PeteZahutt

@Mechazawa Prime
Actually, you don't have any idea what it takes to run a server if you think that is a reasonable price.

Servers are nothing more than a PC. There's nothing special about them. And for all the processing that is required for any game, you don't need the whole server to run each game. So the "dedicated server" you're paying for probably isn't dedicated strictly for your game. It is running 50 other game lobbys at the same time. It is "dedicated" because that slot is solely for you and you can set up the game under whatever parameters you want to.

If you have a spare PC in your home (even one that is up to 5-6 years old), you could setup and run a BF3 dedicated server and would likely get a lot better performance out of it than the crappy EA servers which are always underpowered and sit in a 3rd party server bank with not enough bandwidth. That's why all of the BF games lag on consoles. Try playing BC1 or 2 on the consoles now and see how long it takes you to find a lag-free game. I'd be surprised if you could find even one on either of those games. I couldn't when I tried playing them 4 months ago.

Servers don't really cost that much to run by themselves. The amount of servers needed to satisfy the consumers that want to play can be a little pricey I'm sure. But one server for a few games is about the same price or less than just running your xbox all day at your home, especially with the bulk discount I am sure that EA gets. And servers haven't been that expensive for EA since they continue to produce more and more multiplayer-based games even with all their "used games are killing us" bs.

Correction (on the first sentence no less):

Unfortunately this will be one more reason that I will find myself playing the PS3 even less over the next year.

Unfortunately this will be one more reason that I have found myself playing the PS3 over the past year. If they made this feature like the Xbox one where the account that purchased it could be online on any console and automatically play it rather than having to activate or deactivate it, that wouldn't be bad. But sadly that doesn't appear to be the case.

I was a staunch Playstation fanboy and Xbox hater until about 2 years ago when my wife wanted us to buy an Xbox to be able to play with the kids. After buying it, I found that there are some positives to it over the PS3. But I still preferred the PS3 over the Xbox.

But lately I have been playing my Xbox a lot more than the PS3. The biggest reason is the ability to go online but appear offline to everyone on my friends list. Sometimes I just don't want to be bothered by my friends or family when I am watching movies or playing games and don't want to feel obligated to stay online longer than I want to. With Playstation, it's either online and everyone can see you or offline.

Now with the 2 console limit rule, I can have my 2 PS3s in my house activated but when I go over to my kids place and want to play a game on theirs, I can't. I do this pretty frequently since I go over there a lot not only to socialize with them but also to see the grandkid. So now I will likely buy any non-exclusive DLC or game on the Xbox where I can play it no matter where I am as long as it is my gamertag that is logged in.

Just like the Wii, I see my PS3 collecting more and more dust each day. And that makes me pretty disappointed.

I WAS loyal to the franchise until BF3 came out. I have only dabbled in all of the PC games but love all iterations of the console games. I bought 5 copies of BC2 brand new (2 PS3 and 3 Xbox) and bought 1 copy BC1 brand new on the PS3. I also picked up a used copy of BF2 Modern Combat and recently BC1 again on the Xbox.

I wanted a true Battlefield feeling game, so I am currently playing through BC1 the Xbox now and I love it. It truly has a Battlefield feel to it. I just wish it were more popular still so I am not stuck with people on the other team from everywhere in the world (yesterday 3 opponents were everywhere in the world on the other team - one from New Zealand, one from Russia, and one from Brazil so it was unbearably laggy).

But from everything I have seen from the new "Battlefield" game I refuse to buy it. I am not surprised at all with the problems they continue to have with the game. DICE continually has issues with their games and refuses to fix it in a timely fashion. That's why for anyone at DICE to seriously say this:

Battlefield 3's multiplayer as a service that allows players to "continually get updates and new content and hopefully improvements to the product as we go."

That's a joke! Battlefield titles, on consoles at least, almost never receive updates unless it benefits DICE and EA. There were only 2 title updates and patches for BC2 which also added DLC to the game (which they charged for of course). And then one server patch which came out 2 months after the games release. The game remains laggy and broken to this day. Just like BF3 will be.

I don't really like the Call of Duty multiplayer style, but my wife and kids love it. So I will be playing that when it comes out. My family also loved BC2 which is why I bought so many copies of it. But thankfully everyone also despised the Battlefield game that was presented to us in the beta and no one wants a copy of it here. So I will be spending my money on other games such as plenty of copies of MW3 for us, and more importantly, a new copy of Skyrim and Assassin's Creed for me when it comes out.

It seems that everyday DICE is publishing more and more about BF3. And it seems that everyday I grow more and more tired of it. BF3 is like that annoying kid in grade school who would always raise his hands to answer eery question. "Oh! Oh! Look at this gameplay! Isn't it awesome! And it would be even more awesome if you had this tech!"

I stand by my statement that BF3 isn't a BF title based on the gameplay from the beta. No not the bugs, but the core gameplay. I didnt experience any bugs in the 3 hours I tried the game out. And so I'm still waiting on the true sequel to BF2.

@crystal3d

You're absolutely right. BC1 still had problems with arty glitchers to this day. BC2 had 2 downloadable patches and 1 notable server patch applied to it since it's release. The server patch took 2 months to come out after release followed by one downloadable pack 4 months after release with the second one a whole 8 months after release. And the only reason they released those 2 downloadable packs is because they also contained Onslaught mode and Vietnam which they were going to be selling for money.

DICE's post-launch support of their games on the consoles is totally horrid. I got burned 3 times with BC1, 1943, and BC2... I'm not picking up BF3 for a good long time if ever.

@pierogi210 BF3 is not a progression from BF2 in my opinion either. It's like they have taken the game in a whole new direction based on none of the past games that have had the Battlefield moniker. The feel of it is more like Medal of Honor than Battlefield to me. This is based on what I have played from the Operation Metro. I was bored and found the game to be bland.

My son loves the beta and is going to buy a copy of it when he can. But for my wife and I who both of us each put over 500 hours into BC2 and I put about the same into BC1, we are going to be skipping this game until it comes down to about $30. There are too many other games coming out now that I would rather buy at full price than one that I had no fun in the beta from.

And in response to the original topic, as others have pointed out, the beta for Arica Harbor was solely on the PS3 when it came out and required a code to download it, followed by the PC a month later. It wasn't until the demo of Port Valdez that it was widely available to all platforms and anyone who wanted it. It would be like comparing the number of people playing the Alpha to the number of people playing the Beta. Just a ploy to make people think that more people are interested in the game than there really are.

So can anyone who has gotten this yet provide a few details? Like the file size when you download it? Also, is there any news yet on whether this portion of the game will continue to be active even after the game releases?

I'll be honest. I have played through like 1/4 of the very first Uncharted and have been meaning to pick it back up and finish it. But I have too many other games to play first. So I haven't even bought the second one yet. I eventually plan on getting both 2 and 3, so it would be nice to have some experience under my character's belt in UC3 when I do finally pick it up (assuming the multiplayer servers are still active at that time.)

@blessrok

It is all a matter of opinion, truly. I still own my PS1 copy of the game. I love Chrono Trigger. And I have tried twice to play through Chrono Cross to experience the story that everyone says is so great. But I have put in about 5 hours in it each time I played it and just lost interest every time. There was no hook to it that really held my attention. I really wanted to like it, but the game just wasn't interesting to me at all during the time I put into it.

I look at it like I look at Final Fantasy Tactics. Everyone says that it is a great game, but for the life of me I just couldn't get into either of them. I won't ever get rid of my copy of the game. But I don't have any plans on playing it again either.

But for the $5-$7 they normally ask for these games on the PS Store and if you haven't played it yet, I would say that it wouldn't be a bad investment to get it. It is not a lot of money out of pocket if you don't care for it. And you might really enjoy it.

@SirUrza This is the reason that I didn't play FFXIII. Everything that I read about the game before it came out told me that I wouldn't enjoy it.

I thought IX stayed with the FF formula and was the last great FF game. X was ok. I played through both X and X-2 but didn't invest a whole lot of time into them. XII had great voice acting, but that was it. I played through that game just enough to play the storyline but didn't do anything after the credits nor any sidequests.

When I saw that XIII was turning out to be even less like its predecessors than XII, I couldn't be bothered to play it. Just because it has a FF name attached to it doesn't automatically make it a great game. And the description coming from everyone that has played the game continues to make it sound like something that I won't enjoy.

Cool graphics? Who cares, it's an RPG. Futuristic setting? Bleh, I like my medieval RPGs thank you. Linear areas and no exploration? No thank you, give me freedom.

I really wish that some company would make a traditional JRPG on the current gen of consoles rather than trying to revamp everything and make it hip or just creating them on a handheld system. I have no time for handhelds. But I have plenty of time for RPGs. Right now the only ones that I have found myself playing are western RPGs since they are the only ones who are sticking with their formula and just improving on them rather than trying to recreate themselves.