Gamers Thread

[-CC-]

Wow, it took me two and a half minutes before I realized that they were speaking Swedish in that BF3 video. Hands down the thickest FOBer accent I've ever heard.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Allah Mohammad Allah lol

 

[SweptbackFlame]

Then why not just use Steam?

Honestly why would EA put Battlefield 3 on STEAM when they have Origin which is ran by EA themselves. It may eventually go on Steam who knows. Apparently it's a conflict with the distribution of patches and such.

One key point in all this is that EA hasn't made Battlefield 3 exclusive to its own Origin service, although the company is certainly making it worth your while to buy the game from its official home. But the game will be widely available.

"EA offers games, including Battlefield 3, to all major digital download sites. In doing so, our goal is to not only reach the widest possible global audience with our games, but also to provide ongoing customer support, patches, and great new content," a post to the company's official forum stated. "We are intent on providing Battlefield 3 players with the best possible experience no matter where they purchase or play the game, and are happy to partner with any download service that does not restrict our ability to connect directly with consumers."

EA has claimed that Steam has added a "set of restrictive terms of service" that limits how the company can provide patches and other content. "No other download service has adopted these practices," EA explained. Reading between the lines, it sounds like EA wants to offer patches as well as for-pay content directly to gamers through the games itself. Valve seems to have rules in place that state such content must be sent through the Steam servers.

We contacted Valve for comment on the limitations EA has complained about but have yet to receive a response.

EA has also released a statement detailing the company's own policies for digital distribution services that sell EA games. Each deal is slightly different, and EA pointed out that over 100 services will be selling Battlefield 3, but the company has a line it won't cross.

"When a download service forbids publishers from contacting players with patches, new levels, items and other services—it disrupts our ability to provide the ongoing support players expect from us," EA said. "At present, this is the case with only one download service. While EA offers its entire portfolio to this site, they have elected to not post many of our games."

EA says it hopes to find a way to reach an agreement with Steam on this point, but it's doubtful Valve will make an exception.

 

[waif]

Fuck the very concept of DLC to it's very core. Remember the days when you bought a game and it was a complete, functional game right out of the box? One that you could play by yourself?
The proliferation of broadband is destroying gaming.

 

[Valerie]

The proliferation of greedy corporations is destroying gaming.

 

[waif]

But now they can cut corners so much more easily with multiplayer-only games (or worse, games with singleplayer campaigns that are either pathetically short, pathetically bad, clearly intended for co-op, or all three) and DLC. Back in the day they could only cut corners by making the game awful and short and buggy. Now they can just not make the game and sell you the empty box. In practical terms it's not much different, but it feels more disrespectful. And also, it seems like everyone's doing it. What was the last single-player-focused shooter you played? That wasn't absolute balls? Probably Crysis 2. And before that? We get like one or two a year now. As for RPGs, forget it...they barely make 'em anymore. The Witcher 2 came out a while ago, and we're gonna get Skyrim shortly, but other than that it's just been bullshit like Gothic 4.
PC gaming is kinda fucked. Hopefully indie/semi-indie developers will eventually be able to make more ambitious games with less shitty graphics.

 

[Vimana]

And hopefully the gaming audience will wake up as to not ruin it for those of us who like to play different games when we play different games.

 

[arg]

DLC is not a bad idea per se, it's the evil game companies milking it. unfortunately if we choose not to get them we're stuck with a half-assed product. or an incomplete one while everyone else enjoys it fully (if it's actually a good game) and you can't join them.

 

[mutantllama]

More companies need to give out free DLC like Valve does. Valve in general are pretty decent developers when it comes to how they treat their customers. I mean sure, they have had their faults who else fucking brings lunch out to people who are protesting outside.

 

[waif]

The concept of pay-for-DLC is bad. It encourages developers to take features that they'd planned to put in and leave them out unless you pay more. If it's actually worth our time, put it into a coherent form and make an expansion - but any expansion should contain at least 3/4s the gameplay time of the base game.

For example: Homefront has DLC. That game is 4 hours long, and it almost plays itself half the time. It's like paying $60 to rent Red Dawn. They justify that bullshit with a multiplayer mode that doesn't sound very different at all from Modern Warfare. Okay, if you want to make a case for sport-gaming then alright. But that multiplayer mode had better be pretty fucking good. Except apparently it's not, because they feel there are things missing from it that you can remedy by paying them an additional whatever-the-fuck-DLC-costs.
Fuck everything about that.

 

[Tonka Time]

Thats why PC > consoles. You can usually if not always get it for free.

Anybody that has Half life 2 for PC (You may not even need it, downloaded it for a friend and it worked without hl2) needs to check out this mod: http://www.resistanceandliberation.com/

Best WW2 multiplayer game I've ever played and it's still in beta.
Think Red Orchestra only better and free at the momment.

 

[-CC-]

"I will make sure about 80% of the Europeans on this forum will stop posting come October."


-FIFA 12

 

[VikingStoner]

Currently playing Gears 3. I'm impressed didn't expect the campaign to be THAT awesome. It definately demolished the other exclusive shooters on 360 & PS3 campaign wise.

 

[SweptbackFlame]

Thats why PC > consoles. You can usually if not always get it for free.

So sick of this PC vs CONSOLE bullshit

Here's a theory, not saying all you guys are like that, but honestly who the fuck cares what you play it on play the damn fucking game and stfu.

"You have a $3,000 dollarGaming PC or a shitty PC that you paid like $300 for and dumped about $600 into it with upgrades. i bought a $400 Xbox, instead of being alone in my basement i have twice as much money as you and i'll be able to take my girl out to eat, have intercourse with, & then play Battlefield 3.. Who's the real winner?"

Currently playing Gears 3. I'm impressed didn't expect the campaign to be THAT awesome. It definately demolished the other exclusive shooters on 360 & PS3 campaign wise.

Yeah the Campaign is amazing, and the Beast Mode is awesome too, extremely fun to play...And Horde mode is fucking ridiculous those boss waves every 10 levels are absolutely retarded. Lambent Berserkers, I only made it to wave 20 when we had to take on 3 Berserkers lol...fucking clusterfuck man...

 

[Tonka Time]

|
|
|
V

 

[-CC-]

Here's a theory, not saying all you guys are like that, but honestly who the fuck cares what you play it on play the damn fucking game and stfu.

"You have a $3,000 dollarGaming PC or a shitty PC that you paid like $300 for and dumped about $600 into it with upgrades. i bought a $400 Xbox, instead of being alone in my basement i have twice as much money as you and i'll be able to take my girl out to eat, have intercourse with, & then play Battlefield 3.. Who's the real winner?"

Here's a theory, you're an idiot.

 

[Tonka Time]

Everyones a winner...when they're on God's team.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

Here's a theory, you're an idiot.

That's not a theory. Theories are unproven.

 

[mutantllama]

PC gaming is actually cheaper then gaming on a 360 if you include steam sales plus the fact that most games have free online.

 

[Enemy242]

I think overall its more expensive but money isn't everything, gaming is about enjoyment, and pc gaming is mother fucking fun. I've dumped 1.3k into my PC but so what? it runs every game I want on max settings and will up until probably next year when the new graphics cards come out and thats really important to me. combine that with modding support (which is a hugeee plus and a giant community, playing morrowind or oblivion on xbox 360 is not the same), insane tweaking options for graphics, controls (even gamepads) and everything else so that you have the games tailored to exactly what you want plus (almost always) more ability to create an indepth game on pc when you're not limited by the console constraints (which is part of the reason all these ports to pcs just aren't optimized as much as they should be).

i had an xbox 360 and i loved it, but pc gaming will always be better since you have steam and its sales which rule, modding, a few games truly created for the platform which can use much more power than a console, complete graphics/gameplay/controls control, and much more. consoles are great and all but they've also fucked up the industry by making developers have to work with shittier hardware (they're getting better at using it but still are quite limited) and just overall dumbing down games. i don't try to convince anyone i know to switch to pc gaming, and i don't care as long as there are still some developers around who make true pc games like the witcher 2 (though now it'll be on xbox super dumbed down), a lot of valves games and id software (i know rage will be on consoles too, but its obvious they focused on making a pc game since thats what they do and rage has such amazing graphics/gameplay options yet the requirements are absolutely fucking nothing, in comparison to shitty optimized ports which are not even close to the same quality and technicality yet have much higher requirements).