Battlefield 3 'Physical Warfare' DLC will be free to all, pre-order exclusive is timed

@JustinSaneV2

You would if it was a CoD game.

@JustinSaneV2

Neither do I. DICE said it wasnt going to unbalance the gameplay.

I dont know why everyone was crying so much over it.

@A Sandwich

Why is that?

@A Sandwich

Nevermind. I probably don't want your poor attempt at trolling to continue on.

@LEONLEONLEON

People were looking for things to complain about.

@Papytendo

Sounds about right to me.

@LEONLEONLEON

They said that about the last pre-order bonuses too. I have to say having the WWI Thompson, tracer dart, alt weapons, and M1911 on day 1 was a pretty nice advantage....

@LEONLEONLEON Yes, clearly when developers say something will be balanced, that proves it's true!

@R Planteer

If you like to bullet spray then sure.

Otherwise the default starting weapons in BFBC2 hold up perfectly fine against all other guns.

@JustinSaneV2

Must be a Battlefield fanboy thing judging by how my initial question in the first post is downvoted to half a heart and the troll who posted right below me is at a full three hearts.

If it's that big of a deal then pre-order the game and get the "exclusive" DLC. No retailer is getting their own special DLC so there's no worries there. Honestly I don't understand people sometimes.

@JustinSaneV2 - I think the knee jerk reaction was that you were saying you didn't see what the big deal was about Battlefield 3, and not what the big deal was about the physical warfare pack.

The way I look at it, people in Europe have a right to be pissed. People in the US aren't likely to play people from the UK anyway, and they are the only ones who can get these weapons, so it's not as if most of us are going to come across people using an overpowered shotgun on day one (if it does turn out to be overpowered).

@jediyoshi People were upset because the way it was worded before was as an exclusive DLC for those who bought the game at specific locations, and thus if you wanted to buy it somewhere else, you were excluded from even being able to purchase the DLC.

@darkbunny157

Well that is generally how retailer exclusive DLC has worked this whole generation of gaming.

It's not like retailer-exclusive DLC is almost always offered as paid DLC down the line anyways.

@JustinSaneV2 In most games, retail-exclusive DLC is aesthetic and doesn't affect multiplayer balance.

@EJ A

No, The map that comes with the pre order bonus isn't finished yet.

@EJ A
Yes, Just like the booster packs from BF2.

@EJ A
No, they said this content is NOT on the disc.

@Slomoshun
Doesn't mean it still ain't done somewhere else. Unless you have some really sweet bits of info, have a reliable inside hookup, or work for the company, I don't know how anyone could state that this DLC stuff is/isn't finished. Sure, they said it wasn't, and I know people who work for big businesses never lie, but the bigger picture is whether this is even really something that has to be DLC...

My main issue with pre-order DLC and DLC that comes out the premiere week is that it probably all could've been put on the disc or have been given out free for early adopters (not just pre-orders). It's not enough that people are fans of your game and will buy it the week/month it first comes out, you have to commit to the purchase before it's even been released - and in some cases before any substantial info has been given out.

@applefleas ^^^ that was more of a general reply, really...

@(Unverified) people should not have got mad. They should not have to make it available to all of them. But if this shuts them up. That's fine with me.

@littlejay2o02 You think money should be the balancing power in a video game instead of skill? That's what you are saying right?

@Red Runner

Its pre order insentive! There is a difference.

@Red Runner - What's wrong with pre-planned DLC?

Just because they plan to eventually make something doesn't mean that there was ever any hope of it being on the disc. It just means that they had an idea that they've decided they will eventually execute on.

People whining at the very mention of anything to do with DLC is just as bad, if not worse, than the majority of the actual DLC itself.

@Mcmax3000

The problem is that companies now specifically budget for DLC long, long before the game goes gold, and when DLC is announced well before a game's release, it COULD HAVE been on the disc.

You know why people bitch about this kind of thing? Because it's like planning stuff that could very well have been included in time for launch in order to sell it at a premium later.

In this case, it's free, but most often you pay $10-$15 for 3-4 maps, which is, of course, a damned ripoff.

We'll stop whining about DLC when the industry stops using it as an excuse to ship incomplete games.

@Red Runner - You're making assumptions based on no facts.

Did it ever occur to you that, gasp, they may have come up with the idea as something that they could do after completing the game????

Just because they have an idea and they've decided they're going to do it as DLC, does not in any way, shape or form indicate that the content could've been on the disc. It does not indicate in any way, shape or form that the content has even been started on or has gotten past a basic design stage.

You're making a jump from "we've decided to do this" to "we've finished it and we're just going to wait and charge you more for it later" with no basis in reality for your conclusions.

And the "game is incomplete" argument is completely bullshit. You're arbitrarily deciding what is or is not complete. There's no factual basis that the content would've been included on the disc if DLC were not an option. It is equally likely that a lot of the content that has come as DLC would just not exist.

Are there some publishers/companies that hold back content or charge for stuff that's already on the disc? Definitely. Should those companies get shit for it? Absolutely, when there's legitimate evidence that they're doing it.

My issue is with the people who jump all over EVERY SINGLE DLC ANNOUNCEMENT EVER because they are entitled brats who think they should get everything for nothing.

Judge the game when it's released based on the content that's on the disc. We don't know how many guns/maps/vehicles the final game will have. If it's really light on content, then it's a valid complaint that there's not enough on the disc you're paying $60 for.

When the DLC comes out, judge it on its own merit. If there's clear evidence at that point that the DLC is content that's on the disc, THEN you have the right to complain. Until then, the complaint is invalid because you're basing it on nothing but your assumptions.

@Red Runner - Also, considering that I remember paying $30-$40 for the first B1942 expansion pack, which had a total of six maps in it according to the ever accurate Wikipedia, I'd argue that $10-$15 for four or five maps is an improvement.

@Aerothorn

On the other hand, I'd much rather pay $60 for a game that takes advantage of the platform than $50 for a port. So carry on, EA.

@Aerothorn

Because CONSOLES = INFERIOR LOLOLOLOL

Ugh.

@Red Runner

Uh...what? Are you sure you replied to the right post? Maybe you're becoming paranoid about PC snobbery. Nowhere in this post (or any other I have posted at Joystiq!) have I stated that consoles are "inferior" to PCs. And certainly not with the strawmanning grammar you imply.

Exactly what are you trying to add to the discussion?

@MrAhh

Lol you read my mind