|
On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta?  Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight.
Sigh not only was the build 6+ weeks old but there was an article of them playing the current build and them saying the beta was a mistake because of posts like yours that don't understand that and its going to hurt dice in sales because of it unfortunately.
They said it was way way way way way better then the beta in terms of polish and bug fixes and everything. >>
|
On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight.
It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers.
In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues.
The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing).
So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine.
On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta.
I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed.
|
On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. Show nested quote +On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed.
I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof.
I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story.
|
On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story.
What proof? It's been told countless time that the idea that they have no time to patch + ship is a misinformed one for months.
Read all the pages previous to this, you'll see you're not alone in saying it and not alone in being misinformed.
So how did the beta fail exactly?
|
Not sure why people say this has been a failure. That's some complain-y ass nerdery right there. I had fun during the beta with a few exceptions, of which are being addressed or already fixed.
|
It's because they don't understand how pre-alpha/beta and post-beta testing works.
It's not exactly an open informed system.
|
On October 16 2011 06:08 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story. What proof? It's been told countless time that the idea that they have no time to patch + ship is a misinformed one for months. Read all the pages previous to this, you'll see you're not alone in saying it and not alone in being misinformed. So how did the beta fail exactly?
Just out of curiosity, how many people on those other pages do actually have proof? Cos a bunch of people saying what I said and a bunch of people calling them misinformed doesn't really say anything at all, I'm not reading 214 pages to find out, I really don't care for being right or wrong here, I just don't want to waste time.
The beta failed in terms of drawing a picture desired by a large part of the playerbase, a large amount of pre-orders were cancelled, the games gun mechanics suffered from a CoD-like feel, dropping people in about 4 rounds with the high amount of damage guns do now, this, in turn, very much promoted camping (Altough there were damage bugs at work and a recent tester said that the overall gun damage has been lowered to provide a more BC2 like feel to it)
The map design was quite terrible, it was linear, simplistic and funneled, compare this Rush map to something like Valpariso or Oasis, Metro just pales in comparison.
The netcode was probably the worst part, providing silly deaths because of hit detection lag, I've had friends of mine tell me they had to empty half a clip on me to kill me, all the while I (And many others with this problem) kept dying in what seemed to be a single shot on my screen, the first few hits lagged behind it and when the final shot hit my health just went 100 to 0 instantly, this is probably the only part of the beta that aggravated me personally, as I've said, I liked the beta but I can't ignore much of the stuff that's been going in it which was mostly thrown into the Battlelog forums and caused many people to boycott the game they waited for so much.
Be it a stresstest, a bug-hunt or what have you, DICE lost many, many potential costumers by releasing the beta, in my eyes, that's a failed beta.
(I'm talking Op.Metro right now, though, Caspian was damn-near flawless and just awesome)
|
On October 16 2011 06:23 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:08 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story. What proof? It's been told countless time that the idea that they have no time to patch + ship is a misinformed one for months. Read all the pages previous to this, you'll see you're not alone in saying it and not alone in being misinformed. So how did the beta fail exactly? Just out of curiosity, how many people on those other pages do actually have proof? Cos a bunch of people saying what I said and a bunch of people calling them misinformed doesn't really say anything at all, I'm not reading 214 pages to find out, I really don't care for being right or wrong here, I just don't want to waste time.The beta failed in terms of drawing a picture desired by a large part of the playerbase, a large amount of pre-orders were cancelled, the games gun mechanics suffered from a CoD-like feel, dropping people in about 4 rounds with the high amount of damage guns do now, this, in turn, very much promoted camping (Altough there were damage bugs at work and a recent tester said that the overall gun damage has been lowered to provide a more BC2 like feel to it) The map design was quite terrible, it was linear, simplistic and funneled, compare this Rush map to something like Valpariso or Oasis, Metro just pales in comparison.The netcode was probably the worst part, providing silly deaths because of hit detection lag, I've had friends of mine tell me they had to empty half a clip on me to kill me, all the while I (And many others with this problem) kept dying in what seemed to be a single shot on my screen, the first few hits lagged behind it and when the final shot hit my health just went 100 to 0 instantly, this is probably the only part of the beta that aggravated me personally, as I've said, I liked the beta but I can't ignore much of the stuff that's been going in it which was mostly thrown into the Battlelog forums and caused many people to boycott the game they waited for so much. (I'm talking Op.Metro right now, though, Caspian was damn-near flawless and just awesome)
You don't care, but want proof and don't believe us or those who have read or been active in nearly all 200+ pages? You're very baffling.
That's not what a beta is intended to be or for, you're thinking of a demo which is not the same as a beta despite the trend by other major publishers and companies.
They were clear on what the beta was for, they confirmed it several times in interviews with Joystiq and on Twitter.
That's point #1. Beta was not made to entertain or interest people, while it may have that effect, it's based on the misinterpretations of the players such as yourself. It didn't fail something it was never set out to do.
It's one map, 9 more will be released. Again, the map wasn't chosen to entertain, it was chosen because that was the map used for internal testing previously. It's not for your entertainment but to remain consistent with previous builds and internal QA testing.
That's a really nice anecdote, it's a new netcode and welcome to beta-testing.
*The beta is not a clear display of the game, everything you're complaining about has been fixed with a build more closed to the retail version. For instance, the CoD like feeling of guns has been changed to be more like BC2. This isn't an actual change, the beta just didn't add any of these elements in because it was used for sever-testing, not for various other bugs
|
On October 16 2011 06:23 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:08 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story. What proof? It's been told countless time that the idea that they have no time to patch + ship is a misinformed one for months. Read all the pages previous to this, you'll see you're not alone in saying it and not alone in being misinformed. So how did the beta fail exactly? Just out of curiosity, how many people on those other pages do actually have proof? Cos a bunch of people saying what I said and a bunch of people calling them misinformed doesn't really say anything at all, I'm not reading 214 pages to find out, I really don't care for being right or wrong here, I just don't want to waste time.
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/03/battlefield-3-open-beta-update-2.aspx
Consider yourself mildly informed now.
|
Awful lot of people have never worked in software before. You'd be surprised how quickly a seemingly unstable pile of shit can turn into something glorious. The opposite is also true.
|
On October 16 2011 06:28 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:23 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:08 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story. What proof? It's been told countless time that the idea that they have no time to patch + ship is a misinformed one for months. Read all the pages previous to this, you'll see you're not alone in saying it and not alone in being misinformed. So how did the beta fail exactly? Just out of curiosity, how many people on those other pages do actually have proof? Cos a bunch of people saying what I said and a bunch of people calling them misinformed doesn't really say anything at all, I'm not reading 214 pages to find out, I really don't care for being right or wrong here, I just don't want to waste time.The beta failed in terms of drawing a picture desired by a large part of the playerbase, a large amount of pre-orders were cancelled, the games gun mechanics suffered from a CoD-like feel, dropping people in about 4 rounds with the high amount of damage guns do now, this, in turn, very much promoted camping (Altough there were damage bugs at work and a recent tester said that the overall gun damage has been lowered to provide a more BC2 like feel to it) The map design was quite terrible, it was linear, simplistic and funneled, compare this Rush map to something like Valpariso or Oasis, Metro just pales in comparison.The netcode was probably the worst part, providing silly deaths because of hit detection lag, I've had friends of mine tell me they had to empty half a clip on me to kill me, all the while I (And many others with this problem) kept dying in what seemed to be a single shot on my screen, the first few hits lagged behind it and when the final shot hit my health just went 100 to 0 instantly, this is probably the only part of the beta that aggravated me personally, as I've said, I liked the beta but I can't ignore much of the stuff that's been going in it which was mostly thrown into the Battlelog forums and caused many people to boycott the game they waited for so much. (I'm talking Op.Metro right now, though, Caspian was damn-near flawless and just awesome) You don't care, but want proof and don't believe us or those who have read or been active in nearly all 200+ pages? You're very baffling. That's not what a beta is intended to be or for, you're thinking of a demo which is not the same as a beta despite the trend by other major publishers and companies. They were clear on what the beta was for, they confirmed it several times in interviews with Joystiq and on Twitter. That's point #1. Beta was not made to entertain or interest people, while it may have that effect, it's based on the misinterpretations of the players such as yourself. It didn't fail something it was never set out to do. It's one map, 9 more will be released. Again, the map wasn't chosen to entertain, it was chosen because that was the map used for internal testing previously. It's not for your entertainment but to remain consistent with previous builds and internal QA testing. That's a really nice anecdote, it's a new netcode and welcome to beta-testing. *The beta is not a clear display of the game, everything you're complaining about has been fixed with a build more closed to the retail version. For instance, the CoD like feeling of guns has been changed to be more like BC2. This isn't an actual change, the beta just didn't add any of these elements in because it was used for sever-testing, not for various other bugs
What I ment by that is that if you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, seeing as your earlier argument consisted of many people vs many people, I was hoping someone in the earlier pages would have posted something useful and informational, I'll take your response as a no, that link you posted was irrelevant, I'm looking for something about the time between gold copys hitting the shelves.
The only misinterpretation here is yours, I never said this was one of my own grudges against the beta, you wanted to know why I considered the beta failed, I told you because it was it caused many people to cancel the pre-order, the post is only meant to explain why many people didn't like it, not my personal take on the beta, the only thing I disliked about the beta was hit detection which to me is enough of a reason not to play a game, if you must know, my pre-order still stands in good faith that DICE will actually get the netcode to work properly.
|
On October 16 2011 05:28 Slegg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 05:10 KaoReal wrote:On October 16 2011 00:28 Assault_1 wrote:On October 15 2011 23:49 kineticSYN wrote:
man i didn't know people could be so anal about that shit
does it really matter? what in the world could they possibly do with your information u_u
people get overhyped about this privacy shit
you have no privacy on the internet, get used to it they whine about it so they can have a reason to a) pirate it b) not buy it c) say mw3 is better or maybe their comp is full of child porn in any case I dont think anyone truly gives a shit about the privacy stuff I'd just like to have a reason to trust the software I'm installing. I don't plan on pirating it, and MW has lost this battle as far as I'm concerned. I had a friend whose computer got seized for CP, but no, that's not for me. No software needs to have such an invasive EULA. I don't see how people don't have a problem with it when this is the only software yet to have this problem, other than blatantly invasive software - like spyware. There's just no reason to have to give up the rights to your privacy to play their game. They're asking too much in my opinion. I, for one, won't give it up. Assuming you're not on Facebook etc., are you fine with Steam having the ability to close your account for no reason? I understand why you are reluctant to accept origin, but people make just try and assign the worst possible thing to it, ignoring the fact they are dealing with alot of shit from Steam aswell.
Here is a link describing the difference between the Steam EULA and the Origin EULA.
http://www.gamesradar.com/ea-backtracks-slightly-over-disturbing-data-mining-origin-eula/
"In comparison to Steam's EULA, which can gather data on any product related to Steam, EA's is worded in a way that still suggests that it can collect data from anything it deems "related" to its service. While it may be unlikely EA has an abnormal interest in anything not related to its games, the fact remains that if you agree and install the service, you’ll have no leg to stand on if EA decide to see what treasures lie on your hard drive."
Again, it's an issue of the principle of privacy. There's simply no reason for them to have this invasive capability in their EULA when Steam does not.
|
I dont get the server stress thing??
Like origin server or the third party server??
im confused
|
I decided to cancel my preorder since my computer didn't run beta too well, in fact I blue screened because (like a moron) I played for 9 hours straight and heated the shit out of my computer. I'm gonna buy when I upgrade i.e. when I have sturdier shit other than cheapo ibuypower hardware. I did however buy myself BF1942 again so I get to enjoy some other type of BF besides BC2/BF2, so I'm happy either way. I always seem to get every great game 2+ years after its out (accept SC2) so this follows my style. Have fun with the game everyone, if your still playing it even after they make BC3 in a couple years I'll be joining you. 
|
On October 16 2011 06:55 KaoReal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 05:28 Slegg wrote:On October 16 2011 05:10 KaoReal wrote:On October 16 2011 00:28 Assault_1 wrote:On October 15 2011 23:49 kineticSYN wrote:
man i didn't know people could be so anal about that shit
does it really matter? what in the world could they possibly do with your information u_u
people get overhyped about this privacy shit
you have no privacy on the internet, get used to it they whine about it so they can have a reason to a) pirate it b) not buy it c) say mw3 is better or maybe their comp is full of child porn in any case I dont think anyone truly gives a shit about the privacy stuff I'd just like to have a reason to trust the software I'm installing. I don't plan on pirating it, and MW has lost this battle as far as I'm concerned. I had a friend whose computer got seized for CP, but no, that's not for me. No software needs to have such an invasive EULA. I don't see how people don't have a problem with it when this is the only software yet to have this problem, other than blatantly invasive software - like spyware. There's just no reason to have to give up the rights to your privacy to play their game. They're asking too much in my opinion. I, for one, won't give it up. Assuming you're not on Facebook etc., are you fine with Steam having the ability to close your account for no reason? I understand why you are reluctant to accept origin, but people make just try and assign the worst possible thing to it, ignoring the fact they are dealing with alot of shit from Steam aswell. Here is a link describing the difference between the Steam EULA and the Origin EULA. http://www.gamesradar.com/ea-backtracks-slightly-over-disturbing-data-mining-origin-eula/"In comparison to Steam's EULA, which can gather data on any product related to Steam, EA's is worded in a way that still suggests that it can collect data from anything it deems "related" to its service. While it may be unlikely EA has an abnormal interest in anything not related to its games, the fact remains that if you agree and install the service, you’ll have no leg to stand on if EA decide to see what treasures lie on your hard drive." Again, it's an issue of the principle of privacy. There's simply no reason for them to have this invasive capability in their EULA when Steam does not.
There's nothing in the steam eula that says it can only gather information related specifically to steam, I don't know where they got that from. I've seen it repeated several times but it seems to just be pulled from thin air based on the assumption that Valve are The Good Guys
|
On October 16 2011 06:52 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:28 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 06:23 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:08 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story. What proof? It's been told countless time that the idea that they have no time to patch + ship is a misinformed one for months. Read all the pages previous to this, you'll see you're not alone in saying it and not alone in being misinformed. So how did the beta fail exactly? Just out of curiosity, how many people on those other pages do actually have proof? Cos a bunch of people saying what I said and a bunch of people calling them misinformed doesn't really say anything at all, I'm not reading 214 pages to find out, I really don't care for being right or wrong here, I just don't want to waste time.The beta failed in terms of drawing a picture desired by a large part of the playerbase, a large amount of pre-orders were cancelled, the games gun mechanics suffered from a CoD-like feel, dropping people in about 4 rounds with the high amount of damage guns do now, this, in turn, very much promoted camping (Altough there were damage bugs at work and a recent tester said that the overall gun damage has been lowered to provide a more BC2 like feel to it) The map design was quite terrible, it was linear, simplistic and funneled, compare this Rush map to something like Valpariso or Oasis, Metro just pales in comparison.The netcode was probably the worst part, providing silly deaths because of hit detection lag, I've had friends of mine tell me they had to empty half a clip on me to kill me, all the while I (And many others with this problem) kept dying in what seemed to be a single shot on my screen, the first few hits lagged behind it and when the final shot hit my health just went 100 to 0 instantly, this is probably the only part of the beta that aggravated me personally, as I've said, I liked the beta but I can't ignore much of the stuff that's been going in it which was mostly thrown into the Battlelog forums and caused many people to boycott the game they waited for so much. (I'm talking Op.Metro right now, though, Caspian was damn-near flawless and just awesome) You don't care, but want proof and don't believe us or those who have read or been active in nearly all 200+ pages? You're very baffling. That's not what a beta is intended to be or for, you're thinking of a demo which is not the same as a beta despite the trend by other major publishers and companies. They were clear on what the beta was for, they confirmed it several times in interviews with Joystiq and on Twitter. That's point #1. Beta was not made to entertain or interest people, while it may have that effect, it's based on the misinterpretations of the players such as yourself. It didn't fail something it was never set out to do. It's one map, 9 more will be released. Again, the map wasn't chosen to entertain, it was chosen because that was the map used for internal testing previously. It's not for your entertainment but to remain consistent with previous builds and internal QA testing. That's a really nice anecdote, it's a new netcode and welcome to beta-testing. *The beta is not a clear display of the game, everything you're complaining about has been fixed with a build more closed to the retail version. For instance, the CoD like feeling of guns has been changed to be more like BC2. This isn't an actual change, the beta just didn't add any of these elements in because it was used for sever-testing, not for various other bugs What I ment by that is that if you can prove me wrong, by all means do so, seeing as your earlier argument consisted of many people vs many people, I was hoping someone in the earlier pages would have posted something useful and informational, I'll take your response as a no, that link you posted was irrelevant, I'm looking for something about the time between gold copys hitting the shelves. The only misinterpretation here is yours, I never said this was one of my own grudges against the beta, you wanted to know why I considered the beta failed, I told you because it was it caused many people to cancel the pre-order, the post is only meant to explain why many people didn't like it, not my personal take on the beta, the only thing I disliked about the beta was hit detection which to me is enough of a reason not to play a game, if you must know, my pre-order still stands in good faith that DICE will actually get the netcode to work properly.
http://blogs.battlefield.ea.com/battlefield_bad_company/archive/2011/10/03/battlefield-3-open-beta-update-2.aspx
You're invalidating this url because its irrelevant? It's entirely correct actually and shows that there is plenty of time to fix the issues before the release because you actually don't know how further developed the game is because we've been playing on a build that was several months older than what it truly is/was.
You just being ignorant and misinformed.
You don't know what a beta is for.
You don't know the process of stress-testing and betas
You don't know the information available about BF3 and the beta using a previous build.
You're using anecdotal information to stack a likely case.
Your "people are canceling their preorders because of the beta" has less proof or evidence than what you're asking.
Go home.
|
On October 16 2011 07:04 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:55 KaoReal wrote:On October 16 2011 05:28 Slegg wrote:On October 16 2011 05:10 KaoReal wrote:On October 16 2011 00:28 Assault_1 wrote:On October 15 2011 23:49 kineticSYN wrote:
man i didn't know people could be so anal about that shit
does it really matter? what in the world could they possibly do with your information u_u
people get overhyped about this privacy shit
you have no privacy on the internet, get used to it they whine about it so they can have a reason to a) pirate it b) not buy it c) say mw3 is better or maybe their comp is full of child porn in any case I dont think anyone truly gives a shit about the privacy stuff I'd just like to have a reason to trust the software I'm installing. I don't plan on pirating it, and MW has lost this battle as far as I'm concerned. I had a friend whose computer got seized for CP, but no, that's not for me. No software needs to have such an invasive EULA. I don't see how people don't have a problem with it when this is the only software yet to have this problem, other than blatantly invasive software - like spyware. There's just no reason to have to give up the rights to your privacy to play their game. They're asking too much in my opinion. I, for one, won't give it up. Assuming you're not on Facebook etc., are you fine with Steam having the ability to close your account for no reason? I understand why you are reluctant to accept origin, but people make just try and assign the worst possible thing to it, ignoring the fact they are dealing with alot of shit from Steam aswell. Here is a link describing the difference between the Steam EULA and the Origin EULA. http://www.gamesradar.com/ea-backtracks-slightly-over-disturbing-data-mining-origin-eula/"In comparison to Steam's EULA, which can gather data on any product related to Steam, EA's is worded in a way that still suggests that it can collect data from anything it deems "related" to its service. While it may be unlikely EA has an abnormal interest in anything not related to its games, the fact remains that if you agree and install the service, you’ll have no leg to stand on if EA decide to see what treasures lie on your hard drive." Again, it's an issue of the principle of privacy. There's simply no reason for them to have this invasive capability in their EULA when Steam does not. There's nothing in the steam eula that says it can only gather information related specifically to steam, I don't know where they got that from. I've seen it repeated several times but it seems to just be pulled from thin air based on the assumption that Valve are The Good Guys
Try reading the EULA instead of stating "there's nothing in the steam eula..."
For Steam: "Valve also stores information on a user's hard drive that is used in conjunction with online play of Valve products. This includes a unique authorization key or CD-Key that is either entered by the user or downloaded automatically during product registration. This authorization key is used to identify a user as valid and allow access to Valve's products. Information regarding Steam billing, your Steam account, your Internet connection and the Valve software installed on your computer are uploaded to the server in connection with your use of Steam and Valve software."
Notice how specific they are about what sort of things they will be dealing with.
For Origin: The new EULA reads: "The non-personally identifiable information that EA collects includes technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address) and operating system, as well as information about your Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware."
Much more open ended. Essentially you're agreeing to them knowing everything about your personal computer.
It isn't necessary for a game publisher to have this sort of spyware on your computer, and no, Steam does not do the same thing.
|
On October 16 2011 06:23 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:08 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story. What proof? It's been told countless time that the idea that they have no time to patch + ship is a misinformed one for months. Read all the pages previous to this, you'll see you're not alone in saying it and not alone in being misinformed. So how did the beta fail exactly? Just out of curiosity, how many people on those other pages do actually have proof? Cos a bunch of people saying what I said and a bunch of people calling them misinformed doesn't really say anything at all, I'm not reading 214 pages to find out, I really don't care for being right or wrong here, I just don't want to waste time. The beta failed in terms of drawing a picture desired by a large part of the playerbase, a large amount of pre-orders were cancelled, the games gun mechanics suffered from a CoD-like feel, dropping people in about 4 rounds with the high amount of damage guns do now, this, in turn, very much promoted camping (Altough there were damage bugs at work and a recent tester said that the overall gun damage has been lowered to provide a more BC2 like feel to it) The map design was quite terrible, it was linear, simplistic and funneled, compare this Rush map to something like Valpariso or Oasis, Metro just pales in comparison. The netcode was probably the worst part, providing silly deaths because of hit detection lag, I've had friends of mine tell me they had to empty half a clip on me to kill me, all the while I (And many others with this problem) kept dying in what seemed to be a single shot on my screen, the first few hits lagged behind it and when the final shot hit my health just went 100 to 0 instantly, this is probably the only part of the beta that aggravated me personally, as I've said, I liked the beta but I can't ignore much of the stuff that's been going in it which was mostly thrown into the Battlelog forums and caused many people to boycott the game they waited for so much. Be it a stresstest, a bug-hunt or what have you, DICE lost many, many potential costumers by releasing the beta, in my eyes, that's a failed beta. (I'm talking Op.Metro right now, though, Caspian was damn-near flawless and just awesome)
i think people camped because it was a defend/attack map...
|
On October 16 2011 07:47 KaoReal wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 07:04 floor exercise wrote:On October 16 2011 06:55 KaoReal wrote:On October 16 2011 05:28 Slegg wrote:On October 16 2011 05:10 KaoReal wrote:On October 16 2011 00:28 Assault_1 wrote:On October 15 2011 23:49 kineticSYN wrote:
man i didn't know people could be so anal about that shit
does it really matter? what in the world could they possibly do with your information u_u
people get overhyped about this privacy shit
you have no privacy on the internet, get used to it they whine about it so they can have a reason to a) pirate it b) not buy it c) say mw3 is better or maybe their comp is full of child porn in any case I dont think anyone truly gives a shit about the privacy stuff I'd just like to have a reason to trust the software I'm installing. I don't plan on pirating it, and MW has lost this battle as far as I'm concerned. I had a friend whose computer got seized for CP, but no, that's not for me. No software needs to have such an invasive EULA. I don't see how people don't have a problem with it when this is the only software yet to have this problem, other than blatantly invasive software - like spyware. There's just no reason to have to give up the rights to your privacy to play their game. They're asking too much in my opinion. I, for one, won't give it up. Assuming you're not on Facebook etc., are you fine with Steam having the ability to close your account for no reason? I understand why you are reluctant to accept origin, but people make just try and assign the worst possible thing to it, ignoring the fact they are dealing with alot of shit from Steam aswell. Here is a link describing the difference between the Steam EULA and the Origin EULA. http://www.gamesradar.com/ea-backtracks-slightly-over-disturbing-data-mining-origin-eula/"In comparison to Steam's EULA, which can gather data on any product related to Steam, EA's is worded in a way that still suggests that it can collect data from anything it deems "related" to its service. While it may be unlikely EA has an abnormal interest in anything not related to its games, the fact remains that if you agree and install the service, you’ll have no leg to stand on if EA decide to see what treasures lie on your hard drive." Again, it's an issue of the principle of privacy. There's simply no reason for them to have this invasive capability in their EULA when Steam does not. There's nothing in the steam eula that says it can only gather information related specifically to steam, I don't know where they got that from. I've seen it repeated several times but it seems to just be pulled from thin air based on the assumption that Valve are The Good Guys Try reading the EULA instead of stating "there's nothing in the steam eula..." For Steam: "Valve also stores information on a user's hard drive that is used in conjunction with online play of Valve products. This includes a unique authorization key or CD-Key that is either entered by the user or downloaded automatically during product registration. This authorization key is used to identify a user as valid and allow access to Valve's products. Information regarding Steam billing, your Steam account, your Internet connection and the Valve software installed on your computer are uploaded to the server in connection with your use of Steam and Valve software." Notice how specific they are about what sort of things they will be dealing with. For Origin: The new EULA reads: "The non-personally identifiable information that EA collects includes technical and related information that identifies your computer (including the Internet Protocol Address) and operating system, as well as information about your Application usage (including but not limited to successful installation and/or removal), software, software usage and peripheral hardware." Much more open ended. Essentially you're agreeing to them knowing everything about your personal computer. It isn't necessary for a game publisher to have this sort of spyware on your computer, and no, Steam does not do the same thing.
Here are their respective privacy policies which govern what information they gather and what they do with it.
http://www.valvesoftware.com/privacy.html
http://www.ea.com/1/privacy-policy
I'm open to any explanations on how these are materially different, or where it explicitly states that Valve will not gather information unrelated to Steam itself. By and large Steam has a far broader privacy policy but at the end of the day they both give themselves the right to do the exact same things.
Those two segments that you just pasted are completely unrelated. See Valve's completely vague explanation of what aggregate information is (aka personally non identifiable information) and compare it to EA's which you pasted. Which is more open ended now?
|
On October 16 2011 06:06 FlamingForce wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2011 06:02 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:56 FlamingForce wrote:On October 16 2011 05:50 Torte de Lini wrote:On October 16 2011 05:35 FlamingForce wrote:Did anyone here actually play the beta? Cos from what that build showed us, BF3 is pretty terrible atm, if DICE doesn't fix the netcode it's pretty much unplayable. Yes, a lot of people did. It's an older build that's why it is not the greatest. Yes, that doesn't take away the fact that it very much failed as a beta Betas are supposed to be tests to look for problems and bugs, this beta was full of bugs and problems that DICE was well aware of. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I'm not saying you don't make a valid point, ofcouse we can't draw conclusions from a beta, it's just that when you put the facts together it draws a very grim foresight. It didn't fail as a beta. This beta was intended for stress-testing the servers. In addition, the bugs were C-Level minor to B: all crashes were not client side but server side and most glitches were collision and out-of-world issues. The build was an old build meaning that there is already a build out that fixes most of the issues (which you don't see because you're testing purely on a build that is "stable" for server stress-testing). So no, the beta didn't fail, you just didn't enjoy it, which is fine. On top of that, It takes about 3 weeks to go from gold copy, to hitting store shelves. That means they had to stop working on the game around Oct 5th and get it ready for manufacturing, this means there was VERY little time to actually implement any of the feedback from the beta. I don't tell people often that they should inform themselves, but this argument is old and is clearly misinformed. I actually enjoyed the beta quite alot, seeing as it was a beta, if you're going to call me misinformed, please provide some proof. I agree with the rest tho, that's something I looked past, I'm still not convinced about the laggy hit detection being fixed but I guess that's another story.
Your a bit of an idiot aren't you. There has been plenty of articles linked on this subject, all with proof that the beta was not the real version of the game, and the point of the beta was to test the game servers and battlelog. Not the game client.
But just so we can settle this argument and not have you misinformed posts here anymore.
http://www.joystiq.com/2011/10/10/the-beta-and-battlefield-3/
That is just one of the many articles out there explaining the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
