Did you buy BF3 premium?

I decided to do this topic with a poll because every single PC gamer I came up against lately had bought it (seen from killcams) and I was the only person seemingly playing who didn't have it. But I just got it and am downloading now. I was reluctant at first but I didn't want to be left out and ?50 isn't a whole lot of money.

So do you have it?

Nope

Map packs should be free.

*HyperWarlock mysteriously goes missing 2 days later. Both EA and Activision were quick to deny involvement*

I did. I plan on playing it tonight.

Map packs should be free.

*HyperWarlock mysteriously goes missing 2 days later. Both EA and Activision were quick to deny involvement*

HyperWarlock

Why? Maps take time and effort by the developers to make. Back in the day of free map packs, development costs were a tiny fraction of what they were today. When you're spending your time to develop, debug, and balance maps, that's money out of your budget to do it with no real return.

There is no logical reason for free map packs. If maps were as simple as they were back 10 years ago, where textures were low res, and environmental collision was easy to debug, they could put out maps 1000x faster than today. Hell, a decent amature map maker with some good tools could throw together maps in an afternoon.

Now maps are far more complex and often use a lot of new assets not found in other maps. New textures, sounds, objects. They don't just grab them from the libraries and build new maps like you would with a released map editing tool.

The mindset that content should be free becuase it was free back when the industry was a completely different animal is wrong. It's gamer entitlement 101, and you just look silly asking for free content.

Of course not. That's the price of a full game and I'm not going to spend that on more content on a game that I found to be nothing more than underwhelming in all aspects.

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

Map packs should be free.

*HyperWarlock mysteriously goes missing 2 days later. Both EA and Activision were quick to deny involvement*

Wasdie

Why? Maps take time and effort by the developers to make. Back in the day of free map packs, development costs were a tiny fraction of what they were today. When you're spending your time to develop, debug, and balance maps, that's money out of your budget to do it with no real return.

There is no logical reason for free map packs. If maps were as simple as they were back 10 years ago, where textures were low res, and environmental collision was easy to debug, they could put out maps 1000x faster than today. Hell, a decent amature map maker with some good tools could throw together maps in an afternoon.

Now maps are far more complex and often use a lot of new assets not found in other maps. New textures, sounds, objects. They don't just grab them from the libraries and build new maps like you would with a released map editing tool.

The mindset that content should be free becuase it was free back when the industry was a completely different animal is wrong. It's gamer entitlement 101, and you just look silly asking for free content.

I think if we buy a game, we should get any additional content there afterwards. I think video games are very expensive these days and when we buy it it should include any additional content to be included. Unless it's a full scale expansion pack but when it comes to maps, they should be free.

Similar to what The Witcher 2 devs did, if that was EA that would have set us back $30 for the enhanced edition upgrade.

Of course not. That's the price of a full game and I'm not going to spend that on more content on a game that I found to be nothing more than underwhelming in all aspects.

Phoenix534

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

Map packs should be free.

*HyperWarlock mysteriously goes missing 2 days later. Both EA and Activision were quick to deny involvement*

HyperWarlock

Why? Maps take time and effort by the developers to make. Back in the day of free map packs, development costs were a tiny fraction of what they were today. When you're spending your time to develop, debug, and balance maps, that's money out of your budget to do it with no real return.

There is no logical reason for free map packs. If maps were as simple as they were back 10 years ago, where textures were low res, and environmental collision was easy to debug, they could put out maps 1000x faster than today. Hell, a decent amature map maker with some good tools could throw together maps in an afternoon.

Now maps are far more complex and often use a lot of new assets not found in other maps. New textures, sounds, objects. They don't just grab them from the libraries and build new maps like you would with a released map editing tool.

The mindset that content should be free becuase it was free back when the industry was a completely different animal is wrong. It's gamer entitlement 101, and you just look silly asking for free content.

I think if we buy a game, we should get any additional content there afterwards. I think video games are very expensive these days and when we buy it it should include any additional content to be included. Unless it's a full scale expansion pack but when it comes to maps, they should be free.

Similar to what The Witcher 2 devs did, if that was EA that would have set us back $30 for the enhanced edition upgrade.

Video games are generally worth their price tag when compared to other entertainment mediums, especially digital entertainment. You get far more use out of a video game than a movie or a CD. If you're putting 12+ hours into a game, I find it hard to not justify the original price spent. Of course you won't get this out of every game, there are always bad ones, but in general even $60 for 10+ hours of entertainment is cheap compared to pretty much everything else.

There is no reason why you should keep getting content after that you don't pay for. Absolutely none. I don't know where you developed that mentality, but it's a rather terrible mentality.

The Battlefield 3 DLCs are more than just maps btw. If you add up all of the content coming in the 4 DLC packs, it's pretty much the size of 2 normal expansion packs. Though my argument still stands for basic map packs. If a professional developers spends 1+ million in budget making new maps for a game (the overhead for AAA shooters like BF3 is massive with the amount of staff required for something as simple as a map), they shouldn't be free. If thye are, then we get bonus content we should be grateful for, but we should never expect work to be done for free just becuase that's how it was or we feel that the original price was a bit high.

Yeah, Battlefield 3 is the only multiplayer me and all my friends consistently play, other games like Red Orchestra don't have as big a community or as much pull with my buddies, and Max Payne 3's multiplayer is fun but not extensively huge or varied like Battlefield 3.

With 4 upcoming map packs, all including 10 new weapons each (except Armored Kill which gives new vehicles and equipment for them), as well as 4 maps each and some nice assignments, camo and gear it was a good deal. The two weeks early access and $10 less then individual purchase made it more worth it, especially with the premium exclusive stuff tacked on.

Yes, got it for 27.20 using the proxy so why not. Plus CC is pretty fun

Yes, got it for 27.20 using the proxy so why not. Plus CC is pretty fun

James161324

Yeah I heard about that only a day after I bought it, which is a shame but $20 isn't the biggest loss in the world, and it wouldn't be the first time I've wasted $20.

Yeah, Battlefield 3 is the only multiplayer me and all my friends consistently play, other games like Red Orchestra don't have as big a community or as much pull with my buddies, and Max Payne 3's multiplayer is fun but not extensively huge or varied like Battlefield 3.

With 4 upcoming map packs, all including 10 new weapons each (except Armored Kill which gives new vehicles and equipment for them), as well as 4 maps each and some nice assignments, camo and gear it was a good deal. The two weeks early access and $10 less then individual purchase made it more worth it, especially with the premium exclusive stuff tacked on.

SPYDER0416

Yeah I planned on getting some of the other DLCs later and it seemed stupid to pay individually for them when I could get them all cheaper and with 2 weeks early access. The other stuff then doesn't really bother me like camo's etc. but it's nice to have them I guess

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Why? Maps take time and effort by the developers to make. Back in the day of free map packs, development costs were a tiny fraction of what they were today. When you're spending your time to develop, debug, and balance maps, that's money out of your budget to do it with no real return.

There is no logical reason for free map packs. If maps were as simple as they were back 10 years ago, where textures were low res, and environmental collision was easy to debug, they could put out maps 1000x faster than today. Hell, a decent amature map maker with some good tools could throw together maps in an afternoon.

Now maps are far more complex and often use a lot of new assets not found in other maps. New textures, sounds, objects. They don't just grab them from the libraries and build new maps like you would with a released map editing tool.

The mindset that content should be free becuase it was free back when the industry was a completely different animal is wrong. It's gamer entitlement 101, and you just look silly asking for free content.

Wasdie

I think if we buy a game, we should get any additional content there afterwards. I think video games are very expensive these days and when we buy it it should include any additional content to be included. Unless it's a full scale expansion pack but when it comes to maps, they should be free.

Similar to what The Witcher 2 devs did, if that was EA that would have set us back $30 for the enhanced edition upgrade.

Video games are generally worth their price tag when compared to other entertainment mediums, especially digital entertainment. You get far more use out of a video game than a movie or a CD. If you're putting 12+ hours into a game, I find it hard to not justify the original price spent. Of course you won't get this out of every game, there are always bad ones, but in general even $60 for 10+ hours of entertainment is cheap compared to pretty much everything else.

There is no reason why you should keep getting content after that you don't pay for. Absolutely none. I don't know where you developed that mentality, but it's a rather terrible mentality.

The Battlefield 3 DLCs are more than just maps btw. If you add up all of the content coming in the 4 DLC packs, it's pretty much the size of 2 normal expansion packs. Though my argument still stands for basic map packs. If a professional developers spends 1+ million in budget making new maps for a game (the overhead for AAA shooters like BF3 is massive with the amount of staff required for something as simple as a map), they shouldn't be free. If thye are, then we get bonus content we should be grateful for, but we should never expect work to be done for free just becuase that's how it was or we feel that the original price was a bit high.

I don't really see why you are defending increbily overpriced DLC. Back to Karkland was 4 maps, for $16. That's around a quarter of the base game value, for 4 maps. I don't see any justification for that kind of price point.

You mentioned the massive amount of staffing required for those maps, by that you mean what? A dozen? Two dozen? That's not a lot.

If we buy a game for $60 then that should be our membership for that game so to speak. The developers should be giving us those maps as a thank you for buying their product.

They thank us, not the other way around.

Hell no.

Unless it's a full scale expansion pack but when it comes to maps, they should be free.

HyperWarlock

Just think of it as an expansion pack. People are throwing a fit because of how the service is delivered, not the actual content.

Battlefield 1942 had two expansions packs, the combined cost was $60 if bought on release. In those expansion packs you get a combined 14 maps, and some new weapons and vehicles.

Battlefield 2 has one expansion pack and a couple booster packs, and the combined cost was also about $60. In those you get 14 new maps, some new vehicles and weapons.

Now if you just stop to think of it, Premium is a better deal than what they have done in the past for expansions. With $50 You get 20 new maps, a bunch of new weapons and vehicles. Even if you remove the karkand pack from the deal you still get 16 new maps, which is more than what you would have gottenf rom the expansions or boosters in previous games.

The only reason i see people complaining about this is because of what it is called "premium" and "dlc". I hate to break it to you, but just because it isn't called an "expansion" doesn't mean it has less content or is a rip off

i had to buy 10 copies because bf3 is such a gud gaem

i wonder if zub will buy it

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

I think if we buy a game, we should get any additional content there afterwards. I think video games are very expensive these days and when we buy it it should include any additional content to be included. Unless it's a full scale expansion pack but when it comes to maps, they should be free.

Similar to what The Witcher 2 devs did, if that was EA that would have set us back $30 for the enhanced edition upgrade.

HyperWarlock

Video games are generally worth their price tag when compared to other entertainment mediums, especially digital entertainment. You get far more use out of a video game than a movie or a CD. If you're putting 12+ hours into a game, I find it hard to not justify the original price spent. Of course you won't get this out of every game, there are always bad ones, but in general even $60 for 10+ hours of entertainment is cheap compared to pretty much everything else.

There is no reason why you should keep getting content after that you don't pay for. Absolutely none. I don't know where you developed that mentality, but it's a rather terrible mentality.

The Battlefield 3 DLCs are more than just maps btw. If you add up all of the content coming in the 4 DLC packs, it's pretty much the size of 2 normal expansion packs. Though my argument still stands for basic map packs. If a professional developers spends 1+ million in budget making new maps for a game (the overhead for AAA shooters like BF3 is massive with the amount of staff required for something as simple as a map), they shouldn't be free. If thye are, then we get bonus content we should be grateful for, but we should never expect work to be done for free just becuase that's how it was or we feel that the original price was a bit high.

I don't really see why you are defending increbily overpriced DLC. Back to Karkland was 4 maps, for $16. That's around a quarter of the base game value, for 4 maps. I don't see any justification for that kind of price point.

You mentioned the massive amount of staffing required for those maps, by that you mean what? A dozen? Two dozen? That's not a lot.

If we buy a game for $60 then that should be our membership for that game so to speak. The developers should be giving us those maps as a thank you for buying their product.

They thank us, not the other way around.

Well they are running a business, and you aren't entitled to more then what they offer. When you buy Battlefield 3 you get whats in the box, that's the deal. They don't have to bust their asses working on more content for the community, but they do and they are in the right to charge for it, especially if it cost lots of time and money and is full of content.

The "thank you" you get for buying their product is in the product itself and the quality of the product. If you don't like it, don't buy it, if you don't like the DLC cost don't buy that then. It just sounds like you want the content they made but don't want to pay for it. Free DLC is fantastic and nice, but they don't have to offer free DLC if they don't want. They don't have to make any DLC if they don't want to, and its certainly a far better deal then many other expansions or DLC passes.

Can someone explain to me why I can't find many full servers? I mean yesterday I only saw a list of 4 on HC, yesterday only 8 populated servers on normal. And before you ask, yes, I did try various filter settings.DevilMightCry

I haven't gotten it yet. When I feel like it, I'll get it.

i had to buy 10 copies because bf3 is such a gud gaem

i wonder if zub will buy it

JigglyWiggly_

He said he gifted it to 2 friends and he was gonna get it himself

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

Unless it's a full scale expansion pack but when it comes to maps, they should be free.

ferret-gamer

Just think of it as an expansion pack. People are throwing a fit because of how the service is delivered, not the actual content.

Battlefield 1942 had two expansions packs, the combined cost was $60 if bought on release. In those expansion packs you get a combined 14 maps, and some new weapons and vehicles.

Battlefield 2 has one expansion pack and a couple booster packs, and the combined cost was also about $60. In those you get 14 new maps, some new vehicles and weapons.

Now if you just stop to think of it, Premium is a better deal than what they have done in the past for expansions. With $50 You get 20 new maps, a bunch of new weapons and vehicles. Even if you remove the karkand pack from the deal you still get 16 new maps, which is more than what you would have gottenf rom the expansions or boosters in previous games.

The only reason i see people complaining about this is because of what it is called "premium" and "dlc". I hate to break it to you, but just because it isn't called an "expansion" doesn't mean it has less content or is a rip off

People don't like it now cos they can't see the big picture. hey see it as 4 new close quarters maps and new weapons right now and don't see it ass ALL the DLC yet. If it gave you the option of playing all DLCs right now together people would be all over it, but they don't want to spend the money right now when it doesn't yield enough full reward yet.

Also yeah before people never really minded when they were expansion packs but the labels given to them now make them seem bad so no one wants to be associated with it

While we're on the topic, I dunno if this has been posted yet, so I won't make a new thread for it. But here is some Armored Kill footage. They say it's going to include the largest map in Battlefield history. C_Rule

Good god that map is massive.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]While we're on the topic, I dunno if this has been posted yet, so I won't make a new thread for it. But here is some Armored Kill footage. They say it's going to include the largest map in Battlefield history. mitu123

Bigger. I'm not kidding, that's bigger.

I paid $50 AUD for the game. An extra $50 for more of the game doesn't seem worth it to me. Also considering I don't play the game enough as it is to justify it. Maybe if they dropped the price on it as a sale or something I'd consider it but right now, no.Twisted14

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]

He said he gifted it to 2 friends and he was gonna get it himself

seanmcloughlin

No, i don't play the game enough to care right now

Nope, BF3 bores me to tears now.

While we're on the topic, I dunno if this has been posted yet, so I won't make a new thread for it. But here is some Armored Kill footage. They say it's going to include the largest map in Battlefield history. C_Rule

Wow thanks for the link, that looks insane.

Also I just played a good 4 or so hours in the new DLC and I love it. It has some problems like suppression and bad hit boxes but overall it's so much fun. Gun master is a great mode

Left out of what? Having "premium" stamped on your killcams?

Left out of what? Having "premium" stamped on your killcams?

topgunmv

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]While we're on the topic, I dunno if this has been posted yet, so I won't make a new thread for it. But here is some Armored Kill footage. They say it's going to include the largest map in Battlefield history. seanmcloughlin

Wow thanks for the link, that looks insane.

Also I just played a good 4 or so hours in the new DLC and I love it. It has some problems like suppression and bad hit boxes but overall it's so much fun. Gun master is a great mode

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="C_Rule"]While we're on the topic, I dunno if this has been posted yet, so I won't make a new thread for it. But here is some Armored Kill footage. They say it's going to include the largest map in Battlefield history. mitu123

Wow thanks for the link, that looks insane.

Also I just played a good 4 or so hours in the new DLC and I love it. It has some problems like suppression and bad hit boxes but overall it's so much fun. Gun master is a great mode

The suppression messes it up. punding away with a pistol at the start of gunmaster and I couldn't hit anyone sometimes. Despite seeing blood leave them and their bodies flinch I got no hit markers. Other times the game worked great. Despite the odd 1 shot from machine guns going from 100% to 0% instantly.

Still a lotta fun though. Gun master gets so hard towards the end. Final kill is with a knife

Left out of what? Having "premium" stamped on your killcams?

topgunmv

Well that was there to remind me of it but feeling left out of the weapons and maps and modes. Seeing guys kill me with a AUG or SPAS reminded me I didn't have those weapons and wanted some of them

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

Left out of what? Having "premium" stamped on your killcams?

seanmcloughlin

Well that was there to remind me of it but feeling left out of the weapons and maps and modes. Seeing guys kill me with a AUG or SPAS reminded me I didn't have those weapons and wanted some of them

Not yet. If I get back into BF3, I'll buy it.C_Rule

Nope, mainly because i'm through with BF3 at the moment.

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Wow thanks for the link, that looks insane.

Also I just played a good 4 or so hours in the new DLC and I love it. It has some problems like suppression and bad hit boxes but overall it's so much fun. Gun master is a great mode

seanmcloughlin

The suppression messes it up. punding away with a pistol at the start of gunmaster and I couldn't hit anyone sometimes. Despite seeing blood leave them and their bodies flinch I got no hit markers. Other times the game worked great. Despite the odd 1 shot from machine guns going from 100% to 0% instantly.

Still a lotta fun though. Gun master gets so hard towards the end. Final kill is with a knife

I think suppression has a tendency to make lesser used weapons just fire literal circles around enemies, like God himself is intervening in the use of my handcannon on a couple of jerks 3 feet away from me.

Suppression I think was nearly perfectly balanced before the DLC, but in Close Quarters so much of what worked in other maps, in other modes just doesn't really work here. Maybe I just haven't spent enough time with the maps, or maybe its mainly the spawns and my less then ideal ping, but me and all my buddies have some VERY mixed feelings on it as a whole.

[QUOTE="HyperWarlock"]

Map packs should be free.

*HyperWarlock mysteriously goes missing 2 days later. Both EA and Activision were quick to deny involvement*

Wasdie

Why? Maps take time and effort by the developers to make. Back in the day of free map packs, development costs were a tiny fraction of what they were today. When you're spending your time to develop, debug, and balance maps, that's money out of your budget to do it with no real return.

There is no logical reason for free map packs. If maps were as simple as they were back 10 years ago, where textures were low res, and environmental collision was easy to debug, they could put out maps 1000x faster than today. Hell, a decent amature map maker with some good tools could throw together maps in an afternoon.

Now maps are far more complex and often use a lot of new assets not found in other maps. New textures, sounds, objects. They don't just grab them from the libraries and build new maps like you would with a released map editing tool.

The mindset that content should be free becuase it was free back when the industry was a completely different animal is wrong. It's gamer entitlement 101, and you just look silly asking for free content.