Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

image

A new Battlefield 3 PS3 update lets raw recruits dive into multiplayer with the same hardware as toughened vets - for a price.

Any military historian can tell you that you need two things to win a war: manpower and materiel. Now, if you don't have enough time to fight opposing forces in Battlefield 3 for the PS3, you can invest capital instead. A substantial update for the popular military shooter hit PS3 servers today, and along with some map tweaks and server options, the developers have included a number of "shortcut kits." These kits will unlock various class- and vehicle-specific items, weapons, and upgrades usually reserved for players who serve countless hours in multiplayer. While they range in price (and, no doubt, utility), this move is sure to cause some bad blood between fans who want to preserve the game's learning curve/reward system, and those who simply don't have the time or inclination to see Battlefield 3's multiplayer content the long way.

Tommy Rydling, otherwise known as Battlefield: The Official Blog keeper H Brun, shared the update with fans. "Today, we are also offering 10 different shortcut items for sale for Battlefield 3 on PS3," he wrote. "If you're new to the game, this is the perfect way to gain some ground on the veterans online."The shortcut packs themselves include unique item unlocks for every class and vehicle in the game, as well as weapons usually unlocked through co-op. They range in price from $4.99 (for the co-op weapons) to $39.99 (for everything), although each item and upgrade contained within them can be unlocked through normal play.

The update also includes a number of tweaks, bug fixes, and map redesigns, although perhaps the other most controversial feature will be the ability for players to rent their own servers. Instead of using the standard Battlefield 3 servers, players can now rent their own and customize all parameters, from respawn time to minimap display. The rentals last from one to 90 days, and range from $1.49 to $64.99.

Shortcut packs are hardly new territory for the Battlefield series, as it offered the same kind of package for Battlefield 2: Bad Company. Even so, the comments section on the Battlefield blog already runneth over with bile from both sides of the debate. If you prefer a good old-fashioned level grind to a quick-and-dirty unlock, that's your prerogative, but remember: Someone back home has got to fund the war effort.

Source: Battlefield: The Official Blog

Permalink

I'm glad I'm not invested in it. I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimatly winds up giving the rich an advantage.

As far as "funding the war effort goes" cute line, but in the end people already paid $60 for this. This is an example of the industry getting too greedy, with the greed undermining the integrity of the games.

Of course it really doesn't surprise me, it's the same basic thing EA is doing with ME3's muliplayer, except without the randomization inherant in the packs.

It's really good to notice EA listening to it's fans, especially seeing as that was part of what all the bile over ME3 is about. The paid multiplayer being connected to the ending dispute because to even see all of the crap ending you need to do it, and they are selling the same kind of "shortcuts" for real money which amounts to having monetized the ending.

I'm surprised they didn't also increase the amount of experience you needed to unlock stuff normally.

Well for now this doesn't affect me since I passed on bf3 since I hated the back end, something like this wouldn't be that bad in a game like planetside 2 but that game will also be free to play.

I dont see a problem with this.

So long as all the content in the packs can be unlocked normally, its a nice grey middle ground.

Therumancer:
I'm glad I'm not invested in it. I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimatly winds up giving the rich an advantage.

As far as "funding the war effort goes" cute line, but in the end people already paid $60 for this. This is an example of the industry getting too greedy, with the greed undermining the integrity of the games.

Of course it really doesn't surprise me, it's the same basic thing EA is doing with ME3's muliplayer, except without the randomization inherant in the packs.

It's really good to notice EA listening to it's fans, especially seeing as that was part of what all the bile over ME3 is about. The paid multiplayer being connected to the ending dispute because to even see all of the crap ending you need to do it, and they are selling the same kind of "shortcuts" for real money which amounts to having monetized the ending.

Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Therumancer:
I'm glad I'm not invested in it. I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimatly winds up giving the rich an advantage.

As far as "funding the war effort goes" cute line, but in the end people already paid $60 for this. This is an example of the industry getting too greedy, with the greed undermining the integrity of the games.

Of course it really doesn't surprise me, it's the same basic thing EA is doing with ME3's muliplayer, except without the randomization inherant in the packs.

It's really good to notice EA listening to it's fans, especially seeing as that was part of what all the bile over ME3 is about. The paid multiplayer being connected to the ending dispute because to even see all of the crap ending you need to do it, and they are selling the same kind of "shortcuts" for real money which amounts to having monetized the ending.

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich.

Yep, go on milking those cows dry and I'll have to outright boycott your company too...

image

tippy2k2:
I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Tough shit, everybody else had to do it the same way and they should too... fair play and all, I couldn't care less about how much they "value their time", maybe they shouldn't be playing then?
How about making them pay 10.000$ for quadruple HP and 100.000$ for official invulnerability hacks so they can show their monetary superiority to everyone?

If people want to throw money at someone to do shit that they are too lazy to do themselves, then by all means let them.

Well, as I have the service star for each class and already reached level 45, I see no real problem with this. In fact, I see it as decent idea from one stand point: How do we get money from those stupid people playing this game?

So a rank 1 person who started today, will have every item for a jet because he paid for it, too bad they won't due much for him when he crashes 3 seconds after he lifts off. I don't see a problem with this, you still need to learn how to fly, or use whatever you get and I kill fully leveled people all the time, even when i'm just throwing c4 everywhere.

Soviet Heavy:
Tough shit, everybody else had to do it the same way and they should too... fair play and all, I couldn't care less about how much they "value their time", maybe they shouldn't be playing then?

I hear you. Man, I don't get why people would even think about being casual gamers. What's the point of even playing a game if you're not going to practice at least 12 hours a day on it? They're what's killing competitive gaming.

Dexter111:

tippy2k2:
I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Tough shit, everybody else had to do it the same way and they should too... fair play and all, I couldn't care less about how much they "value their time", maybe they shouldn't be playing then?
How about making them pay 10.000$ for quadruple HP and 100.000$ for official invulnerability hacks so they can show their monetary superiority to everyone?

Not everyone has a shit ton of free time. Some people have multiple jobs, children, things to do, blah blah blah and just want to be able to play BF3 with their friends every so often.

I play probably....once a month with a friend of mine who lives in California. I get destroyed every time because I just don't want to play when I'm alone and he's the only one I know who has the game. This OPTION is nice to have but that's the thing, it's an option. You want to be a "purist"? Don't use the option but it's brilliant on EA's part to gain more players who may have skipped these online games due to not having time.

Buretsu:

Soviet Heavy:
Tough shit, everybody else had to do it the same way and they should too... fair play and all, I couldn't care less about how much they "value their time", maybe they shouldn't be playing then?

I hear you. Man, I don't get why people would even think about being casual gamers. What's the point of even playing a game if you're not going to practice at least 12 hours a day on it? They're what's killing competitive gaming.

I think you messed up the quotes.

Don't see a problem, in fact I think it could be a good thing. The last dozen or so rounds I played I haven't seen anyone lower than rank 32. BF3 does need new blood. If people want to spend money on unlocks instead of playing for the rewards, well it's their money.

I particularly feel for anyone trying to get into the air at this stage without flares, even a great pilot is going to have trouble getting the first unlock with twelve stingers and a couple of SOFLAM targeted Javs on their tail.

I'd have gladly paid $5 to not have to grind the shitty co-op to unlock weapons, I may even still buy the G3A3 and 93R if this option comes to PC because I loath the co-op. Loath it I say!

Also the renting servers thing is cute. The amount of Metro only servers on PC is sickening.

Hookah:
[

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich
Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Actually it is "pay to win" your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game. Your basically paying for an advantage over anyone who hasn't put in the time, or spent the money, and gaining the abillity to dominate them.

Ultimatly if you "want to play" but don't want to put in the time (or can't) your supposed to suck compared to those that do, that's part of the point. Being able to decide "well I'm rich so I'm going to buy my way out of the boring stuff and paying my dues" isn't paticularly fair to those who can't afford to do that, or those who put in the time and effort.

In the end this isn't good for the game, or gaming in general. The only thing it's good for is EA lining it's own pockets.

Of course understand that I am of the opinion that in multiplayer I believe firmly in everyone being equal other than their skill and time investment. I do not believe in "equalizing" things between the serious players and the casuals if the more casual or unskilled players can afford to pay for it, if your a casual player, then you should expect to not be as powerful as the other players who take it more seriously. In any enviroment like this, even PVE games, there is going to be a degree of competition, and that means there are going to be losers, being able to buy your way into the winners circle and get those perks invalidates the entire process.

See, the arguement is double sided. Your casual player argues that he should not be held back because he's unwilling to turn a game into a hobby and make the time committment, or maybe he links the game but is just pants at it and doesn't like that this limits his progress. To him, if he has the money, paying a few bucks to even the playing field seems reasonable. To the more serious player, he feels that the time, effort, and perhaps displayed skill SHOULD get him some rewards. Putting 100 hours a week into a game (if that's what he decides to do) should make him better than someone who might play an hour or two a day and that should be recognized by the game by putting him well above those casual players in every conceivable way. Swiping a credit card should not give someone equal achievements and perks.

Now, to be honest I do understand the problem of being someone who always gets WTFpwned by giants in an established game. However I believe those are the lumps someone needs to take to earn their way up, especially seeing as the first ones playing generally had to pay their own kinds of dues. I feel that monetizing this is not the way to address it however, I think instead more effort needs to be taken to segregate queues such as ensuring PVP in MMORPGs is premade vs. premade, and pug vs. pug, and in all forms of games probably make the amount of time an account has been logged into the game a variable in matchmaking. If you've only played 40 hours in say a month, a queue should try and find people with a similar amount of played time for you, before it sticks you onto a map with people who log that in a week. You can't measure skill levels with a computer (yet) but you can measure that variable which would help, and which to me is a much better idea, and has more gaming integrity, than letting people pay to unlock benefits that are supposed to be earned... even if integrity doesn't put money into industry pockets.

tippy2k2:
Not everyone has a shit ton of free time. Some people have multiple jobs, children, things to do, blah blah blah and just want to be able to play BF3 with their friends every so often.

I play probably....once a month with a friend of mine who lives in California. I get destroyed every time because I just don't want to play when I'm alone and he's the only one I know who has the game. This OPTION is nice to have but that's the thing, it's an option. You want to be a "purist"? Don't use the option but it's brilliant on EA's part to gain more players who may have skipped these online games due to not having time.

Sure sounds like a brilliant OPTION to give people putting down money the power to destroy other new players and all the things other people worked on for months.

Again, I couldn't care less how much free time or jobs or children or whatever they have, the rules in the game should be the same for everyone. You can't buy yourself more pieces or several kings when playing chess etc. either, no matter if you are hobo Bob or billionaire Mike.

am I a terrible person because I bought some "packs" in ME3 with real moeny? (hey..to be fair I had some left over in my account...hardly enough to buy journey)

Therumancer:

It's really good to notice EA listening to it's fans, especially seeing as that was part of what all the bile over ME3 is about. The paid multiplayer being connected to the ending dispute because to even see all of the crap ending you need to do it, and they are selling the same kind of "shortcuts" for real money which amounts to having monetized the ending.

wait!...the multiplayer is somwhow connected to the actual single player?!..uggghh actually dont tell me anything, I havnt finished yet I dont want to know

kouriichi:
I dont see a problem with this.

So long as all the content in the packs can be unlocked normally, its a nice grey middle ground.

if this content that can be "unlocked through normal play" was "end game" level gear in another game...like say WoW...you'd see the problem all right...it would probably crash the internet...or at the very least Blizzards web server.

as for the server rentals thing...kinda truly sickened that its come to this tbh. as FPS players we had our own private servers before and we did not have to pay for them.

Therumancer:

Hookah:
[

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich
Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Actually it is "pay to win" your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game. Your basically paying for an advantage over anyone who hasn't put in the time, or spent the money, and gaining the abillity to dominate them.

Ultimatly if you "want to play" but don't want to put in the time (or can't) your supposed to suck compared to those that do, that's part of the point. Being able to decide "well I'm rich so I'm going to buy my way out of the boring stuff and paying my dues" isn't paticularly fair to those who can't afford to do that, or those who put in the time and effort.

In the end this isn't good for the game, or gaming in general. The only thing it's good for is EA lining it's own pockets.

Of course understand that I am of the opinion that in multiplayer I believe firmly in everyone being equal other than their skill and time investment. I do not believe in "equalizing" things between the serious players and the casuals if the more casual or unskilled players can afford to pay for it, if your a casual player, then you should expect to not be as powerful as the other players who take it more seriously. In any enviroment like this, even PVE games, there is going to be a degree of competition, and that means there are going to be losers, being able to buy your way into the winners circle and get those perks invalidates the entire process.

See, the arguement is double sided. Your casual player argues that he should not be held back because he's unwilling to turn a game into a hobby and make the time committment, or maybe he links the game but is just pants at it and doesn't like that this limits his progress. To him, if he has the money, paying a few bucks to even the playing field seems reasonable. To the more serious player, he feels that the time, effort, and perhaps displayed skill SHOULD get him some rewards. Putting 100 hours a week into a game (if that's what he decides to do) should make him better than someone who might play an hour or two a day and that should be recognized by the game by putting him well above those casual players in every conceivable way. Swiping a credit card should not give someone equal achievements and perks.

Now, to be honest I do understand the problem of being someone who always gets WTFpwned by giants in an established game. However I believe those are the lumps someone needs to take to earn their way up, especially seeing as the first ones playing generally had to pay their own kinds of dues. I feel that monetizing this is not the way to address it however, I think instead more effort needs to be taken to segregate queues such as ensuring PVP in MMORPGs is premade vs. premade, and pug vs. pug, and in all forms of games probably make the amount of time an account has been logged into the game a variable in matchmaking. If you've only played 40 hours in say a month, a queue should try and find people with a similar amount of played time for you, before it sticks you onto a map with people who log that in a week. You can't measure skill levels with a computer (yet) but you can measure that variable which would help, and which to me is a much better idea, and has more gaming integrity, than letting people pay to unlock benefits that are supposed to be earned... even if integrity doesn't put money into industry pockets.

You already said you don't play BF3, so how do you know your 'your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game.'? It's not an MMORPG where the latter weapons are automatically the best. Different people have different styles and use different weapons to suit them. When I play recon (sniper) I use a Semi-automatic rifle with a medium range scope, so the last unlock for that class - a large single shot Anti-Materiel rifle - is of no use to me. It's not 'better' but 'different'.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point - BF3 isn't like an MMORPG, or really like CoD were certain unlocks are vastly superior to others. I believe on paper, or at least to the best of my knowledge, the FAMAS is currently the best weapon in BF3, yet it is far from the most widely used weapon. It is a short range rapid fire weapon, it doesn't suit a lot of playstyles.

The vehicle unlocks certainly make a tank/heli/plane better, but an enemy dies just as good from a M16 as he does from an AN-94.

Sleekit:

kouriichi:
I dont see a problem with this.

So long as all the content in the packs can be unlocked normally, its a nice grey middle ground.

if this content that can be "unlocked through normal play" was "end game" level gear in another game...like say WoW...you'd see the problem all right...it would probably crash the internet...or at the very least Blizzards web server.

as for the server rentals thing...kinda sickened that its come to this tbh

Logical fallacy. Try harder

Dexter111:

tippy2k2:
Not everyone has a shit ton of free time. Some people have multiple jobs, children, things to do, blah blah blah and just want to be able to play BF3 with their friends every so often.

I play probably....once a month with a friend of mine who lives in California. I get destroyed every time because I just don't want to play when I'm alone and he's the only one I know who has the game. This OPTION is nice to have but that's the thing, it's an option. You want to be a "purist"? Don't use the option but it's brilliant on EA's part to gain more players who may have skipped these online games due to not having time.

Sure sounds like a brilliant OPTION to give people putting down money the power to destroy other new players and all the things other people worked on for months.

Again, I couldn't care less how much free time or jobs or children or whatever they have, the rules in the game should be the same for everyone. You can't buy yourself more pieces or several kings when playing chess etc. either, no matter if you are hobo Bob or billionaire Mike.

What does it matter to you where I got my weapons?

Are you unhappy because you can't just kick the piss out of the new players now because they have a way to even the playing field? These packs are not giving them an advantage, these are the same exact weapons that you get.

To go with your chess analogy:
-A player started in November has the full board
-A player starting right now has pawns (seriously, we don't get shit in the beginning)

I just don't see how anyone could possibly see this as a bad thing. You're getting a bunch of new players in the game, some new blood, and allowing them the option to put themselves even with the players who have been playing since November.

At this point, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I can't possibly see how this could be a bad thing for anyone. Unless swiping my credit card gives me a rifle while people who don't pay get squirt guns, I see absolutely no problem here. If that were introduced, I'd be right with you in the angry mob with my pitchfork but that's not what this is. Where you're seeing an evil company hell bent on screwing over the poor, I see a company willing to give the new players an actual fighting chance.

People'll pay for convenience even if they aren't getting anything a little bit of time couldn't get them for free. I swear if you could make gas instantly transfer itself into a gas tank in half a second you could you could charge $5/litre.

Captcha: good for nothing
I do agree.

I know this is one of those kind of things we're supposed to hate "just because," but I'll state that I do not mind shortcut packs for Battlefield 3 for two reasons. First, the switching of initial primary weapons based on what faction you're playing is crushing to new players whose learning of the game is stymied by trying to learn two starting weapons instead of one, and because the later-chain vehicle unlocks are both incredibly useful and take an inconvenient amount of time to unlock.

Also, if people could stop raging for a second, does anyone know if the shortcut packs also include the attachment unlocks for weapons?

Well, the days of me not playing this no doubt excellently designed multiplayer shooter are certainly coming to a middle.

The idea of these "Play for Gear" system is not very good in my opinion. People who are new to a game and do not have the same level of skill as a veteran will go up against people with vastly superior skill and equipment. Games like Halo allow people coming in to have the same gear as a vet. In games like COD and BF where there are a ton of weapons this system of playing is even more unneeded since if you spend some time balancing weapons to different play styles will allow people to find the best weapon set for themselves.

Ideally you should not have to play or pay to get these guns. They should be available from the start.

Hookah:

Therumancer:

Hookah:
[

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich
Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Actually it is "pay to win" your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game. Your basically paying for an advantage over anyone who hasn't put in the time, or spent the money, and gaining the abillity to dominate them.

Ultimatly if you "want to play" but don't want to put in the time (or can't) your supposed to suck compared to those that do, that's part of the point. Being able to decide "well I'm rich so I'm going to buy my way out of the boring stuff and paying my dues" isn't paticularly fair to those who can't afford to do that, or those who put in the time and effort.

In the end this isn't good for the game, or gaming in general. The only thing it's good for is EA lining it's own pockets.

Of course understand that I am of the opinion that in multiplayer I believe firmly in everyone being equal other than their skill and time investment. I do not believe in "equalizing" things between the serious players and the casuals if the more casual or unskilled players can afford to pay for it, if your a casual player, then you should expect to not be as powerful as the other players who take it more seriously. In any enviroment like this, even PVE games, there is going to be a degree of competition, and that means there are going to be losers, being able to buy your way into the winners circle and get those perks invalidates the entire process.

See, the arguement is double sided. Your casual player argues that he should not be held back because he's unwilling to turn a game into a hobby and make the time committment, or maybe he links the game but is just pants at it and doesn't like that this limits his progress. To him, if he has the money, paying a few bucks to even the playing field seems reasonable. To the more serious player, he feels that the time, effort, and perhaps displayed skill SHOULD get him some rewards. Putting 100 hours a week into a game (if that's what he decides to do) should make him better than someone who might play an hour or two a day and that should be recognized by the game by putting him well above those casual players in every conceivable way. Swiping a credit card should not give someone equal achievements and perks.

Now, to be honest I do understand the problem of being someone who always gets WTFpwned by giants in an established game. However I believe those are the lumps someone needs to take to earn their way up, especially seeing as the first ones playing generally had to pay their own kinds of dues. I feel that monetizing this is not the way to address it however, I think instead more effort needs to be taken to segregate queues such as ensuring PVP in MMORPGs is premade vs. premade, and pug vs. pug, and in all forms of games probably make the amount of time an account has been logged into the game a variable in matchmaking. If you've only played 40 hours in say a month, a queue should try and find people with a similar amount of played time for you, before it sticks you onto a map with people who log that in a week. You can't measure skill levels with a computer (yet) but you can measure that variable which would help, and which to me is a much better idea, and has more gaming integrity, than letting people pay to unlock benefits that are supposed to be earned... even if integrity doesn't put money into industry pockets.

You already said you don't play BF3, so how do you know your 'your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game.'? It's not an MMORPG where the latter weapons are automatically the best. Different people have different styles and use different weapons to suit them. When I play recon (sniper) I use a Semi-automatic rifle with a medium range scope, so the last unlock for that class - a large single shot Anti-Materiel rifle - is of no use to me. It's not 'better' but 'different'.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point - BF3 isn't like an MMORPG, or really like CoD were certain unlocks are vastly superior to others. I believe on paper, or at least to the best of my knowledge, the FAMAS is currently the best weapon in BF3, yet it is far from the most widely used weapon. It is a short range rapid fire weapon, it doesn't suit a lot of playstyles.

The vehicle unlocks certainly make a tank/heli/plane better, but an enemy dies just as good from a M16 as he does from an AN-94.

See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least. For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

tippy2k2:
What does it matter to you where I got my weapons?

Are you unhappy because you can't just kick the piss out of the new players now because they have a way to even the playing field? These packs are not giving them an advantage, these are the same exact weapons that you get.

To go with your chess analogy:
-A player started in November has the full board
-A player starting right now has pawns (seriously, we don't get shit in the beginning)

I just don't see how anyone could possibly see this as a bad thing. You're getting a bunch of new players in the game, some new blood, and allowing them the option to put themselves even with the players who have been playing since November.

I've actually not played BF3 since somewhere when they introduced Back to Karkand, also I've been playing it on PC where this doesn't seem to be available.
It's just the idea that people can basically pay money to cheat themselves to the top that is baffling, every single player so far started at the bottom and worked his way up and that's how it should work. If they wanted to give "everyone a fair chance" they should've designed their game differently without Unlocks, like Counter Strike or Unreal Tournament or whatnot or made them much faster to get.
What they are doing is selling power, pure and simple.

well it's not as if suddenly getting the weapons makes the people have any more skill

i rather have a patch that fixes these awful lagging in the servers. since thursday last week when i got my self this game (PC), i have only problems with it. if i can get my money back, i think i would.
greedy bastards. milk everyone down to the bone.

Dexter111:

tippy2k2:
Not everyone has a shit ton of free time. Some people have multiple jobs, children, things to do, blah blah blah and just want to be able to play BF3 with their friends every so often.

I play probably....once a month with a friend of mine who lives in California. I get destroyed every time because I just don't want to play when I'm alone and he's the only one I know who has the game. This OPTION is nice to have but that's the thing, it's an option. You want to be a "purist"? Don't use the option but it's brilliant on EA's part to gain more players who may have skipped these online games due to not having time.

Sure sounds like a brilliant OPTION to give people putting down money the power to destroy other new players and all the things other people worked on for months.

Yeah, the power to absolutely destroy new players should remain firmly in the hands of those who worked the hardest to get that power. And if you destroy them hard enough, they'll never have a chance to catch up with you. That way, they quit playing and don't become competition for you later.

Hookah:

Therumancer:

Hookah:
[

It's really not 'pay to win' Aside from the vehicle unlocks nothing else is substantially superior to the base weapons. You don't get an advantage over others by paying for this. You save time, there is a fundamental difference. I was just playing it and saw people who were top level using the base guns. On BFBC2 I swore by my AEK-971, even though it was the 'beginner' assault rifle.

It's not really 'monetizing' the ending either - the games been out since November.

I really don't see the problem with this. Its not DLC, its nothing that cannot be acquired through normal gameplay. If people want to pay, that is their prerogative. I still haven't unlocked everything for BF3, and I probably wont, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna pay for it.

Furthermore, as the article states this is nothing new to the BF series. It's not some new extra evil EA plot to cash grab. While I am rarely a fan of EA's actions, sometimes comments on here suggest that people have really lost their objectivity towards them, and just attack everything they do out of hand.

But whatever, if you guys wanna complain about how eeeeeevil EA is on a website, have fun. I'll be off to do something else. Like make a cheese sandwich
Except that it's not a Pay to Win setup. According to this article, everything that you can get with this are items that you can unlock through normal play. You're not getting the Death Star, you're getting weapons that everyone can get.

I've played BF3 a bit and while I'd never pay for something like this, it does suck to start with shit and have to put in a lot of time to get your weapons. Some people value their time more than money (or just plain don't have the time to spare) but still want to be able to play the game.

Actually it is "pay to win" your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game. Your basically paying for an advantage over anyone who hasn't put in the time, or spent the money, and gaining the abillity to dominate them.

Ultimatly if you "want to play" but don't want to put in the time (or can't) your supposed to suck compared to those that do, that's part of the point. Being able to decide "well I'm rich so I'm going to buy my way out of the boring stuff and paying my dues" isn't paticularly fair to those who can't afford to do that, or those who put in the time and effort.

In the end this isn't good for the game, or gaming in general. The only thing it's good for is EA lining it's own pockets.

Of course understand that I am of the opinion that in multiplayer I believe firmly in everyone being equal other than their skill and time investment. I do not believe in "equalizing" things between the serious players and the casuals if the more casual or unskilled players can afford to pay for it, if your a casual player, then you should expect to not be as powerful as the other players who take it more seriously. In any enviroment like this, even PVE games, there is going to be a degree of competition, and that means there are going to be losers, being able to buy your way into the winners circle and get those perks invalidates the entire process.

See, the arguement is double sided. Your casual player argues that he should not be held back because he's unwilling to turn a game into a hobby and make the time committment, or maybe he links the game but is just pants at it and doesn't like that this limits his progress. To him, if he has the money, paying a few bucks to even the playing field seems reasonable. To the more serious player, he feels that the time, effort, and perhaps displayed skill SHOULD get him some rewards. Putting 100 hours a week into a game (if that's what he decides to do) should make him better than someone who might play an hour or two a day and that should be recognized by the game by putting him well above those casual players in every conceivable way. Swiping a credit card should not give someone equal achievements and perks.

Now, to be honest I do understand the problem of being someone who always gets WTFpwned by giants in an established game. However I believe those are the lumps someone needs to take to earn their way up, especially seeing as the first ones playing generally had to pay their own kinds of dues. I feel that monetizing this is not the way to address it however, I think instead more effort needs to be taken to segregate queues such as ensuring PVP in MMORPGs is premade vs. premade, and pug vs. pug, and in all forms of games probably make the amount of time an account has been logged into the game a variable in matchmaking. If you've only played 40 hours in say a month, a queue should try and find people with a similar amount of played time for you, before it sticks you onto a map with people who log that in a week. You can't measure skill levels with a computer (yet) but you can measure that variable which would help, and which to me is a much better idea, and has more gaming integrity, than letting people pay to unlock benefits that are supposed to be earned... even if integrity doesn't put money into industry pockets.

You already said you don't play BF3, so how do you know your 'your paying to obtain a level of power that is only supposed to be in the hands of people who put in the time and obtained the mastery of the game.'? It's not an MMORPG where the latter weapons are automatically the best. Different people have different styles and use different weapons to suit them. When I play recon (sniper) I use a Semi-automatic rifle with a medium range scope, so the last unlock for that class - a large single shot Anti-Materiel rifle - is of no use to me. It's not 'better' but 'different'.

I think a lot of people here are missing the point - BF3 isn't like an MMORPG, or really like CoD were certain unlocks are vastly superior to others. I believe on paper, or at least to the best of my knowledge, the FAMAS is currently the best weapon in BF3, yet it is far from the most widely used weapon. It is a short range rapid fire weapon, it doesn't suit a lot of playstyles.

The vehicle unlocks certainly make a tank/heli/plane better, but an enemy dies just as good from a M16 as he does from an AN-94.

Therumancer:
See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least.

If you do not play the game, how do you have experience of it?

Therumancer:
For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Stats to support your statement. If you can make such a claim you must be able to support it with some factual evidence.

Therumancer:
Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

That is true, but i'm really not to bothered about it. I'll hardly be upset if I start going up against Lvl 1s armed with AEK-971s, it'll still take them time to learn how to use the weapons, what works in what situation, which attachments suit which role. Just because they have a slightly more accurate gun that the base, does not immediately result in them running around the map obliterating all the other newbs.

Therumancer:
See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

If this were true, why did I not more than 2 hours ago come up against several level 50s using the base Assault rifle, LMG, and Sub-machine gun? The base weapons are often the most balanced, with the more advanced ones tending towards an extremity in one area over the other (the F2000 having an incredibly high rate of fire, but awful accuracy, for example).

Therumancer:
I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

I have no real love for EA, I enjoy BF more for playing it with friends than anything fundamental about the mechanics.

Do you really think that many people are going to spend $39.99 for every unlock? It's an overpriced service which is entirely unnecessary. It's only on one platform. The Prothean DLC, now that was a cash grab, aimed directly at fans of the franchise.

Therumancer:
Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

I don't really care for your hyperbolic predictions. The unlock systems in FPS are there to encourage persistence and expand the games lifespan (i'm really not sure why, tbh, doesn't seem that important to keep people playing once you have their cash). This service cuts out the unlocks which are purposefully designed to encourage persistent play. Which actually when I think about it is rather self defeating.

The grinding in MMOs is to encourage the player to sub for the longest period. With something like CoD Elite, we have a cross-over in the two (CoD Elite is a service that is defiantly damaging to gaming, and sets a bad precedent that I hope is not taken up, it also has utterly obnoxious advertising).

I'm already level something over 60, so I don't care. Give a noob an M98B and he'll be happy camping for a day, give me a knife, and I'll be happy for life, nooby snipers. The best thing is, retards will pay for this, only to find that the AK-74M and M16A3 (the starting weapons) are the best guns in the game for Assault class (which is the best class). Sure there are a few perks and stuff to unlock, but nothing you can't get with 10-20 hours of play. And like someone else said, you can kit your jet out with Extinguishers and AGM-65 missiles, only to find me stuck on your tail like glue and chewing you apart with my GAU 12 chaingun, and also that both your new fancy perks suck. Unlocks =/= skill.

I still feel like this is a dirty move, though, even though I couldn't care less... I can't place what it is, but I feel like I should be annoyed.

Considering TF2 already has this same system to some degree, it's hardly innovative. And considering the players of TF2 have not been visibly alienated by that system, it's hardly a problem.
I get hives over the thought of any edge being available to cashiered players, but I don't really read anything in this giving evidence to that being the case.
I say, carry on.

I see nothing wrong with this. They're paying for convenience only. If they're rubbish players paying for better weapons, then they'll just continue shooting walls and empty space with twice as much power. If they're good players, and just want to skip the tedium of unlocking everything, then it just means veterans have more people to shoot faster.

On top of that, I figure that most of the people who either don't have the time or inclination to spend copious amounts of time playing these games, and are actually willing to shell out extra money to ensure they don't miss anything, are just trying to experience as much of the game in as short an amount of time before they move on. ie, they won't be hanging around for long.

Therumancer:
snip

See, you assume that because I don't play something I'm ignorant of it, or the genere, which is not true in the least. For all your protesting, the bottom line is that the weapons are locked for a reason. You, and others, might say they aren't better but apparently more people disagree with you than agree due to this being a viable business strategy. If they were not any big deal, nobody would pay, and EA wouldn't bother trying to do this kind of thing.

Now, your correct that a lot of the weapons, like any shooter with a large arsenal, are probably highly situational. The player who purchuses them still winds up with more options for his load out he wouldn't be entitled to without having put in the time, he's not forced to say make do with a weapon that doesn't ideally suit him and his playstyle until he earns one like people who earned the weapons instead of paying for them probably had to in many cases.

See, if EA was just selling skins, like "make your M-16 look like a Galil" or whatever that would be one thing, but they aren't, they are actually selling weapons with differant, and usually higher levels of performance over more basic weapons.

I understand you like the franchise, and presumably the company from the way your defending it, but this is still a ridiculous money grab, that defeats the entire purpose of having a system where players are supposed to earn anything.

Personally, I think a few years if these trends continue "grinding is for poor people" is going to become the truth of gaming. Whether it's MMO grinding, or grinding in other generes of games where you feed yourself into a veteran meat grinder again and again while you slowly chip away at your unlocks.

The weapons unlock to keep you playing, not to give you an advantage. It's pure Skinner Box mechanics, nothing more, two thousand points more and I get a new rifle, twenty thousand and I get a specialization, forty thousand I get a new camo pack, gotta keep playing must unlock them all. The guns are just different flavours, none are "better" than the others, BF3 is trying to be balanced all the way through, not realistic. Hell, the highest tier weapon unlock you can earn is that the first level weapons are available for both factions. The next gun you unlock isn't better and for some people they are vastly inferior. Plus you want the best equiped players you can find on your side, not some newb who has to switch between two weapons every time you swap sides.

The vehicles are a little different, but do you want newbs who are going to lose your vehicles behind the wheel without a level playing field?

Tribes: Ascend has a similar system and I don't really have a problem with that game, so why would I have a problem with this? Hell, in T:A you have entire classes locked until you either get a good chunk of experience or purchase it for a few bucks. However, the base 3 classes are also all quite good at the roles they do (flag capture for pathfinder, all around for soldier/ base defense for juggernaut.), however, everything is still all available for unlocking in game, it just takes a lot more time. However, from experience, those who are still at a higher rank are typically a LOT better than those who are of lower rank, even if both players have everything unlocked.

If BF3 is even slightly similar to TA these shortcuts shouldn't be gamebreaking.

Paying for a custom server though, is bull.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here