Battlefield 3 Update Includes Paid "Shortcuts"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Have they fixed the bugs yet?
Like, being unable to connect, freezing and not having a gun?
No, seriously. Are they going to fix the game or just shove more crap in it?

Completely pointless considering some of the stuff you start off with are still some of the best weapons you can get.

-cough- M16A4 -cough-

Mneh, I've seen this sort of stuff before, and I think it's alright. They're not selling a permanent advantage, and it's only going to help people who are A) Lazy and will probably stop playing in a short while or B) people who don't have much time to play.

So yeah, go them...

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.

Tribes Ascend also has Jetpacks and Skiing. Thats whats most important really.

But id have to agree. Systems like this have been in place for years in the free to play scene. The idea really is that people value their time more than their money, and so will pay to unlock things that would otherwise require time investment. Ive played 55 hours of Bad Company 2, and Im only level 15 out of 50. If theres a weapon I want, I want it now, and would probably pay a dollar or two for it rather than playing for 10 hours just to try it.

They did it with Bad Company 2, they also threw in extra costumes with some of the shortcuts, so I don't care if they do it in 3. If people want to get weapons by paying, go ahead, I'll just keep playing the game to get my stuff.

If people are dumb enough to pay for this let them.

Although knowing EA their next attempt will be selling a shooter with only one weapon and then setting up an online marketplace with all the different weapons for you to spend your hard earn money on.

This is the kind of stuff that could potentially set a dangerous precedent. And it's what video game journalists should discuss.

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.

I disagree. I have no problem with EA doing this and pretty much appreciate it. There are no "cheap weapons" in the game. Everything is very balanced (although that damn shot gun slug from across the map thing's a bitch). What you're really getting when you get new weapons is something that might fit your play style better, or it might be a gun you just normally like more for w/e reason (P90 seems to be a favorite regardless of map... because the P90's just cool like that).

There are several weapons in the assignment things I just can't be bothered to unlock because I pretty much only play conquest rush... so to be able to pay for them? awesome!

Battlefield is really mostly designed to be playable without any unlocks, especially infantry wise (all vehicle unlocks are beneficial). What you get with unlocks is more utility and less advantage, most things you get have a downside as well as an upside.

And considering how long the game's been out, even the most casual BF3 player could've unlocked most, if not all things by now. This just allows new people to jump right in and be able to play with what they want. It's also very much not necessary for the most part, as getting weapons gradually will let you try them out gradually rather than be forced to choose from a billion of them (along with all the following upgrades).

All in all, don't really care. What I'm wondering is why this is only available on the PS3.

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.

While I have BF3 on Xbox 360, the fact that this was only done for PS3 and not the other two platforms makes me think that perhaps PlayStation owners don't really give a toss about Battlefield 3.

Personally with the exception of that god damn USAS with Frag Rounds; it is a fairly "solid" multiplayer experience... even if the icons, crosshairs, parts of the map disappaear and you can effortlessly leap from tall buildings but hope over a 6" high kurb entails several attempts followed by an odd insta-death, plus there are some issues with tank audio disappearing allowing them to 'sneak' up on you... etc, etc, etc... well I never said it wasn't a buggy game, but it is fun.

It also doesn't actually take that long to unlock everything. Seriously, I'm not exactly Mr. Awesome McHeadshot at the game, but took me about 3 Days (72 hours) to unlock all of the weaponry even the B2K ones which are a bitch because of certain requirements. In real life time this took me about 3 months, which is easily done on the weekends off and made much more entertaining with friends who also happen to own the game and constantly ask you to play.

This all said though, generally speaking I still prefer most of the starter weapons and a couple of the B2K ones which are some of the quickest to unlock if you grind away at the assignments. There are no truely "You will own once you unlock this.." weapon, if you're a Call of Duty person shedding tears for Noobtubes; simply kill 30 people with any shotgun, unlock frag rounds then play on Sienne or Metro Conquest; I guarentee you will finish with a positive K/D and level up a damn sight quicker.

It's the same if you focus on objectives and simply thrown down ammo/heal or heal tanks constantly. The game honestly rewards people who are total pussies and don't want to really get involved.

There have been more than a few games where I have gone 30-5 yet some fucker who is 0-0 or 0-10 has beat me by a massive margin for game MVP because he was stood behind everyone reviving them and throwing out heats as if they were tic-tacs.

Point being here that really these packs are totally unnecessary, and those who feel the need to purchase them should probably stop playing an FPS; and try something easier like LittleBigPlanet. I dunno, as I said this feels an awful lot like they're trying to encourage more PS3 players to actually bother playing the game with the promise of all these "super weapons" which realistically might get people to play for a little longer but it is little more than a plaster solution.

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.

This man gets it. It's not "pay to win", it's "my time is more valuable than this" (as the title says, shortcuts). Some people (like me) need the progression and unlocks as a draw to continue with the game (when unlocks in TF2 went random I suddenly lost interest in it...), but others just want to play with all the options. Thats fine - especially since I expect that, as with other BF games, the starting guns actually turn out to be hella good once you get accustomed to the game.

I don't have a problem with this because each unlock set only takes a few dozen hours of fun gameplay, and the unlocks aren't particularly important for the battlefield. If someone has money to blow, let them, I'll take the free and fun route. As long as they can still be gotten by normal grinding, I've no qualms.

Leyvin:

While I have BF3 on Xbox 360, the fact that this was only done for PS3 and not the other two platforms makes me think that perhaps PlayStation owners don't really give a toss about Battlefield 3.

360 is getting the same update and the same shortcut options, actually. The update is just being released a little bit later. Which sucks for me because I want those damn USAS+Frag assholes nerfed right goddamn now.

But anyway, without stats on how many people are actually buying the shortcuts (these shortcuts were also sold in BF:BC2), we can't say that PS3 players are that thrifty with their money just yet.

Wait , how is this fair? Rank 1 people will have the advantage on other rank 1s if they pay more . This is terrible . Everyone seems to be focus on the experienced players and ignore the new rank 1s that don't pay .

Captcha : public good .

Anyone else is startin to thing that the captcha can read their minds?

Paying for a Custom server is shit.

But this whole anger makes me laugh. I am currently rank 49 and look forward to new players. Give a noob access to the M60, which is unlocked at a later stage, the noob will still be crap if he was just using the starter LMG. Time makes players better at the game, not weapons. I for one, would like the Co OP guns, but hate the missions. If I could get them like this, I would probably do it. Anyway, with this huge patch being realised soon, that fixes glitches and bugs, even noobs with good guns will find it hard to spam.

Its not like the noobs will suddenly turn into gods while playing, just because they have early access to say, the P90.

Also, get over it. IT IS A GAME PEOPLE! I'm sure if given the chance, some of you complainers would have jumped at the chance to use the M98B or the AS VAL when you got the game during the early stages.

I havnt played battlefield in a while since I quit because of several game breaking bugs but I think this is a great idea. If you started playing now you literally could not ever use a jet. You would get in it and die in two seconds without all the necessary unlocks. This makes it extremely unfriendly to new players which in turn hurts the game. This is not paying to give you an advantage this is paying money to remove the enormous disadvantage new players have with vehicles. The weapon unlocks are pretty meaningless since after the first two or three you get they dont matter. The later weapons are not any more powerful then the starter ones.

Giving a new player these unlocks will not put them on the same level as somebody who has been playing for six months but what it will do is help them live longer then five seconds. If you are using a gun in battlefield then skill is more important then unlocks. If you are using a vehicle however then ya unlocks are far more important then skill.

Leyvin:

While I have BF3 on Xbox 360, the fact that this was only done for PS3 and not the other two platforms makes me think that perhaps PlayStation owners don't really give a toss about Battlefield 3.

Actually all Battlefield 3 related content comes to the PS3 first and then the other systems later.

I've no problem with this. It makes no difference how long it takes someone to unlock a weapon. Now, if only they could fix the commo-rose spam bug.

Dexter111:
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?

its not superiority, you can get all the stuff ingame anyway?

infact this is a good thing as it gives new players a fair route into having all those options they are currently denied due to being late to the party.

krazykidd:
Wait , how is this fair? Rank 1 people will have the advantage on other rank 1s if they pay more . This is terrible . Everyone seems to be focus on the experienced players and ignore the new rank 1s that don't pay .

Captcha : public good .

Anyone else is startin to thing that the captcha can read their minds?

really the only benefits that come from the unlocks are vehicle based ones, which are horrible as all hell to unlock. The core gameplay stuff mostly comes unlocked and the starter weapons can go toe to toe with all the unlocks.

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.

the status symbols remain in the form of medals and dogtags, you know the things that actually tally what you did. You want to prove your good? do well in a match.

WanderingFool:
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?

I think that's a pretty healthy attitude. Let's be honest -- you're still going to kick their butts even with their shiny new toys. You have experience with the weapons, the maps and the nuances of classes that they just won't be able to match.

Marshall Honorof:

...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.

What? Did you just call that controversial? A feature that has been around on PC games since forever, and that BF3 itself has had on PC since day 1?

How in the world is that controversial? Because it's new to consoles?

Should I ask more questions?

Anyway, as for the weapon unlocks: meh. I got the L96 sniper rifle with Back to Karkand and it's the 2nd best rifle available until the M98B which I just unlocked.

All in all I've got under 70 hrs played with all the Main Battle Tank unlocks, most of the Recon, a bunch of Engineer (1 past Javelin I think), and making headway on Support and other vehicles (just got the extinguisher in Attack Helicopters).

I think as far as class weapons go the only somewhat OP one to purchase is the Javelin as that is the ultimate anti-vehicle weapon (besides a tank). However, when it comes to vehicles, there are some pretty powerful upgrades. I drive around in a tank with reactive armor, infrared, and a side machine gun. I can basically mow down any number of infantry and usually take out enemy tanks as well with ease. Granted, a noob driver will probably die to my tactics, but it's still a powerful setup even for a beginner. So that's kind of unfair, I guess. I don't really mind though.

Every gun in BF3 is balanced against the rest. No unlock is "better" than any other. In fact, I've had all of the weapons unlocked for a considerable amount of time and on 3 out of the 4 classes, I primarily use either the starting level weapon or the first unlock for the class. The game's weapons are more of a "what works better for you and your playstyle" rather than what works better overall.

Paying for an unlock package doesn't give any advantage, just more options. If it helps bring in more new people, then I'm all for it. Statistically for every 500 new players there will be 3 that will actually drop ammo and medkits. Besides, having the guns is one thing, unlocking the attachments comes later.

I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion to this game and convinced my boyfriend not to buy the game. Microtransactions in games piss me off to no end.

It's the reason I'm telling everyone I know to ignore Guild Wars 2 on release.

Wolfram23:

Marshall Honorof:

...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.

What? Did you just call that controversial? A feature that has been around on PC games since forever, and that BF3 itself has had on PC since day 1?

How in the world is that controversial? Because it's new to consoles?

"Controversial" only in that you're required to pay for them. I admit I'm not a huge competitive multiplayer guy, but is it common to pay for rental servers in other multiplayer shooters (save for other Battlefield games, anyway)?

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?

If none of the weapons are desgined to be statistically superior to the starter ones, then all you're doing is making yourself look like an old man who can't tolerate things getting more convenient.

There's no problems with this scenario. It's not pay to win, and if weapons aren't superior, players using them won't be superior either. People with less time tend to have more money, and now they can use that. It evens up the field more than it creates discrepancies, and partially solves the "nolifers getting way ahead of everyone else" problem.

The real problem is why did the game have a price to begin with. If this marks the beginning of the transitional period that ends with all multiplayer games becoming free to play, it's going to be a pretty painful transitional period.

tippy2k2:

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.

Are we really getting new players? If I was going to buy a game for $60 and then then I also had to pay another $40 just to make the multiplayer fair I'd shit myself laughing at the audacity.

I'm of the opposite school of thought here. I just don't see how anyone can see "By the way you can fork over 3/4th the cost of the game to not get your ass handed to you" is enticing to anyone.

Therumancer:

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.

There is nothing to disagree or agree with. It's not your opinion, it's your ignorance. You have not played the game, ergo you are not qualified to decide the merits or potential game-breaking manner of any DLC/shortcuts that are offered for it.

Get over it. If you have played Bad Company 2 (which I doubt you have), you'd know they did this as well but it did nothing whatsoever to break the game. Why? Because the game is not affected by what gun you use or what attachment you use. If you don't understand how the game works, you're not going to win your games just because you have guns and attachments unlocked. It is not an RPG, it's a well-balanced FPS.

You can keep throwing me your walls of text, but all you keep saying is "Uh, no, I've read about it, I don't need to play it, and don't bother trying to argue with me, because I'm right and you're wrong and you don't get it, even if you've played this game and it's predecessor and know that it doesn't mean anything". You're hilarious. And sad :(

Grey Day for Elcia:
I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion to this game and convinced my boyfriend not to buy the game. Microtransactions in games piss me off to no end.

It's the reason I'm telling everyone I know to ignore Guild Wars 2 on release.

Again, it makes me pull off a sad smile when I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played was indeed not worth buying because of changes that don't even affect the game.

Marshall Honorof:

Wolfram23:

Marshall Honorof:

...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.

What? Did you just call that controversial? A feature that has been around on PC games since forever, and that BF3 itself has had on PC since day 1?

How in the world is that controversial? Because it's new to consoles?

"Controversial" only in that you're required to pay for them. I admit I'm not a huge competitive multiplayer guy, but is it common to pay for rental servers in other multiplayer shooters (save for other Battlefield games, anyway)?

Now-a-days it is, or if you wanted anything with a high capacity load. Back in the old days (and Crysis, god bless 'em) anyone could essentially run a server whenever they wanted. The games just came with the sever software and you would just turn it on and allow people to connect to you.

Now most games have official "sanctioned server providers" so to speak, so they can eliminate the servers that allow pirated copies of the game to connect to them. You have to pay money for these.

This isn't the best solution because now you can't run a game on a LAN. I remember last LAN party myself and friends had we all tried to play bad company 2. You ever tried to get 20 people online with a single home internet connection? We all had like a 900 ping.

LiquidSolstice:

Grey Day for Elcia:
I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion to this game and convinced my boyfriend not to buy the game. Microtransactions in games piss me off to no end.

It's the reason I'm telling everyone I know to ignore Guild Wars 2 on release.

Again, it makes me pull off a sad smile when I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played was indeed not worth buying because of changes that don't even affect the game.

"I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion."

That would mean I do own the game (why would I think about buying the xpac for a game I don't own?). I can see it in my Origin list right now, lol.

AC10:
I'm of the opposite school of thought here. I just don't see how anyone can see "By the way you can fork over 3/4th the cost of the game to not get your ass handed to you" is enticing to anyone.

I promise you this; take someone who's new to BF3 and pit them against someone with a month's worth of experience. Give the newbie the shortcut package, let the veteran use what he/she has unlocked.

Newbie will STILL get ass handed to self. I promise you that. This is not fanboyism. This is just the sheer fact that people can't seem to process; what specific gun you use has a negligible impact on the success or failure of a round. What class of guns you're using will matter, because you'll have to deal with different situations, and the factor that most greatly affects the outcome of a game is how well your team or your squad works.

This is a difficult concept for CoD players to understand (not trying to be insulting here, I play and enjoy CoD but it's very easy to see what happens when CoD players try and play BF3 the same way that they do MW3), and it appears to be an even more difficult concept for people who play MMOs to understand.

Grey Day for Elcia:

LiquidSolstice:

Grey Day for Elcia:
I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion to this game and convinced my boyfriend not to buy the game. Microtransactions in games piss me off to no end.

It's the reason I'm telling everyone I know to ignore Guild Wars 2 on release.

Again, it makes me pull off a sad smile when I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played was indeed not worth buying because of changes that don't even affect the game.

"I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion."

That would mean I do own the game (why would I think about buying the xpac for a game I don't own?). I can see it in my Origin list right now, lol.

...right, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to your boyfriend. Using criteria that does not affect the mechanics of the game, you've decided for him that it is not worth buying.

Frost27:
Every gun in BF3 is balanced against the rest. No unlock is "better" than any other. In fact, I've had all of the weapons unlocked for a considerable amount of time and on 3 out of the 4 classes, I primarily use either the starting level weapon or the first unlock for the class. The game's weapons are more of a "what works better for you and your playstyle" rather than what works better overall.

Paying for an unlock package doesn't give any advantage, just more options. If it helps bring in more new people, then I'm all for it. Statistically for every 500 new players there will be 3 that will actually drop ammo and medkits. Besides, having the guns is one thing, unlocking the attachments comes later.

THIS.

Finally, sanity shines through all the sensationalism and ignorance from people who have not even played the game. I still think the best assault rifle is the default M16 that comes with the US side.

LiquidSolstice:

Grey Day for Elcia:

LiquidSolstice:

Again, it makes me pull off a sad smile when I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played was indeed not worth buying because of changes that don't even affect the game.

"I am so, so glad I didn't pay for the expansion."

That would mean I do own the game (why would I think about buying the xpac for a game I don't own?). I can see it in my Origin list right now, lol.

...right, I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to your boyfriend. Using criteria that does not affect the mechanics of the game, you've decided for him that it is not worth buying.

"[When] I hear someone try to self-confirm that a game they have never played" was referring to my boyfriend? That makes most of your comment... make no sense, lol.

Besides, I convinced him to avoid the game. It would be hard for me to decide for him--free will and all that.

I don't have a problem with this. You can either invest time or money. And here are a few things to consider:

A) It's expensive. $4.99 for some fake guns, most of which you probably won't even use, is a lot of money. The price feels about equal to the time spent earning them.
B) Nobody is getting anything extra. If you're paying, you aren't getting anything exclusive, you're just getting the same guns early.
C) From what I can tell, it does not affect the ranking system. You still have to earn the honor of being ranked up.
D) Player skill is unaffected. They still have to get good at the game to be good at the game.

I think this option is fine to have, as long as certain parameters are met. BF3 seems to have met them.

 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