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

AlexStenka said:
First they make you use Orgin even if you buy the boxed copy of the game, and now this?
Click to expand...

Not trying to be a dick when I ask this but, how many games do you have on Steam? I'm not thrilled I have to use Origin just like I wasn't thrilled 7 years ago when I was forced to use Steam with my boxed copy of HL2 but it is what is.

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. :)
Click to expand...

While I'm not EA, imo what they're thinking is, giving their customers, the vocal ones anyway, what they want: all in one stat tracking, acheesements, social networking etc. all in one tight little package a la Steam. They're in the business of making money and they would be stupid if they continued to ignore how popular Steam has become.

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...

In the alpha it was as seamless as an in game browser would have been. I was going to go into the pro differences of the way it's setup but I'm sure it would just be dismissed by you as fanboism.
 
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...

It is. It literally only takes a couple of seconds two for the game to launch and start loading, and it loads in the background so you don't have to sit at the load screen. It'll tell you when it's done and you can go in at any time.

limitedaccess said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since DX10 the developer doesn't need to explicitly handle a lost device (outside of edge cases like the driver crashing or restarting). In human terms, it works good. BF3 was more or less instant when alt-tabbing / switching to windowed.
 
PC Gamers: creating things to complain about since November 15th, 2001.

Is it an...interesting decision? Yes.

Is it potentially painful to some users? Yes.

Is it degrading the core gameplay? No.

Is it worth not buying the game? No.
 
socK said:
It is. It literally only takes a couple of seconds two for the game to launch and start loading, and it loads in the background so you don't have to sit at the load screen. It'll tell you when it's done and you can go in at any time.
Click to expand...

Probably shouldn't tell them that you can even put a check in a tiny little box if you just want the game to auto launch when it's done loading, their heads might explode. oops.:eek:
 
I just wonder how well it will work with a million or more people logging into the same website. I played Alpha and it logged into the server without any problems, but I was lost as to how to navigate it. I wasn't really trying to see though as I thought it was some hack job to facilitate the Alpha getting out to gamers faster. I kinda assessed it at the time and thought there's no way it's going to be like this and obsessed over the game play.

I'm not going to be affected by this as I decided not to purchase BF3 due to bad experiences with Origin, but will be interesting to read what the consumer experience is at launch. Hopefully you'll will have a positive experience.
 
cageymaru said:
I just wonder how well it will work with a million or more people logging into the same website.
Click to expand...
The same way it works with a million or more people logging into the same EA servers to download a server list that BC2 formats and displays.
 
LstOfTheBrunnenG said:
The same way it works with a million or more people logging into the same EA servers to download a server list that BC2 formats and displays.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING! :)

Honestly.. I still cant see what the big deal is. I admit I was kinda ticked when i first loaded up the alpha and seen it, but once the first game loaded almost instantly, there was no problems..

Hell EA might as well just use P2P.. Maybe people wont complain as much... :)

*Edit. And ya know, maybe itll stop all the rage re-joiners, you know the people, they get "QQ mad" their "uber" score isn't what its supposed to be, quit then rejoin, trying to get better score.
 
Soo.... who actually cares? Millions are still going to buy Battlefield 3.
 
Dion said:
Only if it was a steamworks game.
Click to expand...

That's incorrect; The browser available from the Steam overlay works with most DirectX and OpenGL application launched from Steam (including non-Steamworks titles and even non-Steam titles; Games -> "Add a Non-Steam Game to My Library")

It's useful for consulting game wiki's and checking email while your game is full screen. (works great with Starcraft 2!)
 
I'm not crazy about the external server browser at all, though as said earlier it fits with the all-in-one-place Battlelog idea EA is trying to push. Maybe it'll improve and become less kludgy as they tweak it, I don't know...
 
Not a big deal assuming it works as well as everyone's saying, though I am kinda curious as to why. I see no reason why the same exact thing couldn't be implemented in game. Maybe it was just cheaper to do it through a web browser and the downsides to that option weren't that big at all? I've always wondered why server browsers tend to be laggy and always lacking in features. Maybe they are harder to implement than I think, but I just don't see it.
 
Having been in the alpha, I can say that I did not particularly care for the battelog web interface. I made it known in my feedback. Bunch of stuff that I don't really care about. And I don't want to have to rely on web browsers in order to play my games. Its enough I have to deal with Origin.
 
boredreflux said:
Not trying to be a dick when I ask this but, how many games do you have on Steam? I'm not thrilled I have to use Origin just like I wasn't thrilled 7 years ago when I was forced to use Steam with my boxed copy of HL2 but it is what is.



While I'm not EA, imo what they're thinking is, giving their customers, the vocal ones anyway, what they want: all in one stat tracking, acheesements, social networking etc. all in one tight little package a la Steam. They're in the business of making money and they would be stupid if they continued to ignore how popular Steam has become.



In the alpha it was as seamless as an in game browser would have been. I was going to go into the pro differences of the way it's setup but I'm sure it would just be dismissed by you as fanboism.
Click to expand...

My whole game collection is on steam. I put all my exes in to steam. But you are not getting my point, why do we need to use Orgin with a boxed copy of the game? I understand that steam made you do that, but Orgin is not steam, they could of made the boxed copy work just fine without Orgin. Just cause steam did that does not mean they have to. ;) Cuz there is no logic behind it, the game could run just fine without orgin in the background. I also remember when steam first came out and WON died. Steam did not come out to distribute games online, it was just part of CS/Half-Life games, and a easy way to update them without having to download patches. The idea of distributing games online did not come till way later, like I said Orgin is no steam, and what steam did Orgin really does not have to.
 
Last edited:
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...
sirmonkey1985 said:
honestly i prefer the battlelog, ingame browser like BFBC2's is annoying as hell..
Click to expand...
TheOneKnownAsMe said:
It's so much faster than BC2 it's insane. It quickly became a non-issue for me.
Click to expand...
Snappshoota said:
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.
Click to expand...

BC2 had a pretty piss poor ingame browser so it really doesn't make for a good point of comparison. How does the out-of-game browser compare to in-game browsers that aren't shit?

Though honestly, as time goes on the less I care about BF3. Normally as a game I'm interested in approaches I get more excited about it, BF3 seems to be the opposite. Not that I really care about the server browser either way (as long as its quick and efficient at getting me into a game and out of a game and in to a new game if I dont like the game I orginially joined).
 
AlexStenka said:
My whole game collection is on steam. I put all my exes in to steam. But you are not getting my point, why do we need to use Orgin with a boxed copy of the game? I understand that steam made you do that, but Orgin is not steam, they could of made the boxed copy work just fine without Orgin. Just cause steam did that does not mean they have to. ;) Cuz there is no logic behind it, the game could run just fine without orgin in the background. I also remember when steam first came out and WON died. Steam did not come out to distribute games online, it was just part of CS/Half-Life games, and a easy way to update them without having to download patches. The idea of distributing games online did not come till way later, like I said Orgin is no steam, and what steam did Orgin really does not have to.
Click to expand...

This is not the origin flame thread.
 
Tudz said:
BC2 had a pretty piss poor ingame browser so it really doesn't make for a good point of comparison. How does the out-of-game browser compare to in-game browsers that aren't shit?

Though honestly, as time goes on the less I care about BF3. Normally as a game I'm interested in approaches I get more excited about it, BF3 seems to be the opposite. Not that I really care about the server browser either way (as long as its quick and efficient at getting me into a game and out of a game and in to a new game if I dont like the game I orginially joined).
Click to expand...

Just finished playing BC2 and when the stats load at times everything is blank/reset.
Sometimes it's hard to find a good game by ping when they all read 999.

I think DICE learned their lesson about in-game browsers and decided to go in another direction.
 
This needed it's own thread? This has been news since the alpha started. Not getting any attention in the BF3 thread?

Battlelog is as slick as baby shit. Drag and drop people from your friends list to create a group and get in the same server. Create voip channels. Stats are just on another page.
 
Silverghost said:
This needed it's own thread? This has been news since the alpha started. Not getting any attention in the BF3 thread?

Battlelog is as slick as baby shit. Drag and drop people from your friends list to create a group and get in the same server. Create voip channels. Stats are just on another page.
Click to expand...

Of course it did, the boycott because it's not on Steam crowd have to throw out as much fud as possible.

AlexStenka said:
My whole game collection is on steam. I put all my exes in to steam. But you are not getting my point, why do we need to use Orgin with a boxed copy of the game? I understand that steam made you do that, but Orgin is not steam, they could of made the boxed copy work just fine without Orgin. Just cause steam did that does not mean they have to. ;) Cuz there is no logic behind it, the game could run just fine without orgin in the background. I also remember when steam first came out and WON died. Steam did not come out to distribute games online, it was just part of CS/Half-Life games, and a easy way to update them without having to download patches. The idea of distributing games online did not come till way later, like I said Orgin is no steam, and what steam did Orgin really does not have to.
Click to expand...

McDonald's was the first fast food joint. No other should exist! I should be damn well happy with my 1/8th of an inch, cardboard tasting, maybe beef patty. I shouldn't think that maybe someone else could run with the concept and maybe, hopefully, improve on it. Shitty analogies aside, let's not kid ourselves. Steam was/is online drm that rebranded/morphed itself into a digital distribution client with social networking features. Origin (EA download manager) was/is a digital distribution client that's rebranding/morphing itself into online drm with social networking features. They're essentially the same with different names and skins. If you're fine with one you should be with both, double standards are stupid imho. Yet, most people act like Steam is full of rainbows, unicorns, and blowjobs while Origin went and punched their grandma in the mouf causing her to die by choking on her false teef, then on the way out the door, smiled, and kicked their dog as a going away present.

I'm oldschool, I still pay cash for boxed copies at the store. I'm smart enough to know I'm becoming the minority, to know going forward this is how it will most likely be, and I'm ok with it. Change is inevitable.

(Sorry, for the mini rant, hopefully someone gets a chuckle or two out of it.):p
 
boredreflux said:
Of course it did, the boycott because it's not on Steam crowd have to throw out as much fud as possible.



McDonald's was the first fast food joint. No other should exist! I should be damn well happy with my 1/8th of an inch, cardboard tasting, maybe beef patty. I shouldn't think that maybe someone else could run with the concept and maybe, hopefully, improve on it. Shitty analogies aside, let's not kid ourselves. Steam was/is online drm that rebranded/morphed itself into a digital distribution client with social networking features. Origin (EA download manager) was/is a digital distribution client that's rebranding/morphing itself into online drm with social networking features. They're essentially the same with different names and skins. If you're fine with one you should be with both, double standards are stupid imho. Yet, most people act like Steam is full of rainbows, unicorns, and blowjobs while Origin went and punched their grandma in the mouf causing her to die by choking on her false teef, then on the way out the door, smiled, and kicked their dog as a going away present.

I'm oldschool, I still pay cash for boxed copies at the store. I'm smart enough to know I'm becoming the minority, to know going forward this is how it will most likely be, and I'm ok with it. Change is inevitable.

(Sorry, for the mini rant, hopefully someone gets a chuckle or two out of it.):p
Click to expand...

Check posts by Odex and myself as to why no BF3 on Steam actually is bad.
 
Plague_Injected said:
Check posts by Odex and myself as to why no BF3 on Steam actually is bad.
Click to expand...

I never said it was ultimately good (other then a competition/innovation stand point) or bad.

I'm assuming you mean the price issue? I don't get why it's marked up like it is for you guys but I don't make the rules or the prices. I don't think it's fair by any means. I could see a slight (a couple bucks) mark up for boxed copies to offset import costs and whatnot but I think we should pay roughly the same for digital versions. Hell, I think digital versions should be cheaper than boxed copies and I don't even buy digital.

You're in AUS/NZ right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in case I'm right, not sure if you saw this article.
 
I use to play my FPS with Gamespy3d. 3rd party app for Quake 1-2, and IF i remember CS?

Not sure why its a big deal not having an in game browser?...

Guess people will bitch about anything with this game since its not on steam.
 
I don't know why this story is getting so much attention. As multiple others who were able to play the Alpha have already testified too, this is not an issue. It is different, that does not equate bad. I found it to be faster, provide more features and be provide a more convenient method of getting in the game with friends.

This is nothing to get hung up on.

--

boredreflux said:
...punched their grandma in the mouf causing her to die by choking on her false teef...
Click to expand...

Sorry, couldn't take you seriously after this statement. :p
 
WorldExclusive said:
Just finished playing BC2 and when the stats load at times everything is blank/reset.
Sometimes it's hard to find a good game by ping when they all read 999.

I think DICE learned their lesson about in-game browsers and decided to go in another direction.
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly... BC2 is a poor example of a in game server browser. Its like saying lets stop making sand box first person shooters since Far Cry 2 was bad. I dont want a comparison of BF3 external server browser vs BC2 internal server browser, I want a comparison of BF3 external server browser vs a game that doesn't have a piss poor in game server browser.
 
Comparing its functionally to BC2 is not really important though. To me, unless someone wants to point out another advantage to having it in game, the hypothetical drawback of battlelog is that it will take longer to use. BC2's browser as far as I know didn't suffer from an issue related to bringing it up.

I mean what if we compare battelog to TF2s browser then. Does battlelog take significantly longer to bring up and get you to start loading into a game?

How about this, for those that really want an in game browser, what exactly do you think an in game browser would functionally do better?
 
limitedaccess said:
I mean what if we compare battelog to TF2s browser then. Does battlelog take significantly longer to bring up and get you to start loading into a game?
Click to expand...

TF2's browser takes longer to populate. Battlelog the server list was just there when the page loaded, took one extra click to sort by ping since it's not in the default filter. I'll say load times are a wash since I wasn't stop watching it or staring at a progress bar but it didn't feel any longer than any other game.
 
boredreflux said:
I never said it was ultimately good (other then a competition/innovation stand point) or bad.

I'm assuming you mean the price issue? I don't get why it's marked up like it is for you guys but I don't make the rules or the prices. I don't think it's fair by any means. I could see a slight (a couple bucks) mark up for boxed copies to offset import costs and whatnot but I think we should pay roughly the same for digital versions. Hell, I think digital versions should be cheaper than boxed copies and I don't even buy digital.

You're in AUS/NZ right? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but in case I'm right, not sure if you saw this article.
Click to expand...

Yep I'm in AUS...thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that. You sir have brightened my day :cool: :cool:

We can get around the expensive Origin pricing by importing but when it comes to DLC we're fucked. Steam keeps all DLC the same price in all regions whereas EA marks it up for whatever ridiculous reasons...like $9 for the SPECTACT upgrade in BC2 and $20 for BC2: Vietnam. The other big digital outlets like D2D don't sell EA games to Aussies, with Gamersgate being the only exception...but I don't think it sells DLC.
 
The reason EA is doing this is because they don't know how to create a decent in-game server browser.
 
Meh, I used All Seeing Eye (RIP) with BF1942 back in the day and it was fine. I used the web browser in the BF3 alpha and it wasn't bad, certainly 1000x better than any DICE in-game browser (not a huge achievement TBH :)).

In any case, I'm not freaking out over it just yet, so long as it starts up and shuts down fast it is really no big deal.
 
this is actually more advanced than valve who has been using urls for years, but less feature complete because it's not integrated into their apps. you can decide whether they're being cutting edge or just lazy once it launches, it's all about usability and windows compat. if they manage to release a stable game with borderless windows that tabs back and forth without crashing or killing your memory, wtf would be the difference as long as their web ui is working properly.
 
Serpico said:
Meh, I used All Seeing Eye (RIP) with BF1942 back in the day and it was fine. I used the web browser in the BF3 alpha and it wasn't bad, certainly 1000x better than any DICE in-game browser (not a huge achievement TBH :)).

In any case, I'm not freaking out over it just yet, so long as it starts up and shuts down fast it is really no big deal.
Click to expand...

Pretty much what I was going to post. All Dice browsers have more or less been terrible on launch and afterwards. The battlelog browser was a bit of a surprise, it's fast and it actually works.
 
Tudz said:
Yeah exactly... BC2 is a poor example of a in game server browser. Its like saying lets stop making sand box first person shooters since Far Cry 2 was bad. I dont want a comparison of BF3 external server browser vs BC2 internal server browser, I want a comparison of BF3 external server browser vs a game that doesn't have a piss poor in game server browser.
Click to expand...

Quake Live? :p
 
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...

EA fanbois? LOL. How does actually using battlelog to launch a game, and knowing for a fact it is not a big deal, make someone a 'fanboy?'

The only difference is you hit a different key to see the browser. That is it. I was worried at first, but then I played the alpha and it was as seemless as an in-game browser. Its as simple as that. No 'fanboy' ism.
 
himmy said:
EA fanbois? LOL. How does actually using battlelog to launch a game, and knowing for a fact it is not a big deal, make someone a 'fanboy?'

The only difference is you hit a different key to see the browser. That is it. I was worried at first, but then I played the alpha and it was as seemless as an in-game browser. Its as simple as that. No 'fanboy' ism.
Click to expand...

The latest trend on these forums is that anybody supporting a developer for a controversial change is either a sheep or a fanboy. :rolleyes:
 
IcedEmotion said:
The latest trend on these forums is that anybody supporting a developer for a controversial change is either a sheep or a fanboy. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Well to be fair, most of the controversial changes recently just don't make any sense on the PC... like getting rid of dedicated servers and always on DRM. With that fresh in ones memory I can see why people would be suspicious when a dev/pub says they've made a great new change that will benefit PC gamers.

That said, it sounds like this one actually works okay but I think some people just won't fully believe it until they get it in their own hands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top