Battlefield 3 PC version won't have in-game server browser

In an ironic turn of events, DICE has confirmed that PCs won't have a server browser, while consoles will.

[firemassacre]

oh

[FriedGoat]

I was used to doing this through All Seeing Eye back in the day when i was playing quake 1,2,3 Wolf ET, UT ect. Its not much of a problem.

[malol]

you've got to be kidding me
you give that to consoles and THIS shit to PC ????

screw you EA

why do i have to start origin
then start the web browser
then pick a server there ?

thats STUPID and totally unaffectionate

[evrfighter]

I was actually impressed with the firefox server browser in alpha. There was no splash screens, just straight into the action. That and I used the-all-seeing eye back in the day. it was second only to steams server browser.

I mean seriously...name one battlefield title that wasn't plagued with server browser issues at launch.

I'd take a server browser through my web browser over a battlefield ingame server browser when I remember all the problems I used to have.

[lil Titan]

@malol i hope your joking. pc still gets 64 online, better graphics and some other stuff im SURE im missing. in other words

[k3x]

"I mean seriously...name one battlefield title that wasn't plagued with server browser issues at launch."

Here's an idea: Instead of pulling stupid shit like this, how about they hire someone competent enough to create an in-game server browser that actually works? That's insane, I know! Why would anybody do that? It just makes too much god damn sense.

Welp, DICE never was good at fixing stuff. That's why their games feel like early betas -- all laggy, wobbly and jittery -- even years after release. And yet millions of people will gladly go to the store and pay for their shoddily developed, regurgitated products time after time, every single year. Stupidity never ceases to amaze.

[NarooN]

Man I remember All Seeing Eye...Crap was so awesome, lol. Playing on old Half-Life MP servers and Team Fortress Classic servers with it. It's not really a big deal at all if it's like that.

[k3x]

Yes, but in case of both these games and many other idTech based titles that I played using a third party server browser, you always had the option to use the in-game browser if you so preferred and, most importantly, you could just right click, copy th IP, paste it in the console and connect to a new server without having to restart the whole game. Can you do that in BF3?

[superrey19]

all the alpha testers said they actually liked the new system.

[k3x]

So? It doesn't make it a good system. Certain people would like it even if DICE included a huge thorny dildo with each copy of the game that they'd need "use" to keep the game running. I can't reason with that.

[BakedGoods]

Bubs for All-Seeing-Eye reference!

[superrey19]

@k3x

Sooo if many people liked it and a lot of them said it was actually quicker to get into a game it's still bad according to you because it's "different"? Great logic -_-

Yes certain people will praise anything regardless of the quality (*cough* cod *cough*), but this hasn't been tried before, at least not in a Battlefield game so chill out and judge it after you've tried it.

[SilentNegotiator]

"I mean seriously...name one battlefield title that wasn't plagued with server browser issues at launch"

If screwing up every time made screwing up again okay, we'd live in an exponentially more screwed up world.

Instead of excuses, I think we can demand something as simple as a competent built-in server browser.

[k3x]

@ superrey19

I'm guessing the difference lies in the fact that the server list in BF3 is displayed pretty much instantaneously as opposed to in-game server lists, where you download the entire server lists with all the additional data like player names etc. and have to wait for the entire process to finish.

Still, it's a dumb idea and one of many shining example of DICE's crappy design practices. You have the game running, you close it, you choose a server through your internet browser. You then start the game again, from scratch, at which point all the resources need to be loaded back into memory, even if the server you chose is running the same map you were playing a moment ago.

But sure, let's wait and see how it pans out. I know for a fact that the BF fanbois/COD haters will get used to everything DICE shoves down their throats. I can already imagine them telling the people that complain about the fact that the game needs to be restarted every time they want to switch servers to "upgrade their shitty computers," and thus once again pay for DICE's utter incompetence with money from their own pockets.

What I'm curious about is this: How can you rag on COD in one sentence and then go on to praise and defend a game like BF? They're almost identical products. Same pseudo-realistic team warfare bullshit for casual players who color themselves competitive for some unfathomable reason. Same rehashed ideas in slightly different packages every single year.

The main difference from the perspective of a gamer who hates both of these unimaginative cookie-cutter FPP borefests equally? At least COD uses an engine from a company that knows what they're doing (id), which enables it to function like a final version of a game and not some early beta that's bursting at the seams everywhere you look.

[Ducky]

^ "You then start the game again, from scratch, at which point all the resources need to be loaded back into memory, even if the server you chose is running the same map you were playing a moment ago."

That would be an excellent argument IF the in-game server browsers actually kept previous map-data in its memory.
As it stands, most in-game server browsers suffer from the same points you mentioned against the web-browser... so what's there to complain about? O.o

[k3x]

Server browsers keeping previous map-data in their memory? What? The game does that. Unless it's restarted every time you change servers that is.

Loading new maps or restarting maps after the game's already been running for a while has always been drastically faster than loading them from scratch for the first time after launch. Just as it's much faster to reopen a large document in an application like, say, Adobe After Effects, that's already running, than to close the process and then reopen the whole thing again. This is how it's always been, in every application, in every game. You can't argue with that, though I'm pretty sure you'll try anyway.

Stop being such a fanboi and you might feel like less of a "O.o" to such an extent that you'll be able to formulate a response that isn't 100% drivel.

[TheBeast]

PC gamers still get a better option. IMO

[Motorola]

Did you play the alpha? This was annoying as hell. I had to close the game to change servers. If they put the option for an ingame server browser, the game will be way better.

[sprayNpray]

I agree, but the worst part was how in game VOIP was set up from within battlelog, meaning you had to be friends with the people you were playing with or you wouldn't get to talk to them. PLUS, for me the damn plugin for voice chat didn't even work, and I wasn't the only one.

Overall this was a bad decision and will make this game "feel" cheaper than it is. What I mean by that is it's going to seem like a browser game with good graphics.

[wicko]

It's true, joining through a browser is infinitely better. Why sit there looking at a loading screen when you can be checking out stats/doing whatever it is you do on your PC?

I also played the Alpha, and honestly I didn't care about that. Closing the game and joining a different server is still faster than doing the same on console.

[KingDustero]

Lol what the heck? This has to be a joke right?

I must be misunderstanding this. Aren't they basically saying the PC version has matchmaking only? So what is stopping players from leaving a game and just finding another one?

I don't care much myself since I'll be getting the PS3 version, but something like this will probably piss a lot of PC gamers off.

[Pandamobile]

Wow. Read the damn article.

[WANNAGETHIGH]

@Pandamobile look whos talking :-/

[Pandamobile]

What. I played in the alpha, I know exactly what's going on and it works fine.

This guy is acting like there's no server browser and we're stuck in a matchmaking system which is NOT the case.

I have no idea what the 7 disagrees are about

[malol]

what if the website goes down ??
what if the DNS at my ISP is down ??? or Fu*ked up (sometimes it happens where some websites work and some don't)
then we are just screwed

in-game server browser is 100% much better
they are restricting us to use there website which is completely stupid

[Pandamobile]

"what if the website goes down ??"
What happens if the master server goes down? It happens in BFBC2 on a regular basis for maintenance.

"what if the DNS at my ISP is down ???"
Then you can't play online anyway.

Your rationale makes no sense. How bout you people actually USE THE SERVICE BEFORE BASHING THE HELL OUT OF IT.

It's different than what you might be used to, but
IT. WORKS. PERFECTLY. FINE.

[arjman]

What makes no sense is why they thought it would be a good idea to get rid of the server browser

[radphil]

"what if the DNS at my ISP is down ??? or Fu*ked up (sometimes it happens where some websites work and some don't) "

Then.....that's a fault of your ISP....Not the game.

[wicko]

They didn't get rid of the server browser.. wow. You browse for servers through your actual browser and you can keep browsing until the game is loaded. Infinitely better than in-game server browsers.

[DeadIIIRed]

@wicko so browsing servers through an internet browser such as firefox is more convenient than doing it in-game?

[sprayNpray]

I was also in the alpha and I found the whole battlelog experience left me feeling disconnected and it was very buggy. Hopefully those bugs are gone and voice chat will be in game instead of through battlelog (which only makes sense if you are only going to play with your friends every time you play).

I just want them to release modding tools for bf3. Project Reality for battlefield 2 was/is my favorite "battlefield" experience to date.

[caboose32]

The game has a damn sever browser, people. It's just not in-game.

And just like Pandamobile, I was in the Alpha and the server browsing and joining of games actually worked MUCH faster then any previous pc BF game.

It just felt kind of weird and awkward being in a web browser. Im sure we will get used to it.

So yea, stop making assumptions people. You probably dont know it, but your wrong most of the time.

[rawrockkillz]

It's not bad at all. I was in the alpha and the game loads pretty fast from the Battlelog site.

[Pandamobile]

Joining servers from BattleLog worked fine in the alpha trial. The game goes from browser to fully loaded and ready to go in like 15-20 seconds.

[jidery]

Typical PC fanboy, can't admit a broken feature when they see one.

Edit: Having to close the game to find a new server is so inefficient and the dumbest thing Dice has ever done. It would be MUCH faster if the game had an in-game UI, rather than having to go through extra loading just to change your server. If BF3 starts so fast, imagine how much faster it would start if it didn't have to go through those extra steps?

Battlelog and the server browser could be MUCH better if it wasn't limited by the web browser, which can't compare to an in-game UI. After all, I thought PC gaming was ALL about the shinny graphics? Why would PC gamers settle with a static browser to find their game?

But, PC fanboys don't realize this and will still hail it as a good feature.

[Ducky]

... and if he bitched, it'd be "Typical PC fanboy, always crying."

The current system works fine from what I played in the Alpha
Sure, having an in-game browser is nice because having options are nice, but it isn't really a big deal.

[-Alpha]

Except for the fact that it's not "broken"

If it works as fast as people are saying then it's not a big issue at all. Annoying, but no need to blow it out of proportion

[Pandamobile]

As if you know anything about it. Battlelog worked fine in its alpha state.

The only thing different about this is that you have to close the game in order to change servers. It takes the same amount of time to close and relaunch as it does to go back to the menu, and join a new server in BFBC2.

Shut your mouth, son.

[Ducky]

Your edit makes no sense whatsoever.
Perhaps you should actually play on the PC?

The number of steps aren't all the different, and BF3's server switching was faster than BC2 because you didn't have to wait for the server list to load twice (not to mention the dreaded 'updating soldier' dialog)

- There is no 'extra loading' that you speak of.

- An in-game server-browser has nothing to do with 'shinny' graphics.

- What on earth is a 'static' browser?

- You do realize that PC fanboys are stereotypically whiny babies that cry over the smallest details, right?
Check the article about FromDust if you need assurance.
If they're fine with it, then chances are, it's not a big deal.

[wicko]

Who the fuck cares about a shiny looking server browser? Every server browser I have ever seen could easily be replicated in a browser. I'd much rather be able to browse around/check out stats then sit there staring at a loading screen. God you are dumb, jidery. Sounds like some PC gamers made your butt hurt.

[Letros]

U sound mad bro

[DtotheRoc]

you're rpobably one of those kids with a new machine that has like 4 cores and 8 gigs of ram lol for those of us that only had a machine to play crysis and cod4 we're screwed with our duos.

[Motorola]

@Pandamobile C'mon man. I was in the alpha and this was my only real complaint. Joining servers from Battlelog is a pain. They should let us keep a favorite server list in the game at least :D Its better than NO server browser so I dont really care.

[ddkshah]

From a person that played the alpha:

"its not a problem. let me explain. i played the alpha and when u go into a game u simply load the map, not the interface like menus and so on… so it goes as fast as normal to load the game and map.

The different is that the browser isnt ingame but in the browser. AND its not bad. When i joined a game i didnt have to have the game up when map was loading, i could do other things.. look on webpages, check out skype and so on. That is really awesome in my opinion.

Give it a try guys, you may find it wired in the begining but u will like it and think its awesome. see yaa on the battlefield"

[zslash]

Good. Battlelog is amazing from what I experienced in the alpha. Superior to a built-in server browser.

EDIT: This article is something of a fluff piece though. There's no direct confirmation that the final product won't have a server browser.

[MARKUS_MAX1MUS]

WTF

[lMHl]

CAPITAL LETTERS!

[LoaMcLoa]

That's... really strange.

Just why? To prevent piracy or something?

[Ducky]

For better integration of Battlelog.
That'd be my guess anyways.

Piracy isn't a concern because the server files will likely be kept closed.
BC2 doesn't have any pirated servers last time I checked.

[DeadIIIRed]

Seems like a waste of memory to have to run the game and a browser. Firefox alone usually takes up about 150 MB

[Bladesfist]

lol thats alot of ram for a console. But seriously who on pc does not have enough memory to run a browser and a game?

[kamakaz3md]

thats crazy... they gotta give the console versions more love cause thats where the cash comes from. This game is near perfection

[Pandamobile]

"they gotta give the console versions more love"

I'm sorry, what? The console version is getting a basic server browser. The PC version is getting this whole social network type dashboard thing where you can assemble people into a squad from your desktop, then use the *provided server browser* to join a server.

BattleLog is the main menu of the PC version of the game.

[StayStatic]

I Agree

Yer ill take the social network over the clumsy in game browsers found in the previous battlefield games.

Just wondering if you will be able to alt-tab effectively to change servers.

Addtionally i select my servers for Steam games outside of games already, with its own social features, so this will feel quite natural.

So much unnecessary crying , guess gamers don't like change.

[MARKUS_MAX1MUS]

This and the fact you need origin installed is really putting me off, two untested, unproven things being used to govern our gaming accesibility?

I garuntee battlelog & Origin crash like a mother fuckers and having to have battlelog open to switch servers and also origin running to play it is going to tax performance unecessarily...

why the hell cant i just buy my game, install it, boot it up and play it?

[Moragami]

It's not untested. Not only did they just stress test it by running the alpha, but developers like DICE playtest their games continuously throughout the course of development.

As someone who played the alpha, I can attest that, while it took me a couple times to get comfortable with no in-game browser, by the end of the alpha, I had to admit that Battlelog was going to be a great way to join games.

Don't knock it till you try it, because it's going to be much better than you think.

[Jodou]

This is EA at the reins trying to push Origin on everyone. It's not a huge deal, since alpha was fairly painless to launch, but it's not the most efficient way to integrate a server browser for sure. I'd be willing to bet it was a move to guarantee BF3 couldn't be used/sold on Steam, period.

Sadly, EA is just another business looking to up their market share, so it's the gamers that suffer in the end.

[EliteAssass1n]

April fools in August? Please tell me you guys got hit over the head and woke up a little dazed.

[jdktech2010]

Why bother explaining this isn't ideal but not a big deal either? I played in the alpha and it takes some getting used to but it's the same damn thing.

The only thing I don't like about it I kept getting full game error even though it said 2 spots open. Happens in BC2 often too though.

I'm convinced...people whine just to whine....they've got nothing better to do

[Bay]

I hope it really does load up fast from Battlelog...not everyone has a fast PC like that (not going to be a problem for me, but for some friends).

[annus]

Sorry to break the news to you, but if you friends don't have a 'fast' computer to load it up in a fair amount of time, they probably aren't going to have a good enough computer to run the game very stable.

[Saryk]

Thats right! If you buy this game for the PC, you better take those bull nuts off your truck and put them on you computer, its going to need it!

[DtotheRoc]

completely ignorant gpu is the only thing that matters in games aside from enough ram to run the game itsself. i can run crysis on high settings but i with having only 2 sticks of ram i have to have everything else turned off so all my perfomance goes directly to the game. like the kid said this is BS and going to tax my machine unnecessarily possibly making this now unplayable when i know my 8800 card can handle any game on the market--it was the best you coudl buy back in 07--and i'm not upgrading anyhting til after dx12 comes.

[FGHFGHFGH]

Well you do need a good internet connection to play online and if you're short of ram it's really cheap right now.

http://www.newegg.com/Produ...

I think i saw some for like $15 for 2gig stick

[radphil]

The funny thing out of those "complaining" earlier, is that you can tell they didn't try the Alpha.

It worked better imo than how the previous BF games did anyways.

[DtotheRoc]

well since i only have 2 gigs of ram this will probably be an issue for me...probbaly just going to find a server and stay there for hours on end lol

[spacetoilet]

I'm cool with it, kind of annoying but I bet it has to be better than the god awful bfbc2 in game browser. If it's as efficient and detailed as ALLSeeing EYE was (still the best ever) then I'm fine.
I play bc2 everyday and the only reasone I put up with the in game browser is I refuse to use shitfire or shitspy as both are bloatware garbage.

[Hufandpuf]

BF2's server browser and multiplayer menu was horrible, now since you can launch the game from a website, they can improve and update the service on the fly without you having to patch the game for a simple change update.

[zslash]

Exactly, the BC2 server browser was rubbish. Battlelog is quick, responsive, and easy to use.

[latinalover]

for a month bfbc2 wouldn't let me play any online games T_T

[Ninjamonkey82]

Never did me no harm in the Alpha tbh all run fine for me. Cant see the problem?. Only thing i got was the issue with the driver lol that i could not find but i still run on the Nvidia driver before the one required. Everythingw as on high and running smooth as id like for an alpha anyways. Great game and im well looking forward to it.

[latinalover]

too bad PC gamers :(

[rattletop]

WTF?? as the article says, it's beeen a norm in PC gaming..
that's it imma gonna boycott!! :D

[latinalover]

i think people who boycott are little kids

[chak_]

I used battlelog during alpha and I absolutly love it, it's way faster than any other broswer, game close in 1 seconde, load in the baclground, you can group, filter, check stats, it's fast, sleek... I'm ok with no internal broswer, really

[Brownghost]

Well that's great I loved using the server browser but after using the alpha version I didn't like battleog too much an wished I could do everything on the game now I have to close the game go to battlelog and find a different browser quite annoying really at least consoles get a browser better than getting a random game with no players

[Jacobite]

It only gets better lol how to piss and alienate PC gamers nice 1 EA/Dice 50\50 now, get BF3 or wait nah! be busy playing RO2 : P

[Moragami]

I approve of Battlelog.

[trenso1]

lmfao now all the PC players will rage about this. while im upset that they cant enjoy it either i mean its only fair. its kinda like karma for them bashing how inferior consoles are to the superior PCs maybe EA will change their minds i hope

[caboose32]

If you know anything about DICE, you know that they arent very good with ingame server browsers.

If anything, this new type of server browser is a good thing for pc games. So yea, it is fair that we get a feature that works even better.

[Mike_Tha_Hero]

You're on a PC...why do you need an in-game browser, lol?

[pr0digyZA]

What is this battle log is it a website that you go through to load the game. If it is then I hope EA does not abuse it in the future by allowing intrusive advertising or trying to gain hits against their imaginary war with steam. I will be getting it on PC, and from what people are saying it sounds like a good alternative to the normal in game browser.PC gamers are defending this, where as if it was a matchmaking system I don't think this would be the case.

[jopeussr]

Battlelog worked great during the alpha, but a in-game browser wouldn't hurt.

[GamerPS360]

this is fucked up. keep pushing EA, Dice.