Battlefield 4 Thread ~ Server details in opening post ~

Suarez7 said:
Funnily enough I was going to put that on the end of my post. Some people will find anything to complain about. Can't please everyone I suppose!
Click to expand...

Well the British by nature are notorius moaners and then you have elistist gamers who amplify that tenfold.

Im not a massive fan of FPS games.....I did used to enjoy MoH back in the day (pre Modern Warfare etc), but that was usually with my mates on our own servers.

I bought BF3 on the back of enjoying BF Vietnam and Battlefield 2....I felt the game was good, graphically superb and does what is intended, give you a multiplayer online battle experience.

I didnt buy the DLC as im more of a MMO player these days, but did enjoy what I played.

People nit picking do it for the sake of it.....you arent forced to buy their product and gamers feel they are owed something.

The reality of the world economy these days is that companies need to adapt to survive.

Some of those decisions may not go down well with some of the customers, but if they dont they will inevitably go bust.

You'll never please everyone.
 
francky said:
People just love to complain mate.....nothing more.
Click to expand...

ScarySquirrel said:
You don't have to use the forum.
I've barely noticed any advertising, especially in game, there is none.
You don't have to buy DLC, kits, maps, etc.
Click to expand...

This & this.

Just ignore these people they clearly have no idea what they are talking about going by their comments.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
the game as a mp isnt even that good yet its one of the most expensive.
Click to expand...

So is there a financial chart for best multiplayer game for ~>DG<~ which each company has do adhere to?

This is one of the biggest problem for gamers is that we see everything on such a personal level and have almost zero understand or thought on what goes on behind the scenes. Yes, EA could sell BF4 cheaper and produce less dlc or copy-paste of BF3 maps. But then what? BF: Bad Company 3 would be a much smaller game or non existent as EA would see the profits as lower and it would be too much of a risk to continue working on that franchise/keep a studio open to work on that.

Games are costing far more than they ever did yet the box price at £40 remains pretty much the same, so game devs either have to look at making smaller or more consumer friendly (seemingly less hardcore) games, find other ways to create revenue (micro transaction, dlc, f2p, mobile, franchise milking), cut down their studios or go bankrupt.

Now us as gamers can all say well why don't they just.... But we really have no idea on how hard, resource intensive and generally unfeasible most of our crazy demands are. I think it is only over the past few months that we are starting to see the transparency between gamers and developers which helps us understand how expensive a feature is to add or how it is so important to broaden a games/franchises appeal.

Back on to topic :p I'm looking forward to seeing BF4, I wasn't the biggest BF3 player but I really enjoyed my time with and it did produce some epic gaming experiences.
 
maxilive said:
So is there a financial chart for best multiplayer game for ~>DG<~ which each company has do adhere to?

This is one of the biggest problem for gamers is that we see everything on such a personal level and have almost zero understand or thought on what goes on behind the scenes. Yes, EA could sell BF4 cheaper and produce less dlc or copy-paste of BF3 maps. But then what? BF: Bad Company 3 would be a much smaller game or non existent as EA would see the profits as lower and it would be too much of a risk to continue working on that franchise/keep a studio open to work on that.

Games are costing far more than they ever did yet the box price at £40 remains pretty much the same, so game devs either have to look at making smaller or more consumer friendly (seemingly less hardcore) games, find other ways to create revenue (micro transaction, dlc, f2p, mobile, franchise milking), cut down their studios or go bankrupt.

Now us as gamers can all say well why don't they just.... But we really have no idea on how hard, resource intensive and generally unfeasible most of our crazy demands are. I think it is only over the past few months that we are starting to see the transparency between gamers and developers which helps us understand how expensive a feature is to add or how it is so important to broaden a games/franchises appeal.

Back on to topic :p I'm looking forward to seeing BF4, I wasn't the biggest BF3 player but I really enjoyed my time with and it did produce some epic gaming experiences.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with DLC in all the forms it can take but I do think that anything that fragments the playerbase is a bad thing - so map DLC is terrible in my opinion. I also really hate the way that BC2 and BF3 don't let you host servers on your own box and instead you have to go through the cashcow (sorry, "trusted") provider route.

If BF4 was closer to BC2 than BF3 I'd probably still consider it, despite all my misgivings.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree, map packs in their current format should have evolved by now, especially on PC focused titles. For example the way Mass Effect has produced revenue for its map packs via loot chests but the maps for ME3 would be far more cheaper to produced compared to a competitive multiplayer game.

I couldn't think of a way of producing new environments and experiences for the whole playerbase then extending it to pay-to-play without annoying half of the playerbase :p For example, everyone has access to the maps but players who haven't payed would only get access to a few game modes? That would still separate the playerbase somewhat and I doubt they would allow access to the most popular gamemodes.

Also the server stuff is pretty much money grabbing but I bet it also means less work for devs if the tools are only going to be used via one type of server provider meaning they can produce some messy tools rather than packing a decent server hosting packaging and the support that goes along with it. That is something that would be one of the most smallest cost to development it should be provided as standard on traditional competitive multiplayer games. Adding onto that maybe getting that to work with Battlelog in a secure way was going to take up too much dev resources they skipped it, more than likely it was a big bag of money was the main decider though :p
 
opethdisciple said:
Despite all the complaining, just take a step back and look at what else is on offer.

BF3 is quality and easily the best fps for online play at the moment. (Although I haven’t played Planet side 2)
Click to expand...

this is your opinion is isnt the biggest played fps so it isnt the best.

tbh how arma is that could become the new king and it treats its player base well and doesnt rob em blind with silly dlcs.
 
opethdisciple said:
Despite all the complaining, just take a step back and look at what else is on offer.

BF3 is quality and easily the best fps for online play at the moment. (Although I haven’t played Planet side 2)
Click to expand...

Planetside 2 is better. As are both BF2142 and BF2 - both available still.

BF3 is a travesty when compared to the 'proper' BF games. Planetside 2 captures the spirit of the 'proper' BF games better than anything else.
 
I love BC2, it has it's issues like hit detection etc at times, but overall it's so much more enjoyable and fun that BF3. I'd like to see a BC3 but after the let down BF3 was I would almost rather not see DICE/EA releasing BC3 in fear of it ending up like BF3.

Why they never had AT4's in BF3 really annoys me.
 
I enjoy playing Battlefield 3 with my friends but I would be lying if I didn't say the hit detection drives me insane. I hope they can see past the greed of DLC & "Premium" subscriptions in the hope of delivering a finished, perfected game.

I suppose I can dream on knowing EA. =|
 
I'm convinced people who complain about games like BF3 and the cost for extra content can't live in the real world. There's an endless list of services and products you buy whereby 'extras' cost (surprisingly) 'extra'.

Do they have a meltdown when they buy a product that doesn't include batteries, or a toothbrush that doesn't include tooth paste?
 
Last edited:
skidmarks said:
I'm convinced people who complain about games like BF3 and the cost for extra content can't live in the real world. There's an endless list of services and products you buy whereby 'extras' cost (surprisingly) 'extra'.

Do they have a meltdown when they buy a product that doesn't include batteries, or a toothbrush that doesn't include tooth paste?
Click to expand...

id be annoyed if the product was advertised to come with batteries but didint.

just like BF3 was advertised to be a true sequel to BF2, biggest maps ever etc and wasnt...
 
Last edited:
you know, just to shut people up I wish they'd release Mod tools and sit back and watch rubbish, glitchy poorly optimised 'maps' get released in 2 years time once the bedroom codies have got their heads around how to work it poorly.
 
MissChief said:
you know, just to shut people up I wish they'd release Mod tools and sit back and watch rubbish, glitchy poorly optimised 'maps' get released in 2 years time once the bedroom codies have got their heads around how to work it poorly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, all mods and custom maps released for games were always terrible. That's why CS and L4D exist and god knows how many custom maps became the most widely used for esports and later adapted for games.
 
MissChief said:
you know, just to shut people up I wish they'd release Mod tools and sit back and watch rubbish, glitchy poorly optimised 'maps' get released in 2 years time once the bedroom codies have got their heads around how to work it poorly.
Click to expand...

I must say MissChief the A.I.X. mod for BF2 was bloody great the maps were awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom