Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I know players are going to complain about this but I really don't see how this is a problem. I don't see any difference between the game being imbalanced because of spent time playing or just spending money to gain that advantage.

Hookah:

Hookah:

Therumancer:

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).

Battlefield 3 is a well known game and pop culture phenomena like CoD, you can't follow gaming like I do without gaining some familiarity with it.

To be honest it's getting to the point where I am going to ignore any demands for "evidence" to something obvious on any topic. EA apparently sells these packs, as the article points out they have done so before, which encourages them to keep doing it. If nobody gained an advantage and purchused them, this would not be an issue. They even call them "shortcuts".

As a word of advice since I run into this a lot, don't demand evidence or proof of something as hyperbole. It makes you look silly. I understand why people do it when they feel in control of a situation (to try and look cool, or to sidestep having to concede a point or do their own research when someone points something out that's easily verifiable). In this case for example this entire discussion exists because of specific events that have already transpired... ie EA providing a "shortcut" to top flight capabilities in the game for real money, with people supporting this enough to make it a viable business. No evidence needed, everything I said was established before this conversation even happened. Semantics games don't a point make.

At any rate, it seems you eventually came to the same conclusion that I did, albiet by a differant path, and for differant reasons so there is no real point to further discussion.

cgentero:
I know players are going to complain about this but I really don't see how this is a problem. I don't see any difference between the game being imbalanced because of spent time playing or just spending money to gain that advantage.

It's like this, if I spend 100 hours or more gradually building up my arsenal of weapons and unlocks, putting in a lot of time and effort, it utterly sucks if some rich kid can walk up, swipe daddy's credit card, and get everything I worked for without having to put in the effort.

All game balance issues aside, having this stuff is a status symbol, having a top tier unlock means you did a lot to earn it. It's cheapened if anyone who want to spend a few bucks can have it too, it's no longer a sign of an accomplishment and mastery of the game.

What's more if you worked your way up from a handfull of basic weapons, to earn your varient and specialized weapons, someone not having to pay the same dues, and just getting the payoff and step in with equivilent gear and options also sucks.

Part of the point of a competitive game is that by playing and sticking with it, or dominating it with skill, you are going to be outright better than other players, when people no longer have to earn that stuff it defeats part of the entire point of the competition.

octafish:

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?

Again, it's up to the newbs to go through the trials and tribulations to learn to play and stop being newbs, not to be handed the keys to success right off the bat. Dealing with the problem finding teams and so on is exactly one of the things a newb is supposed to go through, ditto for getting pwned by everyone. It's not nice, but it's part of the process, and letting rich people buy their way out of it is unfair to those who can't pay extra money for the unlocks, as ell as being unfair to those who tolerated the grind to get to the top and had to pay those same dues. In any multiplayer game, whether it's an action game, or an MMO, the newb phase is sort of like "hell week" the phase everyone goes through and brings them into the community. Part of what makes it fun to pick on newbs is the knowlege that the people doing it were there to begin with, and knowing those newbs will eventually get through it if they stick to it. I think it actually builds stronger communities.

That newb should have to make due with his two guns and slowly work his way up. Also saying that the new guns "aren't superior for everyone" doesn't mean much since by definition they are superior for some people, and the greater degree of options means a Newb is more likely to find an ideal weapon for his play style, as opposed to having to make due as a newb is supposed to do... and heck, even you mention the vehicles DO present an advantage.

Even if they were purely cosmetic, just by being unlocks they should remain that way, because those models are a sign that you played and paid your dues to earn them. Someone who just drops money to get them cheapens the whole value and the achievement.

Now if EA was selling models for guns that aren't otherwise in the game, say a Galil skin for the M-16 that doesn't change anything about it or whatever (basically some gun's appearance that isn't in the game) that be one thing, but when it comes to selling gear with differant stats that have an actual gameplay effect, and are supposed to be earned, I can't agree with that in any genere of game.

I would never buy it but its hardly "pay to win". Skill is a determining factor, and the way Dice have gone about the game, some weapons are just reskins of others anyway. (though that is ocming from someone who is playing the PC version which is yet to be patched...)

Hookah:

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

really ? which one ?

not that i care after the "try harder" remark.

ah, to be a teenager before you realised "logic" was bullshit...

Therumancer:

cgentero:
I know players are going to complain about this but I really don't see how this is a problem. I don't see any difference between the game being imbalanced because of spent time playing or just spending money to gain that advantage.

It's like this, if I spend 100 hours or more gradually building up my arsenal of weapons and unlocks, putting in a lot of time and effort, it utterly sucks if some rich kid can walk up, swipe daddy's credit card, and get everything I worked for without having to put in the effort.

All game balance issues aside, having this stuff is a status symbol, having a top tier unlock means you did a lot to earn it. It's cheapened if anyone who want to spend a few bucks can have it too, it's no longer a sign of an accomplishment and mastery of the game.

What's more if you worked your way up from a handfull of basic weapons, to earn your varient and specialized weapons, someone not having to pay the same dues, and just getting the payoff and step in with equivilent gear and options also sucks.

Part of the point of a competitive game is that by playing and sticking with it, or dominating it with skill, you are going to be outright better than other players, when people no longer have to earn that stuff it defeats part of the entire point of the competition.

You make it sound like skill and gaming ability have nothing to do with winning.

Buretsu:
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.

You're right of course, my bad... that power should go solely to the people with the most money to spend, not the people who played the game for months to unlock everything... where was my mind?
If you have a problem with the way the game is designed, then you have a problem with the way the game is designed, but that doesn't justify selling power for money.

Buretsu:

Therumancer:

cgentero:
I know players are going to complain about this but I really don't see how this is a problem. I don't see any difference between the game being imbalanced because of spent time playing or just spending money to gain that advantage.

It's like this, if I spend 100 hours or more gradually building up my arsenal of weapons and unlocks, putting in a lot of time and effort, it utterly sucks if some rich kid can walk up, swipe daddy's credit card, and get everything I worked for without having to put in the effort.

All game balance issues aside, having this stuff is a status symbol, having a top tier unlock means you did a lot to earn it. It's cheapened if anyone who want to spend a few bucks can have it too, it's no longer a sign of an accomplishment and mastery of the game.

What's more if you worked your way up from a handfull of basic weapons, to earn your varient and specialized weapons, someone not having to pay the same dues, and just getting the payoff and step in with equivilent gear and options also sucks.

Part of the point of a competitive game is that by playing and sticking with it, or dominating it with skill, you are going to be outright better than other players, when people no longer have to earn that stuff it defeats part of the entire point of the competition.

You make it sound like skill and gaming ability have nothing to do with winning.

Perhaps, but they have even less to do with it when someone can just buy all the perks.

My basic attitude is that skill and gaming abillity do figure into it, but so does simple persistance, and truthfully I think persistance is the key to success for most people since in the end only a few people are ever going to really be on top. What's more persistance and practice is how people tend to develop the skills.

As odd as it sounds, I think being a newb and having to fight past that is part of what helps people develop skill, in any type of game, and if they don't ever become skilled, they at least tend to learn patience and how to follow directions and support better players.

Honestly, IDGAF about this. The first few games are pretty crap until you get some good equipment, and evening the odds is a nice idea - even if you do have to pay. You're not sacrificing anything by not paying, you're just less likely to enjoy your first few matches than someone who pays more. It doesn't disrupt game balance - hell, it actually helps preserve it really - and it doesn't add any unobtainable content. Really, I see nothing wrong with this. Now, if they then added new guns to these packs that were only available by buying these - then I'd have a problem - but this is the sort of microtransaction done in other games these days too. Those willing to pay get a headstart, but others will always catch up to them simply by playing the games.

Dexter111:

Buretsu:
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.

You're right of course, my bad... that power should go solely to the people with the most money to spend, not the people who played the game for months to unlock everything... where was my mind?

Oh, I see. When they buy the stuff, it gets taken away from you somehow. Or maybe you're just not getting enough validation. Maybe they can put a un-buyable special icon to separate you from "them"...

I definitely don't feel all that comfortable about this. That being said, I don't necessarily think that this sort of thing shouldn't be done, it's just that it seems like something that would need to have a very fine equilibrium between how much time it takes to unlock things, what you get for your money etc. Going slightly too far either could very well end in quite an uproar. However, if someone wants to pay to get somewhere quicker, then I guess that that could/should be an option?

Just as a sidenote: it's still the job of the dev team to make sure that the game is still relatively balanced, irrespective of what level people are at. In my experience, games that don't do this very well don't really seem to get that much traction either way.

as I've been up for 26 hours and counting, I don't really want to read all the comments, so I'll just say this: I'm ok with it. Why? Well because it doesn't matter! As the Assault class, you start out with the M16A4 on the US side (correct me if I'm wrong). That's a perfectly good weapon. Mostly all of them are! Now to get your heavy barrel, foregrip and scope, you need 30 kills with this weapon. Thirty. You can manage that in 2 rounds of rush if you're halfway decent. The specializations take a little more time, but most people carry squad specializations now, so it won't really hurt in any meaningful way. And who the fuck cares enough about camouflage to pay money for it?

If you buy this just to unlock the mortar though, I will find you and fart in your mouth as you sleep.

Was happy to finally get everything for all four classes unlocked playing the game as usual, and you know what? This pack is not the end of the world. If anything, it gives the newbie who picks up the game right now a fighting chance against people who have been grinding for five months.

If you picked up a brand new copy of BF3 and put it into the PS3 right now, you would get horribly destroyed. While the "default" gear is all right, some of the higher tier guns and abilities are needed to participate in the high level meta-game. See: Recon MAV, Assault Grenade launcher, Support Claymores/Mortars, and Engineer SAM missiles/EOD bot.

Note that people who were in on the game day 1 were fighting other people who were day 1, so they were on even footing. At this point, the people who are "new" are far outweighed by "the vets" who have all their gear by this point. Mister elite level 50 right now had a much easier grind "back in the day" than the newb just playing his first game tonight because of this. I know I'm glad I got my classes all unlocked back in November rather than today.

I agree with the notion that this is a cynical money grab on EA's part though, as the ideal solution would be to make the class unlock leveling grind smoother, and the weapons better balanced. It still won't help that you actually have to get good at the game and learn the maps though. But in all honesty I can't blame a guy for wanting to pay five bucks to have a jet or chopper with flares/stealth/rocket pods day 1.

Oh look. EA is trying to make BF3 multiplayer use a free to play model, except they are still charging 40 for it. Yep, im glad I didn't buy this game. Im actully kinda surprised I don't like this, the reason I didn't buy it was because of the unlocking crap so this should make me happy if anything, it's just that this is the same thing free to play games do, except they are free. I really can't see this as anything other than EA being greedy.

Berenzen:
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.

The difference is that Tribes: Ascend is a free to play game. As in you didn't have to pay 40 to buy it.

This might actually be a problem if having the all the guns actually meant a goddamn shit as far as your skill goes . Calm down, people.

You could do this in BC2 as well, it didn't break the game. The idiots that buy these shortcut packs thinking they'll have the upper edge won't have a clue on what is better than what, and will struggle to get acquainted with how shooting feels and how weapons handle in BF3.

Therumancer:
Perhaps, but they have even less to do with it when someone can just buy all the perks.

They're not perks. This isn't Call of Duty. They're guns and equipment/camo. Each gun is balanced out by another gun. Each Spec is cancelled by another. You're not buying your way to winning games, you're buying your way through the upgrade tree.

If you suck, you aren't going to do any better because you have the extended Mag and Squad Sprint or something...

Dandark:
Oh look. EA is trying to make BF3 multiplayer use a free to play model, except they are still charging 40 for it. Yep, im glad I didn't buy this game.

I like people who decide what a game is like and then state they didn't buy it. Drink your kool-aid, then, go on...

Therumancer:
Battlefield 3 is a well known game and pop culture phenomena like CoD, you can't follow gaming like I do without gaining some familiarity with it.

"I've never actually played this game but I've read about it so it's basically the same thing."

I'm sorry, did you even read this bit that you typed? Battlefield is not political news. You don't "follow it" and gain familiarity with it. You either play the goddamn game and know what you're talking about or you accept that you have not played it and therefore are not qualified to pass judgements on its addons and accessories.

Dexter111:

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.

They might be selling the best weapons but if you put a bunch of new player with all the weapons against a bunch of players who started playing in November and gave them only the starting weapons the experienced players will win because battlefield is designed so the team that plays the best wins not like COD where the team with the best weapons and kill streaks wins.

Dexter111:

Buretsu:
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.

You're right of course, my bad... that power should go solely to the people with the most money to spend, not the people who played the game for months to unlock everything... where was my mind?
If you have a problem with the way the game is designed, then you have a problem with the way the game is designed, but that doesn't justify selling power for money.

Last I checked the gun didn't make the player. You can give them "ubergun2000" but if they don't know wtf they're doing it's not going to make a difference.

the same goes for vehicles. In fact it makes more sense for those. Example: Jet combat. I don't see a new pilot being able to do a damn thing to someone with Air Radar/Extinguishers/etc. They'd be lucky to get any points in the jet period without flares to save their ass from stingers/heat seekers. This gives them a means of playing on somewhat even ground, just without the experience to back it up.

I'm not going to say it's not a sort of money grab, but it does make the game more approachable to people who didn't get in on the ground floor. That's never a bad thing for extending the game's life span. Maybe EA is banking on trying to pick up a few burnt out CoD players looking for something new. Can't blame them for trying, but I seriously doubt I'm going to get my shit kicked in by a noob just cause he's packing a USAS-12 now.

Therumancer:
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.

Except that no exclusive, superior content is made available for customers who pay extra, which is what Pay2Win means. Star Trek Online is a great example of it, as they sell superior ships solely for real money, you can't get them any other way. BF3 doesn't do that, hence no Pay2Win.

Not to mention that buying those high level guns doesn't buy you gameplay experience, which is very important in a shooter. BF3 isn't as dependent on good stats or gear as an MMO is, not even nearly. A beginner wielding a high-level rifle is still going to get his ass kicked by a veteran using a low-level gun.

Is it a greedy and pretty lame move? Yeah. Does it hurt your gameplay experience and put the non-paying customer back? No.

LiquidSolstice:

Therumancer:
Battlefield 3 is a well known game and pop culture phenomena like CoD, you can't follow gaming like I do without gaining some familiarity with it.

"I've never actually played this game but I've read about it so it's basically the same thing."

I'm sorry, did you even read this bit that you typed? Battlefield is not political news. You don't "follow it" and gain familiarity with it. You either play the goddamn game and know what you're talking about or you accept that you have not played it and therefore are not qualified to pass judgements on its addons and accessories.

Incorrect, Battlefield 3 is similar enough to other games that I have played where it's handfull of tweaks and changes hardly put it into truely alien territory. None of it's concepts are paticularly original, and I understand what your trying to say entirely, I just happen to disagree with you.

All attempts to argue with me are pretty much invalidated by the simple fact that the unlocks are functional rewards people work to unlock, and are seen as worthwhile bonuses which is why people pursue them. It is wrong for someone who has not done the work to be able to obtain the perks by paying real money... period.

I understand you disagree with me, but at least get it right, that's a matter of your opinion, not some kind of absolute fact reinforced by my ignorance.

If these purchuses did nothing for those buying them, there wouldn't be a market out there for EA to exploit by making them availible. It doesn't matter how much YOU think they don't influance the game, the entire point of the sale is that they do, which is why people purchuse the shortcuts.

Nothing new here, EA did the same to NFS The Run - you could buy an unlock pack that unlocked all the cars, avatars and backgrounds. I personally dislike it and would never use it myself but I know a lot of people bought it.

Therumancer:
It doesn't matter how much YOU think they don't influance the game, the entire point of the sale is that they do, which is why people purchuse the shortcuts.

Yes it does, because we players know how much it influences the game. You do not. And we players can tell you that these shortcuts do not influence the game in a negative way. We've seen this in Bad Company 2 already. Where's your argument against it except for "Well that's just my opinion."

Am I the only one who got all the Co-Op weapons when they made that patch a few months back? Because I think that might have been a glitch.

Cowabungaa:

Therumancer:
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.

Except that no exclusive, superior content is made available for customers who pay extra, which is what Pay2Win means. Star Trek Online is a great example of it, as they sell superior ships solely for real money, you can't get them any other way. BF3 doesn't do that. Not to mention that buying those high level guns doesn't buy you gameplay experience, which is very important in a shooter. BF3 isn't as dependent on good stats or gear as an MMO is, not even nearly.

Is it a greedy and pretty lame move? Yeah. Does it hurt your gameplay experience and put the non-paying customer back? No.

Actually it does, because your looking at people getting perks they did not earn within the game. Someone getting something for mere money that someone else has to earn defeats the entire purpose of it being a reward for good play and committment.

Also, in reality most gaming, especially when it comes to shooters and such, does not generally involve "superman" going up against some complete scrub, though that does happen. For most players that are in the average catagory, access to more and better/more specialized guns with a higher chance of finding their ideal weapon can provide a decisive edge over a player that they would have been balanced against skillwise to begin with. Granted some scrub isn't going to be able to pwn the experts with thus stuff, but your typical player is going to have an edge against other players of his skill level who haven't spent the money.

Your right about STO to an extent, the ships are mostly an excuse to get the free players to donate money to the game. It's defended by the simple fact that nowadays you can convert dilithium into cryptic points, and Cryptic itself puts points up on the market for people to obtain that way. Your typical "free player" is limited to being able to refine 8000 dilithium a day, but with two characters who can make the 2000 cps needed to buy a top tier ship in a month of solid play and doing daily dilithium missions. Paid players wind up getting no limits on dilithium refinement, and receive 400 cps per month their account is active.

Don't get me wrong it's a borked system, but it's also not making pretensions of having a level playing field based around skill, as it's quite frank about there being "levels" of players with differant perks and ease of play. If you play STO you sign up for that, as opposed to this apparently being added into B3 well after launch despite other EA games having done it. Had B3 launched with this active and announced this system before the game came out (which does not seem to be the case) I'd have a somewhat differant attitude about it.

I do play STO casually and have given them a bit of money, indeed it's one of the only FTP games I've supported (and I have my reasons beyond the gameplay advantages which I won't go into since it would be increasingly off subject). The thing is I knew what I was signing up for, and truthfully if it wasn't for the dilithium exchange they probably wouldn't have gotten me to stick around even to the extent that I play. When it comes to B3 the fact that this is being annouced now, makes it pretty clear that this wasn't part of the package when most of the players started... and that's a big part of why I think it's ridiculous.

Cowabungaa:

Therumancer:
It doesn't matter how much YOU think they don't influance the game, the entire point of the sale is that they do, which is why people purchuse the shortcuts.

Yes it does, because we players know how much it influences the game. You do not. And we players can tell you that these shortcuts do not influence the game in a negative way. We've seen this in Bad Company 2 already. Where's your argument against it except for "Well that's just my opinion."

That is my opinion, just as what your saying is your opinion, you don't speak for anyone other than yourself. Trying to make pretensions of speaking for a group just makes you look silly in cases like this.

I don't have a problem with this. It's not as if you HAVE to pay to unlock certain things, and the price seems fairly steep for people who want to take the easy route, and besides, these newer players with high level kit ain't gonna be experienced with it. In a fairly tactical, hardcore online shooter like BF3, that makes all the difference.

Therumancer:
I detest "pay to win" mechanics of this sort, it undermines the entire point of putting in the time and mastery and ultimately 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.

I don't fully agree with that assessment.

I started out in the Beta, and then the Alpha. I played the unfinished multiplayer so much pre-release that I needed a break when it was actually released.

That meant that I came in about a month later than everyone else, and I can only say that some of those unlocks are a huge pain to acquire when everyone else on the battlefield already has them.

A great example is for the planes, 'cus if you don't have Stealth, you will be shot down by AA missiles before your manage a kill, and it has only gotten worse for newbies since then.

I can sorta follow the line of thinking that you unlock the items as you learn the game, but it actually does take a very, very long time to unlock some of these things, and you will certainly have learned what needs to be learned long before you unlock the last item in any of the progression trees.

Calling it "Pay to Win", when it's only really useful for new players coming in, seems somewhat ignorant to me, I have to admit.

At least, I know I've been in places, both when I started out in BF3, but certainly also in other games, where this sort of thing would have added to the enjoyment quite a bit, while not really making a difference for other players.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, what the hell is up with everyone going "OMG!!! F2P!!! 4Shame EA! /cry"

Paying for this is not gonna make your performance better. Are some weapons arguably better than others in the same class? Sure. But it's still 85% skill + 10% weapon familiarity + 5% actual weapon that makes that happen. The weapons themselves are such a tiny part of the equation.

And as I said above, theres a huge difference between it being an option now, or at release. At release, I would have been up in arms, surely, but right now we have everyone and their mums running around with all of this stuff anyway, which means it's only really useful as a shoe-in for new players. I don't see the harm.

Therumancer:

It's like this, if I spend 100 hours or more gradually building up my arsenal of weapons and unlocks, putting in a lot of time and effort, it utterly sucks if some rich kid can walk up, swipe daddy's credit card, and get everything I worked for without having to put in the effort.

All game balance issues aside, having this stuff is a status symbol, having a top tier unlock means you did a lot to earn it. It's cheapened if anyone who want to spend a few bucks can have it too, it's no longer a sign of an accomplishment and mastery of the game.

What's more if you worked your way up from a handful of basic weapons, to earn your variant and specialized weapons, someone not having to pay the same dues, and just getting the payoff and step in with equivalent gear and options also sucks.

Part of the point of a competitive game is that by playing and sticking with it, or dominating it with skill, you are going to be outright better than other players, when people no longer have to earn that stuff it defeats part of the entire point of the competition.

As far as I can see, your whole "status symbol" issue is taken care of. First of all, having all weapons in BF3 is not a status symbol, but rather the "mastery" dog-tag unlocks are, as well as your experience level. Both of those won't be affected by this.

The foot-soldier equipment is only gonna have a very small effect on game balance. A bad players with a huge gun is still gonna get decimated.

Some of the vehicle unlocks are downright necessary to start using vehicles at this point, as without them you will be killed long before you have a chance to get unlock points. That's sort of a broken system, and there are better ways to fix that, but at least this is a way to get around it for whomever really wants to fly those planes so bad.

About the whole "defeats the point of the competition", you're kinda looking at it wrong. The competition isn't and has never been about the unlocks. Just look at the scores, and who wins. Who has what weapons and how they got them shouldn't be an issue, unless those weapons aren't obtainable for you.

Honestly, I don't wanna instigate anything, but that part just made it sound like you have low self esteem and vanity issues.

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.

In this case, I don't see "pay to win." People who are just now getting the game, logging in to play, and getting stomped aren't having much fun. I've been "that guy" in plenty of games like that. The problem? After awhile, new people just stop coming, and the game slowly becomes a ghost town without new blood.

You've got plenty of vets that really want new people to play with/against. And you've got other vets that... what? Want new people to join the game, but spend the first few weeks as easy targets to pad the vets' kill scores?

Now, when I first read the title, I thought this was going to be about some kind of shortcuts through the map that would only be accessible to those that buy them. That would be "pay to win," for sure.

Soviet Heavy:

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.

Either that or the man is being sarcastic. I kinda got that vibe.

OT: Eh, I could care less, I stuck to my boycott of not paying for any game EA put's stupid requirements on. I'll just ask a friend for a copy down the line instead if i really want to play it.

Sleekit:

Hookah:

Sleekit:
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

really ? which one ?

not that i care after the "try harder" remark.

ah, to be a teenager before you realised "logic" was bullshit...

It's fallacious because it's a false equivalency. In WoW, the endgame items are demonstrably better than other items. An Experimental Specimen Slicer is quite clearly better than a Pit Lord's Destroyer. A Dragonwrath, Tarecgosa's Rest is better than a Ti'tahk. A Maw of the Dragonlord is better than a Scepter of Azshara. There's no two ways about it. That's just how it is.

In BF3, it's more of a matter of taste and feel. (In theory) The guns should all be pretty much equal to one another, whereas in WoW that's quite clearly not the case.

Check out the Best in Slot (BiS) list for WoW and then try to find an equivalent, vetted and generally agreed upon list for BF3. I can almost guarantee that no such list exists.

 Pages PREV 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