PC Battlefield 3 Lacks Key FPS Feature: No Ingame Server Browser.. Yes I'm serious.

piscian18

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
I don't even. I ..WTF

EA thumbs its nose at the PC by restricting in-game server browsing to consoles in its upcoming shooter.

In-game server browsers have been a mainstay of PC first-person shooter games for many years, so it was only logical to expect the upcoming Battlefield 3 to use them as well. That expectation turned out to be incorrect. While the next installment in the hit Battlefield series will allow console players to seek out new games from within the game itself, PC users will be required to exit the game, find a new server with an Internet browser, and then restart it.

Alan Kertz, a game designer with Battlefield 3 developer DICE, confirmed the news earlier today via Twitter. DICE announced only yesterday that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 versions of the game would get an in-game browser for multiplayer servers. According to Kertz, PC gamers will have to use the browser-based Battlelog service instead.

While Kertz stated that the game "starts up REAL fast," fan blog Battlefield3Blog points out that Battlefield 3 will be the only PC shooter in recent memory to eschew the use of an in-game browser.

When developing the same game for different consoles, it's reasonable to expect a few minor differences between versions. However, EA is risking PC gamers' ire by removing one of the features they've come to expect from almost every other FPS on the market. Both console and PC gamers can see how the in-game server vs. Battlelog debate plays out firsthand when the game arrives on October 25, 2011.
Click to expand...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112468-PC-Battlefield-3-Lacks-Key-FPS-Feature

Yes, this is not a joke. Only consoles will have an ingame server browser. I'm at a loss. I don't even know how to respond.

Messed up stuff man.
 
I didn't use an in-game server browser for BF1942 (used all-seeing eye) and it wasn't bad at all.

As long as the startup/shutdown times of the game is fast, it shouldn't be a problem.
 
Its a really weird choice from EA/Dice's side. From what I hear though, the BF3 alpha players didnt have a problem with it
 
How is the Battlelog functionally worse than an ingame browser? Does it take longer to get into games? Does it have less features? From what people in alpha said, neither is an issue. If these aren't a problem, then why are people fixated on this issue? Otherwise to me being able to access the browser out of game is an advantage in many cases. For instance I can view a specific server I want to join while multitasking something else.

I mean if you want to look at simply in terms of technicalities than TF2 doesn't have an "in game" server browser either, it uses the Steam overlay to act as the browser. Yet it works better than having it integrate purely into the game anyways since it is more flexible without drawbacks.

The reason the console games have an ingame browser is because you cannot do something separate like Battlelog on them.
 
Haven't used a separate program to find servers since Quakeworld days with Gamespy.

This'll be interesting.
 
limitedaccess said:
I mean if you want to look at simply in terms of technicalities than TF2 doesn't have an "in game" server browser either, it uses the Steam overlay to act as the browser.
Click to expand...
TF2 will also let you queue up for a server while you're playing on another, though. BF3's implementation probably won't let you do that.
 
limitedaccess said:
How is the Battlelog functionally worse than an ingame browser? Does it take longer to get into games? Does it have less features? From what people in alpha said, neither is an issue. If these aren't a problem, then why are people fixated on this issue? Otherwise to me being able to access the browser out of game is an advantage in many cases. For instance I can view a specific server I want to join while multitasking something else.

I mean if you want to look at simply in terms of technicalities than TF2 doesn't have an "in game" server browser either, it uses the Steam overlay to act as the browser. Yet it works better than having it integrate purely into the game anyways since it is more flexible without drawbacks.

The reason the console games have an ingame browser is because you cannot do something separate like Battlelog on them.
Click to expand...

Well ok I'm a little confused here. I dont have to close out of TF2 to switch servers. It appears from the EA quote you literally have to restart the game every time you wanna switch servers. Is that not true?
 
I'm not quite sure I understand. Once I load up the first server using the browser, if I quit that server can I think just minimize the game and use the browser to find another server to join? If that's the case, no big deal and I agree it's similar to the Steam overlay.

If I have to quit the game upon leaving a server to then find another and load the game back up, that's a PITA and quite frankly a slap in the face if the console versions have a much simpler hassle-free solution.
 
If they woulda stayed on Steam they could use the Steam browser.
 
piscian18 said:
Well ok I'm a little confused here. I dont have to close out of TF2 to switch servers. It appears from the EA quote you literally have to restart the game every time you wanna switch servers. Is that not true?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, I wasn't in alpha. But basically the only advantage, which I think is what people are concerned about, is that having a separate browser makes it slower to join/change servers. But the alpha comments seem to indicate due to how the game works/loads/alt-tabs, there is no time savings with having the browser ingame. If this is true, again I can't confirm cause I wasn't in alpha myself, then I don't see how having it separate is a negative. Since it will not be functionally weaker in anyway, but have some advantages.

If it turns out to be a case where it takes the game 30seconds+ to load every time you need to use the browser, than yes it is an issue. Otherwise battlelog is additional functionality over the consoles, not that the consoles have additional functionality due to an ingame browser.

I brought up TF2 because technically it isn't an ingame browser in the sense it is actually integrated into the game. It just uses the Steam overlay to bring it up on top of the game without it minimizing (which given TF2s minimizing ability would be a disaster otherwise lol..) But because of this it is much more flexible, for instance you can manipulate the browser like a window, which you could not do with a traditional ingame type browser.
 
I agree that the TF2 style browser adds flexibility and I'm all for that. The killer would be having to quit and reload the game every time. I really hope it's simply a matter of good old Alt-Tab... and yeah that Frostbite 2.0 handles minimizing just a little bit better than Source (HL2 crashes on me whenever I minimize these days).
 
This is retarded, having to constantly start up a new game/exit out, over and over and over is ANNOYING and takes up time.

When you join a server, it fails to load, etc and you have to restart it all over again.

IN the BF3 alpha I HAAAAAATED having to use that shitty ass web-page based server browser. Give me an in-game browser any day.

It makes zero sense to use this over an in-game browser, espeically if they already have on developed (which they do for the console version).
 
bf3alphascreenshot5.jpg
 
Mokkat said:
Its a really weird choice from EA/Dice's side. From what I hear though, the BF3 alpha players didnt have a problem with it
Click to expand...

As long as it's not a PITA to use, whatever. Still retarded not to include one like FPS games have on the PC for a while now.
 
Last edited:
Stiler said:
This is retarded, having to constantly start up a new game/exit out, over and over and over is ANNOYING and takes up time.

When you join a server, it fails to load, etc and you have to restart it all over again.

IN the BF3 alpha I HAAAAAATED having to use that shitty ass web-page based server browser. Give me an in-game browser any day.

It makes zero sense to use this over an in-game browser, espeically if they already have on developed (which they do for the console version).
Click to expand...
So it sounds like you can't Alt-Tab then?

If they wanted to use the website, I don't understand why they can't just integrate the web portal into the menus. It's not that hard to add a simple browser into the menu screens. That way you could either use the website in your favorite browser or do the same thing in-game.
 
People from Alpha say loading a game is quicker with this than getting in a game in BFBC2. If so, what's the problem?
 
Sorry but I've heard nothing but good things about battlelog. The only bad thing I've heard is "BUT BUT IT'S NOT IN GAME!!"
 
honestly i prefer the battlelog, ingame browser like BFBC2's is annoying as hell.. battlelogs is still faster and the leaving/joining new server doesn't matter to me anyways since i'll only be playing on one server.



drako said:
So it sounds like you can't Alt-Tab then?

If they wanted to use the website, I don't understand why they can't just integrate the web portal into the menus. It's not that hard to add a simple browser into the menu screens. That way you could either use the website in your favorite browser or do the same thing in-game.
Click to expand...


you can alt tab..
 
Honestly, the alpha launched so quickly when I switched servers that it never bothered me. It takes all of maybe 5 seconds to load the server list in the browser, and 1-2 seconds to launch the game, and the rest of the time is spent loading the level.

You don't have to sit there and wait for the game to get to the main menu, log in to your account, hit the server browser button, hit the refresh button, hit join, etc.

It's so much faster than BC2 it's insane. It quickly became a non-issue for me.

I never even tried alt-tabbing when switching simply because the game launched so fast I didn't even care.
 
Alright, well that doesn't sound so bad. I guess I'll have to see how I like it come release time. Thanks for the info!
 
couldn't they just add a browser frame in the game main menu so it would still be through the web but without switching apps?
 
darkhorse said:
couldn't they just add a browser frame in the game main menu so it would still be through the web but without switching apps?
Click to expand...

I get that everybody in the alpha seems to be more or less ok with this but I agree I dont get it. We've had ingame server browsers forever. This seems like a silly inconvenience. I'm sure there had to be some rationality to it.

The alt-tabing thing bothers me. Counter-strike is literally the only game I know of that's reasonably immune to alt-tab crashes. This is definitely gonna be a see it to believe it.
 
Plenty of games have flawless alt-tabbing. I think DX11 (Maybe DX10) actually even makes improvements in the API for handling this, although I'm not certain on this point.

As for why it is done this way you need to look at the potential benefits. Having the browser as a separate program makes it potentially more flexible for both the developer and user.

From their perspective it would have been easier to simply use the same setup as the console versions, which is limited in that it has to use an ingame browser, something like battlelog would not be possible. It doesn't make sense for them to spend the extra resources developing battlelog unless it had clear benefits.
 
really stupid thing not having both and let people decide what the hell they wanna use..
 
qwertyaas said:
People from Alpha say loading a game is quicker with this than getting in a game in BFBC2. If so, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

People are trying to stir up the community. Many wanna be news makers are floating around.

limitedaccess said:
From their perspective it would have been easier to simply use the same setup as the console versions, which is limited in that it has to use an ingame browser, something like battlelog would not be possible. It doesn't make sense for them to spend the extra resources developing battlelog unless it had clear benefits.
Click to expand...
DLC, Updates, Stats etc. will be accessed through Battlelog. All content in one place.
 
First they make you use Orgin even if you buy the boxed copy of the game, and now this? WTF are they thinking. I hate EA, but love their games...:( I mean if it works cool, but why not keep it like most people like it. Maybe they will have a way to use battlelog in-game. IMO they are messing with to many lil details, they should have left them alone and focused on the damn game. Don't try to fix something when its not broken EA. If this was not BF3 I would of said screw this game, but I love the battlefield series way to much. :)
 
Last edited:
limitedaccess said:
From what people in alpha said, neither is an issue.
Click to expand...

I'm supposed to trust what some EA fanbois say? No in game server browser means "no buy" as far as I am concerned. The only reason I buy BF games is for MP and to not have seamless MP in the game is inexcusable.
 
good lord people would complain if someone gave them a million dollars in 1's..

Ive used the browser, and honestly like it alot more than ingame, Server load in a snap unlike ingame browsers. Joining was easy as double clicking. Squadin' up with buddies was a hell of a lot better than in BC2.

Itll grow on everyone, if not, oh well dont play it, less people I gotta listen to crying ingame :)
 
TheSandman21 said:
I don't see this going well at launch.....
Click to expand...

When ever has launch for a highly anticipated title gone problem free?

Battlelog for the alpha wasn't bad at all. The only bug(s) I had with it were it wouldn't let me join a server in between map changes, which I can see being fixed for launch, and that the plugin required wasn't compatible with 64bit browsers (not a bug just a small gripe I had). Alt tabbing was smooth, much better then past BF games where you had to alt+enter for windowed mode then alt+tab.

I wish there was an in game browser but tbh the battlelog was pretty damn painless. It even has a way for you to set up voice comms, although I didn't get to play with this feature because I don't have any friends.:(
 
Gnasher said:
I'm supposed to trust what some EA fanbois say? No in game server browser means "no buy" as far as I am concerned. The only reason I buy BF games is for MP and to not have seamless MP in the game is inexcusable.
Click to expand...

Then aren't you just making an assumption that battlelog somehow functions worse in comparison to an ingame browser based on no user testimony at all?

Let's look at this issue differently, what is the advantage of having an ingame browser? I think the only one people will say is it is "faster." So if battlelog turns out to be faster or the same speed in functioning as games with ingame browsers, such as BC2, then is there any objections to battlelog? If still, what and why?
 
While it may be more conveninet to have an in-game browser, I'm perfectly fine with the out-of-game implementation.
 
The Battleog browser worked flawlessly, stop being whiny little bitches about every inane detail of this game, Jesus. I have NEVER seen the amount of whining over a game like I have BF3...

whaa commo rose, whaa commander, whaa no Steam, whaa Origin, whaa 3d spot, whaaa Battlelog, whaa 4 man squad...just shut the fuck up and pass on buying the game already. This game will be MASSIVELY successful without a few sales, besides I honestly don't want to play the game with so many complainers.
 
Battlelog for the alpha wasn't bad at all.
Click to expand...

And the alpha probably has a fraction of what is going to be hitting that webpage on Release Day. Remember, the unwritten rule is to NEVER have enough servers ready to go to handle demand. That first week could be rather rocky.

"OMG I CAN'T CONNECT TO BATTLELOG! IT'S BEEN 4 HOURS"
"OMGZ EA BRING BACK THE SERVER BROWSER"
"EA HATES PC GAMERS!"
 
AceGoober said:
While it may be more conveninet to have an in-game browser, I'm perfectly fine with the out-of-game implementation.
Click to expand...

But in what way if they function at the same speed?

Lets hypothetically compare two situations -

It takes 1 second to press Esc and click "server browser" and for it to pop up.
vs.
It takes 1 second to press alt-tab and view the server browser.

How is one more inconvenient? The second is the implementation they are going for.

Now obviously if the game comes out and it crashes every other time you alt-tab or struggles for a minute to restore, then that is an issue. But there is no indication right now that it is problematic.

TheSandman21 said:
And the alpha probably has a fraction of what is going to be hitting that webpage on Release Day. Remember, the unwritten rule is to NEVER have enough servers ready to go to handle demand. That first week could be rather rocky.

"OMG I CAN'T CONNECT TO BATTLELOG! IT'S BEEN 4 HOURS"
"OMGZ EA BRING BACK THE SERVER BROWSER"
"EA HATES PC GAMERS!"
Click to expand...

If the central servers are overloaded the same problem would occur even if they completely integrated the browser into the game. Even with an ingame browser it still needs to communicate with the central servers to send and receive data, not different then if the browser is separate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top