Battlefield 3 Close Quarters/Premium

[thl]

BF3 is a broken piece of sh•t, I won't be going back to it, definitely not paying any more money to play it.

Won't be going back until Bad Company 3 appears.

I haven't got around playing the online multiplayer yet. Although someone did mentioned about glitches occured during the game, it does seem to ruined the experience.

As for the topic itself, I wouldn't intend to spend that much on this subscription.

[RetroMartin]

I have the Close Quarters expansion all loaded up but doesnt seem to be any servers up yet.

I think the DLC is pretty expensive, but I will probably get them over time

Nobody has full servers for it - just do quick matches and it'll dump you on servers that are CQ only or inclusive, i've played the new maps loads!

[khisanth]

just saw its due on 26th june

[Elgin_McQueen]

just saw its due on 26th june

26th June for PC and Xbox, 2 weeks earlier on Premium, 1 week earlier still on PS3.

[Lord Innit]

BF3 is a broken piece of sh•t, I won't be going back to it, definitely not paying any more money to play it.

Won't be going back until Bad Company 3 appears.

Yeah, I got the game dirt cheap, and within a week I was back on Bad Company 2.

[slacey1070]

BF3 is a broken piece of sh•t, I won't be going back to it, definitely not paying any more money to play it.

Won't be going back until Bad Company 3 appears.

Yeah, I got the game dirt cheap, and within a week I was back on Bad Company 2.

BC2 is by far the better game. They could have re-done some of the graphics, added a few new vehicles and maps and released it as Bf3 and not many would have been disappointed.

[sscott]

Well I think its very expensive but some people who play all the time will get their money's worth so fair play to them.

[James A]

Well I think its very expensive but some people who play all the time will get their money's worth so fair play to them.

Stuff like that its worth waiting a few months till its on deal of the week. That way its half priced and all the bugs will have been ironed out by then

[The Angry Jock]

That way its half priced and all the bugs will have been ironed out by then

...or made much worse going by all the DLC so far...

[slacey1070]

Well I think its very expensive but some people who play all the time will get their money's worth so fair play to them.

Yes, exactly. those that play it a lot, like I did, will get value for money.

Perhaps the biggest issue with BF3 for me is a lot of the other players... who play it like CoD... and CoD does CoD better than BF3 does. BC2 used to have players who tried to function as a team.... that rarely happens on BF3,

Which probably means I'll leave the premium and the map packs well alone.

[Freestyler]

The reason I didn't bother with the Saints Row 3 year pass (or whatever it was called) was uncertainty. I know I'm discussing a different game here, but I think the methodology still applies.

The year pass basically allowed "free" access to any and all DLC that THQ decided to do. On the face of it a great idea, but what if that DLC is rubbish? I've already paid in advance!

Taking Saints Row 3 as an example, of the 3 DLC mission packs available; the first (Genkibowl VII) was basically a complete retread of already available in-game missions (and thus a total waste of money, although Sad Panda Skyblazing is fun for 10 minutes) and the second (Gangstas in Space) was very fun indeed. For the thirty minutes it took to complete. For a fiver each.

The third pack (The Trouble with Clones) I didn't bother to get, since the first two packs (at a fiver each, remember. A combined price of literally half of the cost of the brand new retail game I bought!) just wasn't worth it. Gangstas in Space was fun, but the price-per-pleasure ratio just didn't add up.

Basically, if I'd bought the Season Pass (or whatever it's called) I'd be annoyed that most of the DLC is reskinned already available in-game content such as weapons, clothes or vehicles, or a collection of fun, if extremely brief mission packs.

[slacey1070]

The reason I didn't bother with the Saints Row 3 year pass (or whatever it was called) was uncertainty. I know I'm discussing a different game here, but I think the methodology still applies.

The year pass basically allowed "free" access to any and all DLC that THQ decided to do. On the face of it a great idea, but what if that DLC is rubbish? I've already paid in advance!

Taking Saints Row 3 as an example, of the 3 DLC mission packs available; the first (Genkibowl VII) was basically a complete retread of already available in-game missions (and thus a total waste of money, although Sad Panda Skyblazing is fun for 10 minutes) and the second (Gangstas in Space) was very fun indeed. For the thirty minutes it took to complete. For a fiver each.

The third pack (The Trouble with Clones) I didn't bother to get, since the first two packs (at a fiver each, remember. A combined price of literally half of the cost of the brand new retail game I bought!) just wasn't worth it. Gangstas in Space was fun, but the price-per-pleasure ratio just didn't add up.

Basically, if I'd bought the Season Pass (or whatever it's called) I'd be annoyed that most of the DLC is reskinned already available in-game content such as weapons, clothes or vehicles, or a collection of fun, if extremely brief mission packs.

Thats a really good point - you stump up in advance for something you don't know how much you'll enjoy. I pre-ordered BF3 (the first time I've ever pre-ordered a game) - so I've already done that and been slightly disappointed (I probably expected too much though) - would I want to spend out for unknown quality DLC? Unlikely.

If the DLC was the quality of Vietnam (until the servers died) then I probably would.... thats "probably" not "certainly"

CoD is different, in that they "proved" the quality of their DLC before rolling out the elite or whatever is called.

Its interesting that people are saying they are "anti" pay to play and that this is "new"... haven't MMOs been this way for years?

[Freestyler]

Another potential problem is - if this goes widespread - what's to stop potential Publishers from holding back an enormous amount of content just to "justify" the season pass? Nobody with a functioning brain-stem could seriously believe that a Developer of a multiplier shooter would only ever design 4 maps for it while testing, and then "suddenly" discover another 5 maps just in time for the obligatory Map Pack downloads. Or in the case of Saints Row 3 have so much individualised DLC available on Day 1 that it's actually shocked Capcom developers with their audacity!

Long term? I see a game (let's call it Modern Battlefield 4) being released with a single solitary map, with all the others drip-fed via "optional" Season Pass. For full retail price, obviously.

[RetroMartin]

If developers released a really half arsed game and then loads of content I would not bother!

However as I state, I didn't like the "4 maps per pack" policy with COD and the maps weren't THAT large.

BF3 I enjoyed Karkand (as a non pre-bf3 player though I did dabble in bad company and thought it was alright) and the fact it's a tad more then 4 maps it was good. I am quite confident I will enjoy the other DLC hence my decision.

[slacey1070]

If developers released a really half arsed game and then loads of content I would not bother!

However as I state, I didn't like the "4 maps per pack" policy with COD and the maps weren't THAT large.

BF3 I enjoyed Karkand (as a non pre-bf3 player though I did dabble in bad company and thought it was alright) and the fact it's a tad more then 4 maps it was good. I am quite confident I will enjoy the other DLC hence my decision.

I went back to BC2 this week - quiet servers, but did admire what a fantastic game it was/is.

The free maps you got with it are a sign of a bygone age sadly. What outstanding value they were.

BF3 is ok - just not as good as BC2 and they have dumbed it right down to appeal to CoD players (no disrepect indeed in that) and they changed what made BC2 such a good game.

Maybe they will learn in time for BC3...