With the recent release of Back to Karkand on PS3 a week earlier than the Xbox 360 and PC, some fans have gotten up-in-arms over the issue of exclusivity.
A week is nothing TBH. I'll just wait for DLC on PC.
Yeah, I'm good with a week. Much more reasonable than a month.
So far I love the maps. I never played BF2 so they're all new to me except Wake Island, which was in 1943. I have yet to have a good time on Wake Island because these servers seem inept at filling games with quitters so I keep playing rush games 7-8, 6-7, and so on. Conquest is barely any better. Playing so many games with 12-14 player is now my biggest gripe, the maps just feel so empty with half the player count and it's not fun.
Lol yea 1 week relaly isnt much. Plus even though Sony signed BF3, it sold less on PS3 compared to xbox...
@Remember-I don't know where you're from, but I have never experienced that except at 4am in the morning when ppl logoff to sleep. Those games are always filled. Why dont you try using the browser. I am always in a big fight with tons of destruction and mayhem. The new maps are great, but I thought we were supposed to get new weapons too.
@Orange, you gotta unlock the weapons through playing & meeting certain criteria (get 10 revives/10 heals for the FAMAS I believe, and the others have their requirements too)
Damn, you 360 owners always get the 1st dibs on DLC, it's so unfair! What? PS3? Really? We got it first? Well there's a turn up for the books..... Rant revoked.....
So these same people have no issue with COD being exclusive for month with xbox360. Of GTA dlc exclusive for one year? Not every company is gonna make deasl with MS. EA and Sony has a great partnership and activation and MS has great wiring relationship. One week isn't killing anyone
Wow really people b*tching just cuz ps3 players get it it a week early yet when cod does it it's?? ok oh the irony<---360 players complaining.But i still think pc should have gotten it the same day as us.
Yeah but I'm sure Sony is paying out the arse for that 1 week exclusive deal same as MS with that COD deal. TBH you can't really blame EA for taking the deal. They are just a company and they are about making money.
Its not about who's getting it first, I don't like exclusive deals for one reason.....IT LEAVES GAMERS OUT!. And that is not what gaming is about. I have BF3 on PS3, and i think PC and Xbox should have it at the same time. Dont get me wrong, I HATE CRAPBOX, BUT I DON'T HATE MY FELLOW GAMERS. I had the original awesome box and depending on what sony or MS do next gen, i might go back to MS. Im not loyal to companies, but im loyal to human being and theres just is no reason to do this except to "maybe" make a few extra dollars (i say maybe cause some 360 players might get pissed and decide not to buy it) and in turn causing a huge rift among gamers. Its good for the company to have hardcore defenders and brand loyalist, but its not good for the people. Im not taking about system exclusivity but just this timed exclusive BS.
@ Majin, you should pay more attention to these forums then. When the COD maps come out early or MS has exclusive DLC this place lights up with anger.
They should just do away with all this exclusive DLC BS! Let DLC release and or be available at the same time across all platforms!
@JustSayin-Your comment is riddled with contradiction and idiotic banter. You called the xbox a CRAPBOX and then went on to say you would purchase another one next generation. Huh? You stated you HATE CRAPBOX, BUT DONT HATE YOUR FELLOW GAMERS. I have never spoken to Microsoft nor any of it's development or marketing team, so I dont hate a product I enjoy using. I do know I have spoken to my fellow gamers on PSN and XBL and they are some of the most racist, obnoxious, loud, and annoying douche bags I have ever heard and muted. So SOME of my fellow gamers...I DO HATE. Secondly, how is ok for Activision to do so, but when EA does it...IT'S NOT FAIR FOR GAMERS? In case you didn't know, these 2 companies are competing for home entertainment dominance. The few extra dollars you mentioned that company might make as the reason for doing is exactly why they did it. It's all about making those same few extra dollars. No one is going to get pissed and not purchase it because it's a timed release. If you don't purchase it because of that, why get upset in the first place? Obviously you want it...right? Seriously, I'm begging you...Grow the f-ck up please.
From what I understand, instead, Sony will offer better royalty rates to said publisher over a period of time.
@orange-skittle I guess comprehension isn't your strong suit. READ what i said again. Everything changes generation to generation you tool. I had the original Xbox (which was awesome) and passed on the 360 cuz its not. Does that mean next gen MS cant make a awesome box again? what part of that is contradictory? And, where did i say it was okay for one company to do it but not the other??? i suggest you STFU, and learn to read better. Oh, and if a bunch of people are being dick to you...guess what? They don't like you and its not hard to see why not. maybe you can play with MS and sony, since you hate your fellow gamers so much.
This is random, but can anyone explain to me.. what DETERMINES that Battlefield 3 is a good QUALITY game? Can someone give me a genuine answer?
-ALL Classes are equally important -Guns are almost perfectly balanced -Vehicle/Air combat is balanced well to ground forces -Gameplay options, and lots of them I know the last point seems vague, but what I mean is that you can do multiple things during a game and still move your team towards the main goal. Whether your just calling guys out and not shooting, using vehicles, reviving guys, etc. I don't know if all that falls under "quality" for you, but when I think quality, I think strong gameplay, longevity, and multiple ways to have fun. And BF3 comes 2nd to only Skyrim this year in that department.
People define quality differently. What's your standards for quality? Edit: I think mugoldeneagle03 gave a good answer.
It's low quality tbh. If you want high quality look at: Halo, Uncharted, Final Fantasy etc.
@mugoldeneagle03 People will hate me for this, and I promise to you, I love both BF3 and MW3 Equally. But I read a comment on IGN which was very smart, and showed that the CoD series is exactly like the Battlefield series, but got hated on 10x more. In regards to your comment, I find that classes in CoD have much more variety than they do in BF. Simply because you can actually choose what ever you want, where as in BF3, I mostly get killed by the M16/AK47. Meaning that MANY of the online players use the Support class. I'm not bashing on the class or the game, but look at the difference. Secondly, I agree that the guns are perfectly balanced in BF3.. but are there really any overpowered weapons in MW3? I know MW2 has the UMP and Black Ops had the AK74u.. but what does MW3 have? You tell me. Thirdly, this is just a personal thing, but I really don't like vehicles.. It's mainly because of my nooby vehicle handling. But, I guess many of the BF players enjoy the vehicles.. so I'll give you that. Gameplay options.. I'm not trying to make you angry, but all of my BF3 friends, both on PS3 and Origin.. they all play Rush. I don't see any other game mode ever being played. Where as on MW3.. I see TDM, I see Domination, I see Search & Destroy.. and all of the above with 'Hardcore' before the title. So why.. is CoD not a quality game? It seriously baffles me. Why all the hate from US BF3 players, I'm going to say 'us' because I love the game to bits my self. But seriously, CoD has done SO much for the gaming industry, and what I seriously don't understand is.. if you're not going to BUY the game AT ALL, then why comment on it? Why comment on the buyers of the game, when the game is supposedly not affecting you in any way? CoD does not deserve the hate it is currently receiving. MW3 is the best CoD since CoD4, yet it's getting hated on at the rate of rabbits mating. .. That is all.
When I had to wait MONTHS to get my Fallout 3 DLC on PS3. No sympathy for 360 owners on this one
wah wah wah cry cry cry. can never please anyone, EA has had a deal with PS3 for a while now, MoH and deadspace had exclusive games with the ps3 versions. Xboxers, if you're playing Bf3 and not cod...why do you even own a xbox? this problem would be solved.
If you're playing COD and not BF3, why do you even own a PS3? Same goes for Skyrim. Kinda sounds stupid doesn't it xtremeimport? Thought so.
@ xtremeimport You want an honest answer? I purchase ANY game that is going to give me a good portion of it's value from multiplayer for my Xbox 360, over my ps3. Two main reasons for that: 1) I have issues playing FPS games with the ps3 controller--my thumbs always want to slide of the top of the rounded analougue sticks, where the 360 controller has a slightly concave countour to the top of their analogue sticks, which I think keep my thumbs on the grip and give me better control. AND I really can't stand that on ps3, the controls for shooting are: aim and shoot with the tiny L1 and R1 buttons, And after attatching the trigger extenders to R2/L2, you wind up with these big meaty, weighted feeling triggers..perfect for shooting with.... but alas you cant use them.. and most games sadly do not allow you to re-map your controller... you ususally can only choose between a few factory presests. Xbox shooting controls always use the actual triggers to provide aim and shoot controls. I personally think it feels better. 2). This one will get me disagree bombed and bubbled-down, but i dont care. Simply put, The features of Xbox Live are better for online gaming than the PSN. Party chat, private chat, The headset plugs right into the bottom of the controller and is easy to use/easy to hear your friends on the other end without also hearing their air-conditioner and their wife yelling at them in the background. As it stands my Ps3 is not even compatible with my Bluetooth device, so whenever I play Uncharted or KZ2 online with my PSN friends, we wind up doing a conference call so we can talk to each other.. and then all I hear is jumbled voices and everyone elses TV. People complain that Xbox Live carries a subscription fee, but I'm willing to bet most of the people that complain have never used it. If you do a lot of online-gaming, you're better off with the 360.
@FunkMcnasty Fair points I think, I have the a slightly different take on the Xbox pad though. The analogue sticks are kind of stiff so when it comes to subtle movements like needed with sniping I end up moving too far or not at all. COuld prob adjust to that but i've been using the PS3 pad for far too long to justify the change. The headset thing is completely in Xbox's favour though. It comes in the box, you just plug it in and you're away. You have a choice to not use it but at least its there to begin with. Sony failed in this aspect, yeah it accepts any bluetooth device but most are of a shoddy quality (sound feedback from another users mic being my main issue. Hear something on your TV then you hear it through your headset about 1 seconds later). I went through two before I found one I was happy with. On the flip-side not every loud mouthed little f*cker can voice their opinion in games but at times the silence with no comms chatter is very noticible in squad based games.
my point was, that BF3 was always gonna have some exclusives towards the Ps3. if you are a die hard BF fan and own both consoles, why not get it for Ps3? I understand each person feels differently when it comes to the controller...I personally notice almost zero difference, same goes for XBL vs PSN.
im loving wake island! its sick!
Looks so good! But I gotta wait a week. SO INFURIATED! Just kidding.
Its cool we get to rip shit apart one week early than the other guys *cough*
Guadalcanal is better, hahaha.. Wake island is back and forth map.
I knew it ws because Sony made a deal with EA. People were complaing that the xbox 360 version would suck because they wouldn't show trailers of it running on 360. In my blog, I explained how BF3 was being backed by Sony and that it wasn't because the 360 version was a bad port. read it here: http://n4g.com/user/blogpos... on topic, I don't like how DICE says things, but does little action on it. Sure I believe they will act on their word, but when? @Magic-Veggies I have a 360 and I'm not mad PS3 got a week start on the DLC. I get it for free afterall. I'm only annoyed that PS3 players get week DLC in addition to BF1943. I have 1943, but I didn't like the whole cry-baby additude to get it, it is old and only $15.
The cost of BF1943 is irrelevant. The issue with BF1943 was the promise made by Dice saying it would be included in BF3. That's false advertisement and its unacceptable. Don't make a promise and then all of a sudden not live up to that promise.
Did you notice when the court got involved, they "remembered" the deal.
"Don't make a promise and then all of a sudden not live up to that promise." They are EA. What do you expect?
It's not a "crybaby" attitude. They promised it would be on disc and have promised similar things in the past and full filled them all. Instead we got a week advance on DLC and as a PS3 gamer who cares? Its just a week for one, and two if your not playing on PS3 at all you won't notice a difference. At least I dont with COD. I'm glad BF1943 is going free, it shows a lot of respect from EA to the fans.
That was fear of getting sued.
"wasn't because the 360 version was a bad port." It's funny that they advertised the PS3 version so hard and yet kinda dropped the ball on the whole thing, what with the input lag and bad voice-chat.
Voice chat on the 360 version isn't without its issues... "Look o-t, m---, the--'s a sn---- on your ------t...t------you----fffff- -----!"
@frostypants Haven't had any issues with the 360 voice chat. however I don't usually hear anyone talking and the only chatting i do on BF3 is through the party system.
@Hufandpuf Are you using the in-game voice chat or the party system?
"the only chatting i do on BF3 is through the party system" Did you forget to read the last part of Hufandpuf's 2 line comment? Smh.
why exclusivity? Because Sony paid us. That sums it up.
It's fair what Sony did, but I just don't like DLC deals in general, be it BF, CoD, or whatever.
i don't think it is fair. both activision and ea/dice will make plenty of money off game sales. they are just being greedy at our expense just like nearly every other corporation out there. these companies no longer care about their customers, only our wallets. worse case senario is when Sony delayed xbox ghostbusters in PAL regions for 6 months or something because they owned the rights in that region. granted that was from one of the 3 console makers and we know how they all conduct themselves. a month for cod map packs is pretty damn crappy as well, especially from activision. my point being, common decency takes a back seat to greedy executives as usual. unfortunately fanboys can't get passed their obsessive branding disorder to see what is really going on.
Anyone with a problem behind Sony paying for the exclusive time of DLC better not be a fan of MS pulling the same moves with Call of Duty. MS and Acti are WAY worse than EA and Sony right now. I think this will lead to a long healthy relationship between the two companies. It's something that is needed if EA wants to surpass COD, and eventually the two games (medal of honor as well) will be even and its that very point this will get extremely fun as gamers. I'm more interested to see what MS does with Acti's contract expired, and what Acti will do now that BF3 slid rather high up the totem pole.
MS would just give them another million to do it all over again.
Not a big deal. If im not mistaken, BF3 sold more on the 360 though. EA shouldn't forget that.
Is this really an issue? Really? It was a known fact a long time ago it was happening. If these crybabies didn't know that they're dumb. At least they only have to wait one week.
This is a total non-issue. Being honest a week hardly feels like exclusivity. If anything, I would think Sony has to be a bit foolish to have banked on a single week of exclusivity when MS has managed to pull a full month exclusivity on Xbox 360. One has to hope for Sony's sake they didn't pay too much for 1 week exclusivity.
....evening out the playing field...... by 1/4
BF3's maps are too big for 5-flags? If you want 5-flags go play small maps (BF1943).... How does that make any sense??
Yeah, that one made by eyeball twitch as well. I think what they mean is that with the bigger map, with 5 flags players would be too spread out trying to cap them. Problem with this logic is that it basically makes a huge portion of the map irrelevant. Half the fun of Wake Island was boating across the "horseshoe" between those 2 flags at the ends, then attacking the next flags from behind. I think the problem was this: with most maps, they can shrink the playable territory down for smaller player counts. Wake Island, however, has always been a one-size-fits-all map...it wouldn't be the same if parts of it were chopped down. For BF1943, they just shrank the whole map by 25% in order to accommodate the 24-player count. But since BF3 is cross-platform, and they have to make it playable for 64 players, they had to keep it at full size. What they SHOULD have done was simply provide an additional version of the map for consoles (and maybe for PCs for smaller matches), or at least moved the 2 outside flags further towards the ends of the island so that real estate isn't wasted. I DO think it will be fun with 3 flags...it will be really intense. It just won't feel like Wake Island in the previous games.
You did not understand what he meant by 3 maps for wake island on PS3. Its the player count of 24 thats the issue. 5 flags would make it a lot harder with 24 players and also slower. 3 flags make it much tighter fun with 24 players on the same large map. To summarize, 'they don't want to reduce the map size and give u 5 flags , instead 3 flags with large sized maps with 24 players.' Both ways make them game tight but large maps have a big scale feel to it. I agree with Dice about keeping it epic. @Above Yea u got it right.
I really hate what they did to the back to karkand maps. gulf of oman doesnt even feel like the same map anymore with it being being about 25% of what it used to be. they really should have tried to have more people able to play in the same room so we could get the large maps like pc does.
There is a reason you dont have that. Its not like Dice just said lets give the pc double the player count.
So when CoD does it for an entire month on 360, people didn't mind, but when they do it for the PS3 for 1 week in BF3 people backlash?
COD players don't notice because there IQ is lacking, but BF players are more crafty and aware to the goings on in the world.
ROTFLMFAO Bub up xDDDDDD.
I play COD and have an IQ of 137. Also, I can spell their.
@greatjimbo78 I play TES and don't know my IQ. Also, I can't spell their.
I agree, when I read this on twitter, I was like " lemmy get this straight, When Xbox gets it a MONTH early (CoD is shit, don't care) but when we get DLC early for and OBVIOUSLY better game, people bitch?"
how about address the fact they are F'n the freaking game up with the nerfs and buffs and calling it"balance".. my ass.
M$ did it also with GTA4!! And they paid 50 million for that also.
And the 50 million most likely paid for Red Dead Redemption.
Not quite. Microsoft didnt pay for exclusivity so much, as they loaned them $50mil to make the DLC, with the first $50mil in takings from the DLC to go straight to microsoft, as well as a cut of any earnings above and beyond. it was a smart move for both parties, and then also for us gamers - Microsoft got exclusive dlc for 12 months, rockstar got funded to make 2 great dlc packs, and eventually ps3 owners got it too. win, win, win. 1 week exclusivity for this doesnt bother me. to be honest i didnt even know it was coming out so soon.
13 year olds arent supposed to be playing BF3 anyway, last I checked it was rated M.
look at this way at least your not waiting a month for dlc dice is nicer than activision :)
Technically, EA is nicer than Activision :)