lose a person or two so I can join. Is that faster than the in-game server browser method? Is it faster to start the game than older versions BECAUSE of the removal of the server browser? What was their rationale for removing it? Typically, when it comes to UI design, the best and yet least followed rule is, "Unless you have a damn good reason to, leave it alone."
I can see really cool things that can be done with this, potentially. I don't expect them to actually do any of those cool things however.
I'm also skeptical to hear that "it's faster" and believe it until I actually see some numbers.
Infreak wrote:I seems silly to have to exit the game in order to change servers, nevermind annoying. It'd be much faster if you were able to browse severs in-game.
Agreed. Heavy emphasis on the annoying part. I can't remember the last time I played an online game of the same sort and just stuck to one server the entire time. Sometimes the map sucks, sometimes the people suck, sometimes you just want a different game mode, etc. etc.
I don't plan on having another e-argument with you, but please, please, please stop spouting misinformation, it's the blind leading the blind here. There is absolutely no reason to stick to one server, it's faster to switch servers with the battlelog, as I've said already. The game literally closes instantly and you're back on the battlelog, you hit refresh and you click join server, it takes maybe 5 seconds.
BC2:
Open the game > sign in > select soldier > click refresh servers > join server
Battlelog:
Open the page (you're already signed in) > click refresh servers > join server
As for switching servers it's faster because you don't have to go through all the loading that you do in BC2 when a game ends, you just close the game (which is instant) and click refresh servers and you're back on another server within seconds. I know new is "scary", but it's really not bad at all.
I guess I'm confused. Can you, or can you not, browse and select from different servers within the confines of BF3 while it's running?
If you can't, does this "Battlelog" thingy let you browse and select servers? (And I'm assuming connect and boot the game from there)
Edit: Answered by MrH. I guess my question now is what guarantee will I have that BF3 will close/boot "instantly," outside from the speculations based off of the Alpha? True, while it might close/open fast for your computer, a slightly slower one like mine might eat a couple minutes at least closing and opening, which would be slower than dis/connecting using a server browser within a running game.
darkPrince010 wrote:I guess I'm confused. Can you, or can you not, browse and select from different servers within the confines of BF3 while it's running?
If you can't, does this "Battlelog" thingy let you browse and select servers? (And I'm assuming connect and boot the game from there)
daedalus-templarius wrote:Seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill.
I would say that the concept of how big of an issue this is changes from person to person, and there's nothing wrong with like or disliking something. However, I don't think it's the topic so much as some of the people participating in this thread blowing things up and trying to incite anger.
darkPrince010 wrote:I I guess my question now is what guarantee will I have that BF3 will close/boot "instantly," outside from the speculations based off of the Alpha? True, while it might close/open fast for your computer, a slightly slower one like mine might eat a couple minutes at least closing and opening, which would be slower than dis/connecting using a server browser within a running game.
My PC is over 3 years old and it was instant for me, that's all I can tell you. Personally I wouldn't suggest trying to play BF3 on a PC older than mine anyway, unless you're one of these people that can't tell the difference between 30 and 60fps.
MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?
Bad analogy. The reason we switched from VHS to newer formats is because they allowed much better audio and video quality. It was a definite jump. However, this battlelog crap doesn't seem like a jump at all. It just sounds like a different way of doing something, and some people feel that it's completely unneeded.
daedalus wrote:What was their rationale for removing it? Typically, when it comes to UI design, the best and yet least followed rule is, "Unless you have a damn good reason to, leave it alone."
They're doing it as a DRM. Not that it'll work but that's their reason.
MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?
DVD/Blu-ray are obvious improvements over the VHS and previous formats. The battlelog offers no so benefits. It can only be as good as an in-game browser. It can't be superior and I highly doubt it will be as good in EA's hands.
Skepticism about a weird idea while throwing away a tried and proven one with no problems is perfectly reasonable.
MrH wrote:VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?
Bad analogy. The reason we switched from VHS to newer formats is because they allowed much better audio and video quality. It was a definite jump. However, this battlelog crap doesn't seem like a jump at all. It just sounds like a different way of doing something, and some people feel that it's completely unneeded.
If you try it and hate it for a real, actual reason then fine, but to complain and say you hate it without even trying it is ignorant and stupid. Even in such an early stage it was looking great, I can't wait to see it in a year from now, maybe then there will be a clear "jump" that even the most casual player can see clearly.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Seems like a mountain is being made out of a molehill.
What's annoying is people condemning it before they've even tried it.
The reason as to why people are condemning it is because there was no reason to change what wasnt broken, its a fair reason.
VHS wasn't broken, but aren't you glad we have DVD/Blu-ray now?
Maybe so, but DVD had so many more advatages over VHS, and dont have a go at me as i dont want to be dragged into it. I was only pointing out a reason as to why people dont like it.
LordofHats wrote:The battlelog offers no so benefits. It can only be as good as an in-game browser. It can't be superior and I highly doubt it will be as good in EA's hands.
According to whom, exactly? It already does server finding and sorting better than an in-game browser, plus it has additional features such as stat tracking and it has many social elements already implemented. If anything I'd say it's already superior.
MrH wrote:According to whom, exactly? It already does server finding and sorting better than an in-game browser, plus it has additional features such as stat tracking and it has many social elements already implemented. If anything I'd say it's already superior.
All of which can be implemented through an in game browser (and have been). Oddly, EA tried and failed in BFBC2 and Activision failed in BLOPS both because they underestimated the support they needed for the back end servers. EA has committed such a failure numerous times. I suspect the same problem will plague battlelog, heck I'm going to be waiting patiently for a DOS attack on it
Battlelog offers nothing. It takes away the fluidity of an in-game interface and forces players to use an online webpage. That's not efficient and I highly doubt it's "all that and a bag of hats." At best, it will only be as good as an in-game browser with more hassle. It's a completely unnecessary design that offers nothing to the user. It's only advantage is being slightly less extreme than Ubisoft's Uplay DRM idea (which failed in the course of two weeks) If anything I see higher potential for error because of unnecessary increased complexity of the network which now has to handle people accessing the webpage and using it for everything while simultaneously having to manage the server load.
EA is doing this to combat piracy. Lets see how long it takes the pirates the crack it. My guess is that it will take less time than it took to crack Assassin's Creed 2. Then, the pirates will have an exe, their own server network, and we'll be stuck with battlelog. The pirates will have a more fluid version of the game than we the actually buyers will.
MrH wrote:According to whom, exactly? It already does server finding and sorting better than an in-game browser, plus it has additional features such as stat tracking and it has many social elements already implemented. If anything I'd say it's already superior.
All of which can be implemented through an in game browser (and have been). Oddly, EA tried and failed in BFBC2 and Activision failed in BLOPS both because they underestimated the support they needed for the back end servers. EA has committed such a failure numerous times. I suspect the same problem will plague battlelog, heck I'm going to be waiting patiently for a DOS attack on it
Battlelog offers nothing. It takes away the fluidity of an in-game interface and forces players to use an online webpage. That's not efficient and I highly doubt it's "all that and a bag of hats." At best, it will only be as good as an in-game browser with more hassle. It's a completely unnecessary design that offers nothing to the user. It's only advantage is being slightly less extreme than Ubisoft's Uplay DRM idea (which failed in the course of two weeks) If anything I see higher potential for error because of unnecessary increased complexity of the network which now has to handle people accessing the webpage and using it for everything while simultaneously having to manage the server load.
EA is doing this to combat piracy. Lets see how long it takes the pirates the crack it. My guess is that it will take less time than it took to crack Assassin's Creed 2.
Whatever, you've already decided you hate it (without even trying it) and nothing will change your mind, it could deposit £5 to your Paypal account every time you click join server and you'd still find something to complain about.
MrH wrote:Whatever, you've already decided you hate it (without even trying it) and nothing will change your mind, it could deposit £5 to your Paypal account every time you click join server and you'd still find something to complain about.
The same could be said of you in the reverse. You've tried it and nothing I say will make you dislike it. You've offered no reason for its superiority to in-game browsers. All you've said is that it's better.
EDIT: Granted, if they paid me I'd play just about any game Too bad I don't get paid and instead have to pay them $60. Forgive me for wondering why on earth I'd want to.
MrH wrote:Whatever, you've already decided you hate it (without even trying it) and nothing will change your mind, it could deposit £5 to your Paypal account every time you click join server and you'd still find something to complain about.
The same could be said of you in the reverse. You've tried it and nothing I say will make you dislike it. You've offered no reason for its superiority to in-game browsers. All you've said is that it's better.
The big difference is I'VE TRIED IT, my opinion is based off of first hand experience, yours is based off.... well, nothing. And I've given several reasons why it's better, that's a pretty severe case of selective reading you have.
MrH wrote:And I've given several reasons why it's better, that's a pretty severe case of selective reading you have.
No you haven't. You've claimed it does things that a server browser can't in spite of the fact server browsers and in-game systems have done them. The difference is that I know what a alpha is. That it worked in alpha is evidence of nothing but proper code execution.
MrH wrote:And I've given several reasons why it's better, that's a pretty severe case of selective reading you have.
No you haven't
So you're saying I haven't said it's "faster" once (or 50 times) in this thread? Seriously? And I love how you skip past my first comment, I would too if I was posting nonsense.
MrH wrote:So you're saying I haven't said it's "faster" once (or 50 times) in this thread? Seriously?
Define faster. Server browsers are fast. Not EA's browsers because somehow they have a hard time doing a simple task, but others. I've never had to wait more than a second to actually get the server list in CoD4, Unreal 2k4, or numerous other games. How is their system "faster?" EDIT: It's nonsense because reality disagrees with your fantasy of battlelog awesomeness? They do say ignorance is bliss.
Again, I never said it can't work. I'm skeptical it will.
MrH wrote:So you're saying I haven't said it's "faster" once (or 50 times) in this thread? Seriously?
Define faster. Server browsers are fast. Not EA's browsers because somehow they have a hard time doing a simple task, but others. I've never had to wait more than a second to actually get the server list. How is their system "faster?"
It's like you haven't even read half the posts in this thread, I refuse to keep going over it. I have a new found respect for teachers, I really do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote:It's nonsense because reality disagrees with your fantasy of battlelog awesomeness? They do say ignorance is bliss.
That's funny coming from a guy who's scared of change.
MrH wrote:It's like you haven't even read half the posts in this thread, I refuse to keep going over it. I have a new found respect for teachers, I really do.
I've read them. That you would rather keep your fingers in your ears and go "no no no no" is your problem not mine.
And my teachers love me. I actually pay attention and don't text in class (I have the benefit of not being a cell phone person)
That's funny coming from a guy who's scared of change.
So change is always a good thing? Was Uplay a good idea? Obviously it wasn't because Ubisoft significantly revamped it over the summer and no longer uses the DRM elements in the way they originally were. You have yet to define how this change is good. You're reasons make no sense because I have yet to see or read about battlelog offering anything new or better.
How about having to log into the internet even to play single player. Is that an improvement?
I'm not scared of change. I welcome improvement. I see no room for improvement in Battlelog. Maybe that'll change at release but I'm always skeptical with these things. I dislike publishers and their stupid design decisions.
Battlelog is not for your or my sake. It's so EA can say "we're combating piracy" and then cry when the pirates crack it like they've always done in the past and will continue to do in the future. Meanwhile we have to deal with whatever failures and flaws come with some new concept implemented by a company that couldn't even get the old tried and proven perfected a decade ago concept to work.
I'm amazed anyone can argue about this sort of thing this much, I mean, maybe you should save your bile for after the game comes out and you've tried it.
Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:
How PC gamers see themselves.
Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus-templarius wrote:I mean, maybe you should save your bile for after the game comes out and you've tried it.
Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:
How PC gamers see themselves.
Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.
John Carmack does not totally agree; and I trust him more than the internets.
Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:
How PC gamers see themselves.
Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.
John Carmack does not totally agree; and I trust him more than the internets.
It wouldn't really be a good idea for him to say "yeah look, the hardware sucks but we're doing the best we can, you'll just have to put up with poor frame rate, low quality textures and sub HD resolutions for a couple more years".
Oh, I'm pretty sure he would say that in his keynote at quakecon, he more lamented the fact that PCs have so much bs overhead and API issues that they need all that brute force to push the framerates they have now, while they have Rage running at 60fps on 5 year old consoles.
Oh, and art direction really matters to me a lot more than 1080p 60fps native.
I game on both PC and Console, and on both, I couldn't give less of a crap about FPS and the like unless it actually start impeding with my fun.
Soladrin wrote:That picture needs a tiny print saying:
How PC gamers see themselves.
Not really, it's just how it is now. PC gaming is so far ahead of console gaming right now it's just silly, mostly due to the ancient hardware, the last year or so has been really bad for console gaming IMO. More and more games struggle to maintain 30fps, with some of the biggest titles dropping to under 20fps and turning into a slideshow. Not to mention most games are running sub HD resolutions. And before you go all "nerd rage" on me, I have owned pretty much every major console you can name, and I currently own both the PS3 and X360. When new consoles are released I will be first in line to buy them, but until then I will stick with PC gaming.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
daedalus-templarius wrote:I mean, maybe you should save your bile for after the game comes out and you've tried it.
I could kiss you. That's all I'm asking for.
You missed my point by a mile, I'm not talking about the tech, I'm talking about the people.
I game on both PC and Console, and on both, I couldn't give less of a crap about FPS and the like unless it actually start impeding with my fun.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Oh, I'm pretty sure he would say that in his keynote at quakecon, he more lamented the fact that PCs have so much bs overhead and API issues that they need all that brute force to push the framerates they have now, while they have Rage running at 60fps on 5 year old consoles.
If it's running at 60fps solid I'd be surprised, and if it is then well done, that's impressive but it's certainly not the norm, the norm now is 30fps which dips to under 20fps when anything happens on screen.
Space Marine is running locked at 30fps with no slowdown during the action, as reviewed by http://arstechnica.com/, watched the video on both 360 and PS3.
And yes, Rage does run a solid 60fps on both consoles, that was a goal for Id; although for their next game they are looking to go locked 30 to make it prettier.
Soladrin wrote:[You missed my point by a mile, I'm not talking about the tech, I'm talking about the people.
I game on both PC and Console, and on both, I couldn't give less of a crap about FPS and the like unless it actually start impeding with my fun.
Low frame rate instantly saps any fun out of a game for me, sometimes I wish I wasn't so sensitive to it (there's some people that can't tell the difference between 100 and 10fps, damn you good eyesight!). As for the people, I guess you mean your friends only, as the console community is pretty terrible, less so on the PS3 as it seems 1/10 people actually have a mic, but on Xbox there's always at least one or two people shouting down the mic, being racist, swearing constantly, playing music and generally just being a waste of oxygen.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Oh, I'm pretty sure he would say that in his keynote at quakecon, he more lamented the fact that PCs have so much bs overhead and API issues that they need all that brute force to push the framerates they have now, while they have Rage running at 60fps on 5 year old consoles.
I knew that name sounded familiar. Did you manage to attend quakecon this year? I missed just about all the presentations but I still had a blast. Hearing you say that, I probably should have went to that one.
Soladrin wrote:[You missed my point by a mile, I'm not talking about the tech, I'm talking about the people.
I game on both PC and Console, and on both, I couldn't give less of a crap about FPS and the like unless it actually start impeding with my fun.
Low frame rate instantly saps any fun out of a game for me, sometimes I wish I wasn't so sensitive to it (there's some people that can't tell the difference between 100 and 10fps, damn you good eyesight!). As for the people, I guess you mean your friends only, as the console community is pretty terrible, less so on the PS3 as it seems 1/10 people actually have a mic, but on Xbox there's always at least one or two people shouting down the mic, being racist, swearing constantly, playing music and generally just being a waste of oxygen.
What is mute?
I knew that name sounded familiar. Did you manage to attend quakecon this year? I missed just about all the presentations but I still had a blast. Hearing you say that, I probably should have went to that one.
I just watched the feed. I'm sure you can find his keynote and the panels online though; they fielded a surprising amount of questions from the PCMASTERRACE about how they managed to get their game to look so good/run so well on that ancient peasant technology.
Soladrin wrote:[You missed my point by a mile, I'm not talking about the tech, I'm talking about the people.
I game on both PC and Console, and on both, I couldn't give less of a crap about FPS and the like unless it actually start impeding with my fun.
Low frame rate instantly saps any fun out of a game for me, sometimes I wish I wasn't so sensitive to it (there's some people that can't tell the difference between 100 and 10fps, damn you good eyesight!). As for the people, I guess you mean your friends only, as the console community is pretty terrible, less so on the PS3 as it seems 1/10 people actually have a mic, but on Xbox there's always at least one or two people shouting down the mic, being racist, swearing constantly, playing music and generally just being a waste of oxygen.
I find that PC gaming communities aren't much better. So as a rule of thumb, I only game with my mates, regardless of platform, theres always gaks around. Also: Mute public.
My problem isn't in the games. It's people on forums and other communication things that are just feeling superior simply because they are on a different platform, it's the console wars all over again ~~
daedalus-templarius wrote:Space Marine is running locked at 30fps with no slowdown during the action, as reviewed by http://arstechnica.com/, watched the video on both 360 and PS3.
And yes, Rage does run a solid 60fps on both consoles, that was a goal for Id; although for their next game they are looking to go locked 30 to make it prettier.
Do you really want to get into a "tit for tat" competition when it comes to recent games that manage 30fps solid and games that don't? Because you know I'll win that one, and we'll both waste the rest of the day looking it up. I said it was the "norm", I didn't say it's always the case, but usually it is these days. Just look at Crysis 2, Deus Ex, Duke Nukem, Dragon Age 2 etc, I could go on forever. Space Marine is the first game in a long time I've played on a console that actually felt "smooth", thanks to actually maintaining 30fps.
And props to ID, Rage isn't a bad looking game either.
MrH wrote:As for the people, I guess you mean your friends only, as the console community is pretty terrible, less so on the PS3 as it seems 1/10 people actually have a mic, but on Xbox there's always at least one or two people shouting down the mic, being racist, swearing constantly, playing music and generally just being a waste of oxygen.
Can't really say the PC is much better. I administrated numerous servers in CoD4, BFBC2, and BLOPS (not that BLOPs left me with much to do mind you). Can't tell you how often I had to deal with douches and idiots. The clan culture of the PC is stronger than on the consoles so you don't usually get one jerk you usually end up with three or four and that's just a nightmare And that's not even going into clan wars (though I've seen those less and less over the years as more casuals get onto PC).
At least on consoles, everyone seems to have given up on saying anything since Halo 2 I rarely have a problem on XBox live these days with anyone being rude or My last Reach binge was three months ago. Played for about three weeks straight and wondered where all the were
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I nuked Origin as soon as I noted the t&c, no way in hell is a games company having access to my PC to that degree, where I go and all that jazz.
You should read my post towards the bottom of page one. If you're going to complain about the terms, you really should examine them and complain about something that's actually there.
LordofHats wrote:You should read my post towards the bottom of page one. If you're going to complain about the terms, you really should examine them and complain about something that's actually there.
You keep making it sound like it was never there when it was. It doesn't matter to some people if they fixed it or not, it's that they had the audacity to even try it in the first place.
daedalus-templarius wrote:Space Marine is running locked at 30fps with no slowdown during the action, as reviewed by http://arstechnica.com/, watched the video on both 360 and PS3.
And yes, Rage does run a solid 60fps on both consoles, that was a goal for Id; although for their next game they are looking to go locked 30 to make it prettier.
Do you really want to get into a "tit for tat" competition when it comes to recent games that manage 30fps solid and games that don't? Because you know I'll win that one, and we'll both waste the rest of the day looking it up. I said it was the "norm", I didn't say it's always the case, but usually it is these days. Just look at Crysis 2, Deus Ex, Duke Nukem, Dragon Age 2 etc, I could go on forever. Space Marine is the first game in a long time I've played on a console that actually felt "smooth", thanks to actually maintaining 30fps.
And props to ID, Rage isn't a bad looking game either.
Not really, I was just telling you that the hardware is capable of this, but some developers are not.
I mean, I have a pretty high end PC as well, but I do most of my gaming on console since I spend enough time in front of the pc doing art/working.
Necroshea wrote:You keep making it sound like it was never there when it was. It doesn't matter to some people if they fixed it or not, it's that they had the audacity to even try it in the first place.
The problem is that it wasn't. What people are complaining about isn't the EULA and what it lets EA do but some ambiguous language in it the EULA that people have blown out of proportion. EA didn't change their terms at all or their practices when it comes to data collection (nor do they do anything that every other company doesn't). They reworded them.
It shocks me people are afraid of EA having their information, but your ISP has way more on you than EA ever will.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:I nuked Origin as soon as I noted the t&c, no way in hell is a games company having access to my PC to that degree, where I go and all that jazz.
If it had been happy to install on my shield account, I might have gone along with it, but nope, wanted to be on my admin one, so blam, its gone.
EA can go whistle. Sims 3 runs without it anyways, so nothing I need to worry about.
I know its been changed, but I don't like EA, so they lost me by having a badly worded t&c.
I barely play PC games anyways, I only downloaded it because It gave the impression Sims 3 needed it to run, which is rollocks.
Laugh all you want MrH, you don't own my PC, and it is running better since its gone. Its start up asking me if I want to connect to origin rubbish was slowing it down whenever I turned it on.
MrH wrote:
Whatever, you've already decided you hate it (without even trying it) and nothing will change your mind, it could deposit £5 to your Paypal account every time you click join server and you'd still find something to complain about.
Well, have you seen paypal fees lately? Besides, with exchange rates as they are, I'd probably only be making pennies from it.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Laugh all you want MrH, you don't own my PC, and it is running better since its gone. Its start up asking me if I want to connect to origin rubbish was slowing it down whenever I turned it on.
He's been on this holier than thou kick since this thread started, and light help you if you say BF3 is less then superior to everything imaginable.
At this point, everyone in this thread should take a deep breath, realize that we're talking about Video Games on a Forum primarily dedicated to Wargames involving Toy Soldiers.
Then, everyone might need to refresh their memories in regards to the rules of this site.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Laugh all you want MrH, you don't own my PC, and it is running better since its gone. Its start up asking me if I want to connect to origin rubbish was slowing it down whenever I turned it on.
He's been on this holier than thou kick since this thread started, and light help you if you say BF3 is less then superior to everything imaginable.
Oh c'mon, that's not really the case. He mostly just wants you to try the new browser before condemning it; which I totally agree with. As long as it is fast enough, who cares.
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Laugh all you want MrH, you don't own my PC, and it is running better since its gone. Its start up asking me if I want to connect to origin rubbish was slowing it down whenever I turned it on.
He's been on this holier than thou kick since this thread started, and light help you if you say BF3 is less then superior to everything imaginable.
Oh c'mon, that's not really the case. He mostly just wants you to try the new browser before condemning it; which I totally agree with. As long as it is fast enough, who cares.
Exactly, thank you. If someone needs to twist your words they've already lost IMO, and that's exactly what he did.
daedalus-templarius wrote:He mostly just wants you to try the new browser before condemning it; which I totally agree with.
And its a perfectly fine position (probably the more reasonable one). It's also perfectly fine to hear the idea and think it's a senseless and silly decision (which inevitably involves a little nerd rage but that's the way things go).
johnscott10 wrote:While i tried the Black Ops multiplayer weekend thing on steam, the fact that BF3 are removing a menu which is really useful is darn right stupid.
Not that it matters tbh, I wasnt plannin on buyin BF3 anyway after all the crap Ea have done.
Same here, I don't want to download origin and have EA spy on me either. And no server browser? WTF? It's a frikking shame, too, seeing as the gameplay is almost certain to be better than that of MW3.
johnscott10 wrote:While i tried the Black Ops multiplayer weekend thing on steam, the fact that BF3 are removing a menu which is really useful is darn right stupid.
Not that it matters tbh, I wasnt plannin on buyin BF3 anyway after all the crap Ea have done.
Same here, I don't want to download origin and have EA spy on me either. And no server browser? WTF? It's a frikking shame, too, seeing as the gameplay is almost certain to be better than that of MW3.
Tbh the EA download manager kept trying to update to Origin every time I turned my comp on and I let it, I made sure to read the T&Cs(for a change), but tbh since iv installed it I have never used it :s Seems a waste now.
Thats only 1 of the reasons I aint gettin BF3, the main one being all my mates will get MW3.
I'll just keep playing war inc. Battlezone, Left 4 dead, Borderlands, etc. I may not even get MW3 because the Call of Duty games have had no variation since World at War.
In Bad Company 2 you sat in the same server until you exited the game back to the main menu on PS3. I guess it wasn't too bad having people automatically placed into a game. Mainly because it fills up one server rather than having 50 other servers with noone in them. The argument against this probably not enough freedom to customise how you want to play a match.
And that's not even going into clan wars (though I've seen those less and less over the years as more casuals get onto 
My last Reach binge was three months ago. Played for about three weeks straight and wondered where all the