Battlefield 3 PC won?t have in-game server browser, Battlelog is the main menu

BAM, now I'm not buying it. It was too good to be true.

Can you launch Single Player without using a browser/battlelog?

 

I think not.

In the end, what's the big deal? You'll have to open another firefox tab, so what?

 

For all of you worrying about BF3 server browser :

 

Do you have internet access everywhere you go? Some people do not, and this may upset them...let’s say you go on vacation or to a relative’s house for the weekend.

Let’s hope you weren't planning on playing single player.

This is upsetting for some others still, because believe it or not, even people who do have internet might still have 500ms ping or only be running low-level dsl. (or 3G internet tether)

There are plenty of people who buy for single-player only. And it would be a dis-justice if their reason for playing single player was because they don't have reliable net. What happens when all games require reliable net because we didn't stand up to drm?

Next thing you know, we have a company like Google, except they make games that require you to be connected to the internet for DRM, AND...Then require you to use them as your ISP, therefore dictate internet prices...AND you must use their proprietary browser....AND MAYBE some specific hardware you must buy (proprietary USB device) in order to enable unlocked graphics settings.

Wait wat?

 

Oh, putting things that way...

Fortunately, I'm able to have internet everywhere I have, but I'm sure you'll be able to launch the SP through the .exe in the installed folder.

 

I'm not sure why everyone is so upset by this.

Origin is actually pretty decent. It's like a less restrictive version of steam. It includes a storefront and manages the install, and allows you to launch the application, but it isn't required to do so. Blizzard should take notes. Since you don't have to run origin while playing the game, there is no reason to be bothered. Even if you did, it's just sitting idle on a few MB, but you don't, so whatever.

As far as the web browser, I'm not convinced that it's a bad thing. It depends on the implementation, and I'd like to see it and reserve judgement. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's bad. I can imagine certain benefits of having the server browser as a web application instead of embedded into the main program.

If you're concerned about loading times, consider that all the in-game assets are traditionally loaded during runtime after choosing a server to connect to, anyway. So, this won't make a difference.

 

You don't think that is a bit of a stretch?

I agree change is not always bad, We wouldn't be anywhere we are with technology if we didn't update or change anything.

 

It may be a bit of a stretch...but maybe not. We have xbox-live don't we? We have DLC don't we? We have DRM don't we?

What if... xbox-live service became windows-live service, and you had to pay for membership to play online? Or EA-live service?

What if...DLC wasn't a map pack? What if DLC was the ability to unlock your graphics settings. Or the ability to re-map your game keys? Or the ability to use a flight-stick? Or the ability to save your game?

It's not so far stretched. I remember N64. You had to buy a "memory-pack" in order to save games. AND you had to buy an "expansion-pack" in order to play all of the levels on some games. What a scam!

 

I've already preordered, but I'm going to reserve judgement until I actually see this in person. I'm still looking forward to BF3...

 

It is still a bit of a stretch, consoles like the N64 had no on board storage we have come a long way since then. I hardly doubt any game dev would sell graphics options or the abiltiy to remap game keys or use a flight stick . That just seems like a slippery slope to me.

 

those n64 quirks were hardware related. you had to have the physical hardware required to save your game in order to save your game. same with the ps1/ps2. solid state storage was quite a bit more expensive back then.

the expansion pack was also a hardware requirement if we're talking about the same thing. it was basically a GPU upgrade iirc.

 

I'm sure there will be some sort of off-line mode available like STEAM to access the single player campaign while off line. I don't really see a problem with the browser based, server browser. AS LONG AS the game is VERY alt+tab friendly...We all know some games don't like it to much when you alt+tab and the game either crashes, is very slow to minimize and maximize, or just hangs. I trust DICE to be aware of these issues if this is the way they are gonna implement the server browser.

 

I think we can all agree that alt+tabbing in BC2 was very smooth and problem free. I see no reason to not be like that in BF3.

 

Most "proper" N64 games could save onto the actual game cart.
I had only two games that needed to save on the memory pack off all the games i owned.
The Expansion Pack i got bundled with Donkey Kong 64, but it was like a ram chip for our computers, boosting the ram from 2mb to 4mb to enable better graphics.

 

If you add BF3's .exe file to Steam, you can probably just Shift+Tab and use the in-game browser so you don't need to minimize. And if you don't do that, you can probably close the game and launch it again since it launches so fast.

 

I agree that it's probably better to have a malfunctioning game than a malfunctioning car, but that's the kind of quality you expect from a car company. It's the sort of quality we should be able to expect from any company.

 

Save it. A boycott, now? Where were you when we were in the trenches almost two years ago on the EA-UK forums protesting on the announcement of BF3, protesting that it would be on console, or feature "jets" and "64-player" as if jets and 64 players were some awesome new feature that we've never seen before and should be absolutely besides ourselves to have?

It's cute, amusing but ultimately frustrating and the reason why as a pc gamers we fail to effect anything in our industry. No one wants to join the call to arms when it's necessary (i.e. on announcement, not at launchtime), because they're afraid to be seen as "whiners/nerds", the brave few who have the gal and foresight to take up issue right from the get-go find their ranks never bolstered when they need it. Instead the fence-sitters play it safe, with the "wait and see" mentality. It's not until the "see" part comes when they begin to realize the POS that they let it become, and suddenly it's then that they want to raise the battle flags and expect everyone should follow them over the hill. In the end everyone who joins them at that point ends up surrendering to the enemy at the first chance and buying it anyways.

If you were with us protesting on announcement day, then you would have known we lost a long time ago, as early as Demize's tweets on why there won't be a commander.

If you weren't with us and all of a sudden want to start the protest now, to you, lol I say, lol.

 

Must be a new computer feature. The new Alt+Tab browser, included FREE with purchase of BF3.

I expected this type of technological breakthroughs back in 1998 when Windows 98 was still the norm.

 

In some ways this makes more sense than being forced to exit the game back to the main menu to view the server browser. I still fail to see why this is such a bad method. It would be nifty to be able to browse the servers without having to load the application, also possibly view server list and player info on an alternate device (like a mobile)

 

The smart thing to do is have your master server return a compressed XML list of servers, then let the client do whatever they want with it.

Those who want to write a cross-platform cross-device browser-based client can do so (and gladly will for free if you have a community that doesn't hate your guts/product), but ultimately for any game dev with their heads not firmly up their rears their priority always lies with getting the functionality in the game first (i.e. in-game server browser), since that's where it matters most and your community can't easily do that for you.

 

I wasn't there because I have/had no desire to sign up on an EA forum and seemingly not much was mentioned about it elsewhere. If I knew then I'd have voiced my opinions then like I have now.

 

which part of the to-be-released game is bothering you?

 

Its just like their free to play battlefield games where you would have to use internet explorer to launch the game. So what every time me and my friends want to play bf3 we would need steam on (for voip) then have internet explorer open and origin (so friends can join in the same server as you) to play the game. My pc is fast enough to handle the extra resources, its would be convenient if every thing was done under one roof ala steam, but that would be too much to ask...

Well I am glad bf3 would be the only game I buy on origin, unless they do the same to Mass Effect 3 (i highly doubt it).

 

It's just the whole way game franchises are going. I see Activision, EA and Ubisoft as being largely to blame. To me, boycotting the whole thing is the easiest way to get it into their heads that they're going too far. I'm afraid that people will simply get used to games getting worse and worse and just learn to accept it without question.

 

That's what I don't understand. They design it in a way that I have never seen before (you say it's a system used by their FREE games, hopefully this means BF3 will be free ).

Every single PC game I have played sicne 1998 has somesort of internal server browser. I could understand if this was 1995 and they had a bunch of amateurish monkeys designing the game, but this is EA!!! The fact that EA cannot make a PC version with an internal server browser baffles me. [lets not forget, the console versions of BF3 do have internal server browsers].

I'll still be getting it, but I'm still shocked by this. Hopefully this will be addressed with a patch.

 

You just pwned EA on their own game. +1

 

Steam has cheaper deals and you have a awesome game shopping spree. Steam IMO is just...great. (Apart from the times where it does crap on dial up)

 

They certainly *could* put a browser in the game. They seem to have chosen a different method. I presume they are experimenting with the idea that the browser is becoming sort of the "home base of operations" for people.

I understand the desire for continuity, but nevertheless this doesn't seem completely moronic to me, although it seems to come across that way to many of you.

At any rate, I don't think it's going to affect my enjoyment of the game, whereas other choices (like omitting dedicated servers) would have drastic consequences. This is mostly a superficial issue.

 

^EA are money hungry, more traffic on their website=more cash and this is probably why they have used the browser method. Disappointed with EA, broke the last straw. No mod tools, and using battlelog=I R VERY DISAPPOINT.

 

steam does have great deals. if the game came out on steam i would be tempted to wait for the $30 mark.

I broke at a $48 preorder instead.

Some games just aren't coming to steam and I know some people are totally loyal. I'm not loyal enough to avoid Blizzard games or BF3, when they aren't coming to steam anyway.

 

Amazing. It seems every week we are discovering a little more a new "uncomfortable truth" about BF3. No Steam (and blamed on Steam), origin required (no, it is not only an updated EA DM), now the main menu is battlelog (a clear anti-piracy move, in the same vein as D3 and storing the characters online). So what's next? Always online for SP campaign? Fees? What will happen in 5 or 6 years if we want to play again the SP campaign, no connection?

 

This game is going to be like CoD. I cancelled my pre order :S and if the game is good then I will buy it and miss out on the "Back To Karkland" map pack.

 

What kind of instabilities have you had?

 

??? What are you talking about? The N64 was not CD-based but cartridge-based...

 

I'll buy this, just like I buy every other game that interests me. I don't see a reason to "take a stand" when realistically, the only person that would lose out is me.

 

he's saying that the n64 didn't have any on board storage. simple as that. some carts had writable memory built in for save files.

 

Steam chat and voice random disconnects, game crashes related to Steam overlay UI and UI freeze.

Only source games usually play nice with Overlay UI so i tend to disable it completely for all the other games.

 

This is the reason why a boycott isn't happening at the moment. I don't mean to single you out but the reason why nothing has happened yet is because people are too scared that they'll be the only ones and will lose out. Nothing will ever happen if people have such a pessemistic view.

As I said before, it's like a run of a bank. As soon as we get enough people doing it then other people will feel it has a chance and that they won't simply lose out.

 

I see, I've never used many of the functions on Steam, and normally I wouldn't use the overlay (nice touch but useless to me). I am more of a singleplayer gamer than anything else.

In any case back on topic: will the single player be accessed via the web browser? The cited article in the OP seems to suggest it will... which also leads me to another question: is there any advantage to have the server search based on the web browser? Does it mean that you can search for a server while playing in another?

 

Yes and yes. But I think you'll be able to launch SP through the .exe locally.

The advantage is pretty much what you said

 

I'm still not sold that there needs to be a boycott over an external server browser. I think it might be a good thing. Vote with your dollars. You don't need to have a 100% participation boycott to get your point across. If you can get any significant number of people to avoid buying something for a particular reason and be vocal about it, then it will turn heads.

I'm still not sure what your beef is with BF3. Starcraft 2 isn't being sold on steam. Call of duty is actually a bad game. Battlefield 3 isn't sold on steam and has a server browser on the web, external to the main runtime application. Which of these facts of life encourages you most to vote with your dollars?

 

I agree

A server browser in a WEB browser will be better than a dedicated server browser. Why? Adds more functionality, reliability and speed.

 

There's no reason why a dedicated server browser can't let you look for servers while connected to one. Source games have been doing that for years and even have a functionality that lets you twiddle your thumbs on one servers untill a place frees up on the one you really wanted to connect to and then it switched you automatically.

 

Right... but there's no reason that the web server browser can't accomplish these things as well. I'm envisioning a better experience by not having a large D3D based main menu application and having it exist in a light and nimble HTML format instead. I'm certainly not seeing how that is "automatically worse", and especially not "automatically so awful it is boycott worthy".

 

No, I really just don't care.

 

I'm with hockey on this. I don't feel like a web-based server browser is a cause for complaint, much less a boycott, and I'm sure that many share this view.

 

Web based server browser is just a matter of people resisting change. Since it is different than usual, and the whole process of reloading the game when you choose the browser just makes people doubt.

It will work fine, but it is by no means something that couldn't be done in-game. For me, it breaks a bit of my imersion in the game when I have to go to the webpage, but I know it works well and that it will serve its purpose.

For me the forced Origin is much more of a problem than the in game browswer. Hell they could have even put the whole web broswer in game it doesn't matter.

 

How many here, who are complaining about the browser based server browser, have even tried the thing? Were you in the alpha?
I've played the alpha trial in the end of July. That alpha was designed to test the battelog system.
The battelog, what is in part the server browser, works rather well. I had more trouble with the game client itself. As mentioned earlier, there is no splashscreen. You click Join in the browser, and the client launches. You can keep browsing servers, chat with friends, make groups, browse the web, etc. while the game is loading, which is quite fast. By its concept, the game should be more stable when ALT-TABBING. Why, with the little time it takes to load the game, simply closing the client works as fast. I think it's rather clever to use a web browser for the game's main menu. My main complaint is that it can effect the game's performance, depending on which web browser we're using. I'm using Opera as my main browser, and while I love the experience, it's far from the best at RAM management. For the best performance in-game, I'd need to open battlelog in chrome, or refrain from opening other tabs in Opera.
Origin isn't the most stable or fast application, either. It's used mostly as DRM, it seems.

Most of the whiners, especially those calling the game bad for being Bad Company 3, are talking without first-hand experience of the subject.

 

The browser felt faster than previous iterations. As you say, there's no D3D menu to load. Also, since it's server-based, it should be faster and easier to patch and update the infrastructure and menus. They don't need to patch anything client-side if there's a bug in the server browser.

 

Yes and we can agree that the server browsers in past BF's have needed rather frequent patching, so if it's browser based and it means faster patching, then I'm all for it. If you really think about it, it's not a bad idea at all. The first thing I open when I boot up my computer is my internet browser. If it means I can get into games faster and more efficiently, then all the better!!