Battlefield 3 Premium Edition Shipping in September for $70

19

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

pratikrawankar

BF3 and Premium cost is not much high they are just fine

when compared to COD baby maps multiplayer and cost , COD sucks

BF3 best multiplayer ever built on Earth

I am a Premium user , I pay for it and enjoying alot

here

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/soldier/Pratik_Unleashed/stats/598397093/

avatar

ocnier

I would kill for f***ing BF2 with just updated graphics, hit mechanics, and frostbite 2 design (building destruction). That's all they had to do with it.... EPIC fail EA. Oh well i'm actually rooting now for activision/cod to out battlefield "battlefield" and release a true BF esque title like BF2 for PC (you know one that actually encourages teamplay). Meh, such is life.

avatar

GoldenMonkey

I wish Battlefield would continue being on steam, but ea is butthurt about steam's pricing strategy.

avatar

BrandNewJesus

I bought BF3 when it came out. $60
I bought the first expansion. $15
I bought the second expansion. $15

Now there are servers I can't play because they are premium only. Even though I have all the maps.

Cost of premium for me? Same as everyone else $50, even though they haven't paid $30 extra dollars for expansion packs.
AND NOW THIS.
I am not paying twice as much as someone else for the same shit.

Just keep fucking your customers.
They have gotten all the money they will ever get out of me.

avatar

Peanut Fox

I don't know if I'd call the DLC packs we see today expansions.

In most cases they're more map packs than anything else. Arguably overpriced map packs.

It's becoming quite clear the route publishers want to take their games. Extended content in the form of planned DLC and "premium" service offerings are about to start getting really common. If they can't sell you a box for one hundred bucks, they're going to try and get that money some other way.

avatar

The Second Comi...

Chicken Pants wishes that FPS games (and he has been enjoying them since Doom was released as Freeware) would have dynamically generated maps. That would change the face of the genre.

If every player would be tossed into a brand new map every session, most the ills with FPS games would vanish in a second. The fact that some players' SA (Situation Awareness) is much higher than others gives them a predatory advantage over other players. Make the landscape fresh for all and you have an entirely different experience.

People pay money for quality products. However, many of the people who will purchase this game - and all of the others before and after it - don't make a critical purchasing decision and are willing to keep buying the "same old thing". Chicken Pants hung up his combat boots a couple of years ago and will patiently await Dynamic Map Generation. Until then, the only jousting he'll do is with hie beak.

avatar

Danthrax66

No you need to have static maps for competitive play. Football has the exact same field no matter where it is played yet every game is different. The same applies to FPS games. Knowing the map is part of learning how to play the game, predicting where people might be coming from, knowing spawn times for weapons, knowing how to counter rush an area and how to counter the counter rush are all part of what makes these games competitive. The problem with modern games is that they are far too flat, and far too open. This leads to camping and other bullshit. If you look at the old Quake and unreal maps they were designed to be ran around and also had points to snipe from, newer map designers have far too many sniping points and not enough closed in areas with maze like corridors that prevent people from sitting in a bush somewhere taking sniper shots across the map.

avatar

KNFrH2O

I agree with what you said, but people still camp in closed in areas. They simply hide in a corner or behind some object near a high-traffic-area and blast anyone that runs by; usually with a shottie or explosive round.

Maybe if they had servers far more balanced by rank so that you didn't play with anyone so many grades above or below you. That, however, would seriously thin the available server pool.

avatar

DR_JDUBZ

First of all I'd like to say 50$ for a game is a lot, even if its the norm nowadays. secondly, 50$ for a game of PRE-BETA quality is bullshit, even if it is becoming the norm. So what if the patched it......6 months after its released. Not to also mention most of the survers are either FULL or EMPTY!!! NO SERVERS TO PLAY ON ON A MULTIPLAYER GAME!!! But EA NOW ASKING FOR 70 BUCKS MORE? I DONT THINK SO, I HOPE ANONOMOUS TAKES EA OUT BACK AND FLOGS THEM WITH A TELEPHONE POLE.

avatar

KNFrH2O

The "Premium" expansion/membership is not new. It actually came out in July. I hesitated on signing up for it at first because I wasn't sure if I should give EA any more of my money, but I'm glad I did.

Some of you seem to forget a few things about this game (and others):

1. It costs money to make games like this and it costs even more money to provide add-on content and expansions. $70 May seem like a lot or even too much for many gamers, but the game developers work very hard to provide their customers with this material. BF3 is one of the best first person shooters ever made and I feel that you really get what you pay for with this membership upgrade.

2. Call of Duty, in my experience, is far worse with camping and spamming (not to mention the perk system).

3. You can get mad at any company you want for what they've done to the industry. That's fine. But PLEASE be mature enough to take a step back and look at an amazing product for what it is. I won't lie... I can't stand the Origin system. I wish there was a different way of doing things... but BF3 is still badass and one of the best games I've ever played.

EDIT: The product being released in September is the "Armored Kill" expansion. This is the third expansion to BF3 so far. The first was "Back to Karkand" and the second was "Close Quarters".

avatar

buttersoft

It does cost money to make games, yes. However, when making money is the sole concern, gamers can usually tell. You may be having trouble with this.

1 - BF3 has maps designed with fixed spawnpoints. Kharg Island has one spawn point per flag - which hardly matters because the game is ridiculous for competitive play. The maps are not designed right.

2 - The netcode is rubbish. Counterstrike tournaments were not considered fair with ping differences about about 20ms. BF3's fully clientside hit rego inserts a forced delay of *at least* 250ms between clients. Added to which they upped the bullet damage massively, compared to previous titles. The result is that camping is the only thing that works in pub, and the game is no fun to play.

3 - They've dumbed the whole experience down for consoles. The lock-ons, the lack of talent required to fly helicopters. The tanks and APC's are good, the air vehicles are herpa-derp look-at-me-I-can-fly. Go watch old BF2 chopper vids like this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjfPm409Xn0

There's *something* to BF3, but unfortunately it's lost beneath the consolised rubbish. I for one have gone back to BC2. It lacks tactical depth, and there's no comp scene anymore, but i wasn't enjoying BF3 comp anyway, and BC2 is at least fun to play in pub.

tl:dr no other FPS game has generated so much interest, and sold so many copies, only to have so many people walk away in disgust. Added to which they keep charging people for things they already own.

avatar

Danthrax66

"BF3 is one of the best first person shooters ever made" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Maybe if you are 12. There are free to play games better than BF3 (TF2, Blacklight Retribution). Not to mention that Counter Strike is the best competitive FPS, and the old battlefield games are still better than BF3. The only thing good about BF3 is the graphics engine which is still worse than Metro 2033.

avatar

KNFrH2O

I'm not going to argue with you about your opinion of the game. I understand that not everyone will love BF3 like I do. However...

- I'm over 30 and I've played video games since I was 7. I've experienced dozens of FPSs and other types of games. BF3 is, by far, the most balanced and beautiful FPS I've ever seen. I had one week of trouble when I first started playing because I was ranked too low to have seriously dominant weapons... but I worked with what the game gave me and got things done. Anyone with skill can start this game from zero and drop a rank 100 (if there are any legitimate ones out there) in a heartbeat.

- I'm playing this game at 1080p on a 47" HDTV (my reg monitor sucked) and I still can't believe how beautiful everything is on high. I can only imagine how awesome it must be on ultra at an even higher res. CoD and other games (not just FPSs) look great, but *TO ME* this is the best. (Again... I don't expect everyone to agree with me.)

- I don't know where the 250ms forced lag came from in the earlier response. I live in Japan and play in west coast US servers with 150 to 190ms latency frequently and I've rarely seen lag or registration problems. In fact, I don't normally see reg' probs until I (or someone else in the server) exceeds 200ms.

- I won't argue about CS or Halo or other older games being excellent for competition. They were legendary. I played Halo PC for years. I think it is somewhat ignorant for someone to think that those skills do not transfer to today's games, though. Everything I learned about flick shots, headshots, map control, and timings have transferred over quite well to BF3. BF3 simply has more going on... more to keep up with. This makes it more challenging (in my opinion).

- I almost always play pubs in BF3 - never camp - and I usually have a great time. I'm sorry your experiences have been so much different. Perhaps this simply isn't the game for you.

avatar

buttersoft

The ping BF3 shows you is not comparable to the same number displayed on other FPS games, though if it's higher it does tell you certain things. The ping the game shows you is your latency to the server, true. But, packets you send to the server are processed, then shipped to another client, and processed there, after which his/her packets are sent back to the server, processed, and then sent to you. This is a simplification, but what goes on is roughly like that, and it does create a delay; it has to, look at the steps.

All the server does is sit in the middle shuttling traffic, and interpreting the plausibility of information (to weed out obvious hacks/impossible shots and make decisions) but it does so passively, and this creates further lag. All the actual rego processing is done on the client's end, to save server resources, and EA/Server provider's money, while charging clients the same fees as they would for server side usage. Older games used the server to process information and make decisions; by comparison BF3 does not.

The above effects combine in BF3 to create a delay between what you see and what's really going on. Your computer draws frames on the screen regardless of whether it receives packets, and then corrects things as the information arrives. This is called interpolation. You remain a permanent 250ms behind the action, and the higher your ping, the higher that delay is. (other people feel that delay equal to you, when facing off with you) (I'm being generous. It's more like 400ms with a sub 30ms ping - there are videos on youtube showing this.)

However, hit rego is still calculated on your end. So, in theory, and if everything actually went right, You Hit What You See - the famous line touted by those who support clientside hit detection. The problem with this, obviously, is that because you're 250ms behind the action, what you see isn't really there. You can hit, and normally you can hit well, but you cannot move or dodge properly because you cannot react to what your opponents are doing. One result of this is that you die so far around corners and into cover that there's little point in bothering to take cover. It also affects movement past or around people in corridors or doorways. Average human reaction time is about 200ms, give or take. Good FPS gamers have reactions far faster than this. Clientside rego is crippling to that reaction time, and makes it nearly impossible to fake-out or wrongfoot people - surely any FPS gamer knows how much fun doing that can be.

If you're going to say that hitting is more important, and all the other stuff isn't so critical, you're still wrong. Quake/CS/CS:S/SOF/BC2 all manage to do both, to allow you to hit, and to move. They used server-side rego. (Ok, BC2 used a mix, but the server still made decisions.) Server-side rego is better, but it costs much more to implement and maintain, and console controllers are so slow that clientside rego does not produce a noticeable change on consoles.

If you do not agree with above, why not go buy an Xbox? There are some great deals around. You'll love it!

The Xbox will take away any pretext of a learning curve for you. You can jump on at level 1 and start killing guys who've put hours into learning the game mechanic. It hardly even matters what game; something the PC gaming community has been bemoaning for years.

(EDIT omg lol i just read your comment about illegitimate lvl 100 players. I bet you're ace at spotting hackers too, aren't you?)

avatar

Mortal_M

Time to go back and delete all my posts about COD before they start laughing at me.

avatar

Danthrax66

They are trying to sell a $70 expansion for that piece of shit game? It might be worth it if they fixed lag compensation and hit registration, but since it's EA they likely just made it worse.

avatar

Emmit066

Well, that's a little irksome. I haven't gotten premium yet but I've been playing the game since the night it was released. Maybe they'll do something for people like me who have played from the moment it went live, but I doubt that.

The game is good, it's just that I hate having to overpay for a game that I enjoy. Sure, I could wait until the game is 5 years old & then get it for $10 somewhere, but by that point everyone will have moved on to something else.

As far as camping, there is some of that but it completely depends on the server you are on. I've seen some boring campfests on full servers playing Metro, I've also seen some really challenging games where the same server was half full playing the exact same map. Sometimes the less players the better, sometimes the more the better. It all boils down to personal taste.

avatar

noobstix

Heh, $70 for a campfest? If I wanted to spend $70 camping, I'd go up to the Yosemite.

avatar

Hooded

It's too bad Dice was sucked up by such a crappy company.
Doesn't matter how good this game is I won't get it.
EA worst company going.
They just need to go away.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.