In July 2010, Electronic Arts and DICE revealed Battlefield 3 was in development. While you would expect such a major franchise announcement to be delivered on stage at a blockbuster industry event like E3 – complete with laser lights, smoke machine, and eye-popping teaser trailer – it was actually made in a brief marketing promo for Medal of Honor pre-orders. If you missed it, which you probably did, here it is in all its two-sentence glory:
"People who own the Medal of Honor Limited Edition will receive an invitation to the beta for another highly-anticipated EA shooter, Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 is the latest entry in the award-winning shooter franchise from DICE in Stockholm, Sweden."
Woohoo! Battlefield 3, baby! Ahem. We've seen bigger reveals from EA for its Facebook games. Seriously.
The underwhelming reveal would be the first of a handful of peculiar decisions made by EA and DICE over the past year, and as amazing as the jet-infused, Frostbite 2-powered, 64-player PC version of Battlefield 3 looks, those decisions have created some serious questions/concerns about the game.
Origin Over Steam
Whattayamean no Steam?
Battlefield 3 is PC first. It's a message we've heard from DICE since day one… well, more like day 30, but you get the picture. That's why it's so surprising the anticipated shooter will not be sold on the biggest digital PC gaming distribution hub in the world, Valve's Steam.
EA claims Valve's restrictive terms of service are to blame (a claim we've actually heard repeated by Minecraft creator Markus "Notch" Persson of all people), but regardless of why, not only will gamers not be able to download Battlefield 3 from Steam, they'll be forced to download EA's untested Origin client in order to play Battlefield 3 no matter where they buy the game – even if it's a hard copy. That fact created even more of an Internet ruckus when gamers got a closer look at Origin's scary original end-user license agreement (EULA), which read like the legal definition of spyware:
You agree that EA may collect, use, store and transmit technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address), operating system, Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware, that may be gathered periodically to facilitate the provision of software updates, dynamically served content, product support and other services to you, including online services. EA may also use this information combined with personal information for marketing purposes and to improve our products and services. We may also share that data with our third party service providers in a form that does not personally identify you.
After the online outcry, the publisher tweaked the language of the Origin EULA, stating, in part: "EA would never sell your personally identifiable information to anyone, nor would it ever use spyware or install spyware on users' machines."
Funny, I don't feel reassured.
Preliminary Verdict: This could turn into a launch day train wreck. Forget about the scary EULA, EA and DICE already have enough trouble launching online games on their existing backend (see Battlefield: Bad Company 2). Throw in the new backend they've created for Battlefield 3 and EA's untested Origin client, and we could have a recipe for disaster. To borrow a line from Han Solo, I've got a bad feeling about this. And to think this potential catastrophe could have been avoided simply by releasing the game on Steam, complete with Valve's reliable, tested, and trusted Steamworks.
No SDK, Hell, Not Even a Map Editor
You'll get nothing and like it.
Battlefield 2 was released in 2005. Six years later, modding teams like the folks behind Project Reality: BF2 and Forgotten Hope are still releasing major updates for their stellar modifications. Given the passionate modding community's effort to keep Battlefield 2 fresh all these years later, you would think DICE would put releasing an SDK at the top of its Battlefield 3 To Do list. Unforgivably, DICE has decided not to release modding tools with BF3.
The studio cited the complexities of Frostbite 2, the potential for hacks, and time constraints as the reasons why it won't be releasing an SDK, none of which satisfied PC gamers. The studio has softened its stance of late, though, saying that it will do its best to throw the modding community a bone, or at least a digital treat. Before you get your hopes up, those statements have been bracketed by "no promises."
Preliminary Verdict: Like the decision not to sell BF3 on Steam, this one just doesn't make sense. Calling Battlefield 3 PC first and then choosing not to include an SDK or even a map editor with the game is an unfortunate contradiction.
Pay to Play
If you don't pre-order, get ready to pay to go back to Karkand.
"We don't ever want to charge for our maps and insisted to EA that this attitude was crucial when it came to keeping our community happy and playing together. We're owned by EA but we're still very much DICE."
Those are the words of DICE Senior Producer Patrick Bach. He made the comment shortly after the launch of Battlefield: Bad Company 2 in March 2010, stating that his studio didn't want to follow Call of Duty down the $15 map pack path. All that will go out the window on launch day for Battlefield 3.
In pimping pre-orders for BF3, DICE and EA have included the Back to Karkand map pack, featuring four of the most beloved battlegrounds from the Battlefield franchise: Strike at Karkand, Wake Island, Gulf of Oman, and Sharqi Peninsula. Those maps are free for those who pre-order the game. But if you pick up Battlefield 3 on launch day or after, you'll have to pay anywhere from $10 to $15 to get Back to Karkand.
DICE has yet to announce pricing, and while the map pack is a terrific pre-order bonus, it will also be a huge cash cow for EA on launch day, as literally millions of gamers will realize they don't have access to four of the game's best maps and go scrambling for their credit cards.
Preliminary Verdict: Yup, it appears DICE's "we'll never charge for maps" policy is out the window with Battlefield 3, and in this gamer's mind, the franchise will be worse for it.
The Game Isn't Ready
Can't... move... laaaag!
Millions of gamers flocked to DICE's recently concluded Battlefield 3 multiplayer beta (with the count reportedly as high as 12 million simultaneous players combined across all platforms), diving into a decidedly un-Battlefield experience. The Battlefield franchise sets itself apart with massive maps, vehicles, teamwork, and more players. All of those things were missing during the game's Operation Metro, Rush mode-focused beta. With a new engine, new backend, new out-of-game server browser/social network, the Origin client, and the return of 64-players and jets, you would think DICE would want to put its key features through their paces in the beta to work out the kinks. Strangely, it didn't do that until opening up the Caspian Border map to PC gamers during the final weekend of the beta.
And it's not as if Operation Metro was a highly polished experience. Terrain stability, poor hit detection, and a variety of other bugs and glitches impacted the multiplayer experience. And what's up with that Killcam? What is this, COD? Yes, it was a beta, and that's exactly where you would want these issues to be discovered and addressed. The question is, why not do it on the larger, vehicle-filled, 64-player maps?
Preliminary Verdict: We've still got just over two weeks before launch, so DICE does still have a small chunk of time to crunch and work out the kinks. But let's be honest, the studio has a checkered history with launches, and it would be a surprise if Battlefield 3 really was ready for prime time on October 25. I just hope the studio has learned from its previous launch missteps and will at least show improvement for what's being billed as the potential game of the year. Given the $100 million marketing hype behind the game, a launch day stumble would be especially painful.
I've been playing Battlefield since the first wing-riding days of Battlefield 1942 back in 2002. Ah, memories. It's one of the reasons why I'm so excited about Battlefield 3's potential and critical of the decisions that DICE and EA have made leading up to the game's launch. Will it end up being worthy of the hype? In the end, I think it will. But I can't help but feel that day won't come until a solid month after launch.
Spy Guy says: You might recall a similar questions/concerns preview piece we published for Rage, a few weeks back, an article that turned out to be surprisingly prescient. What do you think of these types of previews, and would you like to see more of them in the future?
No comments:
Post a Comment