kraxus187

much like those who paid for Battlefield 1943 for the PC thinks :)

Well now we know 4 things.... 1. that Singleplayer /Campaign mode will look nice and pretty 2. Pay to play NOT in the immediate future. 3.There will be an open beta...but no mentin of the dates for a closed beta for all the ppl who bought a beta key with Medal oh Honor 3. 4. Its being release about 2 weeks before Call of Duty Nothing that we really want like Minimum/Recommended specs or how much better/worse Multiplayer will look. So..... still no incentive to fork out for it so far.,

Posted on msnbc.com "How Call of Duty Elite works and why you mighht pay for it" Included a Youtube link about 6 mins long., http://ingame.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/31/6756283-how-call-of-duty-elite-works-and-why-you-might-pay-for-it

I made a post that touched on this topic after reading..I think it was in the Battlefield 3 thread..about EA taking an interest in switching their operations to more of a "games as a service", which I interperate as "pay to play". I see Maydax posting along this theme in the MW3 thread as well so I was wondering about how others feel about this. If the major game publishers do switch to this kind of mode of operation, should we..as the admins/clans (in such series as Battlefield and Call of Duty) who pay for the vast majority of the servers on which their customer base plays, have to pay for those same servers ? If we are already having to pay on different levels already (for the game and any additional hardware so we CAN play the game)should the publishers be responsible for providing the servers if they want us to pay some kind of subscription/ monthly fee ? Personally I think an emphatic "yes they should" If I'm having to pay to play the game I fail to see why I should continue to pay for servers which create their marketplace. In effect, I would be paying for a server on which they would be making from...people playing on my server while paying the publisher to pay the game. I know at least one person who may read this is thinking..."and this is different from now how ?? Don't you already do that ??". True..a fair point....but.... But at least now I have some kind of control about the type of players I want on my servers. We have the ability to use services such as PBBans which help keep undesirable elements...if publishers become server providers, just how much control will we have to enable us to do this ? We already saw how restrictive EA/EvenBalance wanted to be with access to server files...and the struggle the staff here had to go through to enable the use of PBBans with BC2. At least now, clans/groups can get their servers to the maps types/game modes that they prefer...thus creating the atmosphere they want. Given the myriad of possibilities or server types its highly unlikly that publisherrs will be able to...or even want to..match this and we get stuck with a series of servers that are mirror images of one another playing the same map cycles all the time in the same modes. I don't really pay attention to the Modern Warfare:Call of Duty franchise, except to see whats new every once in a while. But EA already has the pay-for-content feature in place...see Battlefield:Heroses and Battlefield2Play4Free...and you already have to login to play the Battlefield games, so adding some kind of mechanism that only allows access after payment probably won;t be to difficult for them. After all, it works on Eve-Online !! I don't know how many servers there are worldwide, just for these 2 franchises, but in order ro EA and Activision to provide the required servers would be a serious financiasl undertaking....oh and getting Punkbuster fixed would be nice. But they'll be making enough money from the monthly income they'll figure out a way to turn a profit as usual. .

7 full days ?? I think he may be a tad on the low side on that one.

The only franchises EA really cares about now are its Sport franchises...Madden, NBA, MBL etc... If they were serious about any of thier other lines you would probably see at ;east 1 tv advert mentioning therm. Anyone EVER seen one on the tv for BC2 ? Any rumours of one for BF3 ? (and no, the online ones don't count.) Yet Activision splashed COD all over the small screen in addition to its other adsvertising.They've already started for the new rerlease and thats 6 months away...yet all we get from EA is chickenfeed scraps of info...hell not even any hint on minimum or recommended specs, not that they can be counted on to be anywhere near what you'll actually need. I hope I'm proved wrong and BF3 is the games we want it o be...its not like EA hasn't got all the pieces in place to make it that way,well with the exception of PB being screwed up...but Activision and the COD franchise won this war. a long time ago and instead of trying to mainain the standard set by BF2 in terms of playability EA looks liek its trying to out COD the actual COD. *shrugs*

The more I read about Battlefield 3 , EB's inability/inaction with regard to PB screenshots and EA's plans to convert to "games as a service" the less inclined I am to buy BF3. The lack of action on EA's part to motivate EB and the new direction EA is looking at taking tells me this will never be fixed because EA is looking at taking back control of the BF market. Yes.I said..and meant...take back control. While they are the owners of the product..its us...the admins/clans...who provide the market for gamers to play in. We are the ones who pay for, and therefore provide, the servers for thier consumers. to play on. And its us..the admins/clans...and the third party anti-cheat groups such as PBBans that regulate the access to those servers. By switching to pay-to-play, one would assume they they will be providing the servers to play on..and therefore regulating them .That cuts out the 3rd party admins (us) who get to decide who can and cannot play on individual servers in addition to the 3rd party anti-cheat sites who add additional bans on top of the ones handed down by EB. We still have another 6 months until the supposed release of BF3 ( I say supposed after the debacle that was BF:1943 for the PC) which is a long time in gaming. Plenty of time for EA to switch to thier pay-to-play outlook. (I'm assuming the beginning of November having seen the trailer for the new COD the other night during the basketball...looked impressive too. ) How many people will be willing to pay a monthly fee to play the game AND pay for servers each month ? If EA wants players to stump up each month...how many servers will they be providing to play on ? I for 1 fail to see why I should have to pay each month and then pay to provide a platform to expand thier market. IMO, BC2 was nothing more than a test of the Frostbite engine in anticipation of BF3 and BF2P4F a trial run of the pay-for-content that is inevitable. The recent post about the DLC with weapons and maps tells us all we need to know about that. Not that I'll switch to COD mind too....see too many posts about problems with that as well...so back to square 1 and finding something new to play, or something old to reinstall.

I played tCOD4 for the first time in a cpl of years not long ago...I usually play BC2 now. COD4s graphics,at least imo, are still better than BC2's and the game play is way smoother....well apart from spawn killiung etc...PB doesn;t freak out my CPU and theres no noticable lag at all regardless of teh server I connect to. Haven't played any of the others in the COD series but I can see why 4 rates highly.

lol..Ghost Recon Advanced Warfare is what your thinking off.. While it didn't turn out as popluar as they wanted(although they did launch a G.R.A.W 2), it did seem to be a precursor to Frointline:Fuel of War (with its little gadget weapons) which, from what I've heard, was really popular.

Could be interesting. The original Ghost Recon was my first onlinf FPS and I still have the disks around here somwhere. Had some great mods to go with it as well...wonder if this will do as good

I have no idea how much actual attention they paid to it but I did get a reply email from someone named Hendrick T. within 24 hours of my mail so who knows *shrugs*

It wouldn't hurt to drop a mail to EvenBalance either...just to try and get him on thier radar. It could be that they are aware of him already and he'll get bounced in the next round of bans....happened last week with one I "called in", and it is nice to see.

Its nice to know that when you report something to EvenBalance (even though you may not be the only one doing so) the right result happens. Not long ago I posted about a player and his suspicious playing and unreal scores..including his name and stats...all of which was sent to EvenBalance as well. The post was duly edited by staff for "hackusations"...(which I still think is rediculous seeing as screenshots with players names and guids get posted on a semi-regular basis with a request for a decision on submittal due to a cheat of some sort. But thats just my opinion *shrugs*) Nice to see I was right and that EvenBalance were already on the case.: http://www.pbbans.com/mbi-viewban-86c1b8bc-vb218216.html Just goes to show that while we all think they never seem to be on the ball and cheaters are getting away wityh it...a little bit of patience goes a long way.

Did you set up the new server for streaming when you changed to the new IP ? heres everything you need to know for that : http://www.pbbans.com/info-center-hubguide.html Also, if you have set it up it may be waiting for approval, which can take alittle while depending on who from Staff is online.

looks like we have todays quote of the day :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABGIJwiGBc (couldn't get it to embed...soory)

You mean theres more lag ?? Ever since the release of the map pack for PC,, our servers experience lag once there are more than 24-26 ppl...I notice that it occurs more when ppl join/leave as well.

Blocking the name and IP of the server must have been the admins preference. Your GUID being masked if for your protection....even here your GUID wouldn't be made public unless you hade been confirmed as cheating.

I was looking at a UK site recommended for Water Cooling equipment after a long discussion and possible system specs for BF3. Anywho...long stor short I took a look at the games that they have available as well and saw that they will be selling BF3...for 29.99 (Pounds, I can't find the symbol key for it). http://www.overclockers.co.uk/productlist.php?groupid=1720 Where as EA, on they're own site have the gane for $59.00...the UK version is the Limited Edition and it works out to approx $10.00 CHEAPER!! Makes me wonde rjust how fast teh price will drop after the initial release and who'se doing thge over pricing.

http://www.pbbans.com/info-center-clientlog.html You can find how to do it here. (Came up as first on my google search request...see gettimg help isn't that hard is it)

Yeah I loved the AA vehicles in BF2 as well. As for portable AA...the AIX mod for BF2 had a kit option for Stinger Missiles. I can't see it being an option on BF3 as it can have a tendancy (like the Engineer kit in BC2) to become a dominant feature on certain maps but seeing AA vehicles back would be fun. One thing I hope they at least try is an option from Day of Defeat where you have kit limitations on teams. For those that haven't played this, you can restrict how man of each kit are allowed on each team at 1 time. Right now EA's R.o.E prohibit this on Ranked servers fro BF2 and BC2 (although I've heard it is posssible in BC2 through serverside settings). It would be nice to see the game play disributed more throughout the kits instead of all Engineer or a mix of Sniper/Enginer which I see a lot of these days.

Maybe if they want a pro- view they shoudl talk with the US D.O.D (Sspecifically the Army) who were/are heavily involved with the development of the America's Army franchise. After reading Surfy's lnks, its obvious that these are just another bunch of talking heads using thier celebrity "status"...no matter how assumed or outdated..to pass judgement of a what has become a major passtime for a significant amount of people. Computer or Video games (yes, I do draw a line of difference in the sand between the 2) do have an impact on lifes and society in general. How can someone definativly say that "gaming" doesn't desensitise someone to killing others when the US military (and others around the workl) use "simulations" to train personel in all branches. Firing arms training now-a-days involves some kind of graphics screen in which the trainee is present with options and proceeds accordingly. All of these are COMPUTER OR VIDEO GAMES.!! If someone can be trained to act/respond in an appropriate manner to given situations...how can someone outside of these arenas not be affected to some degree by the content of these games. And lets face it...theres not really a need for the language or violence in these products. Its there because its a sign of our times...these are what sells. The majority of us buy games because they are in a particular field that we endjoy (ie FPS) or a specific genre or even because its the followup to a game we liked. Games companies feel the need to increase the language and violence levels because they have reached the conclusion that they need have more of this to out do each other and make sure that we don;t skip to the "opposition". And sometimes it does bcakfire...remember COD's litte "terrorist" slipup last year ? Does that mean we are all on the path to becoming any one of a number of groups that end end in the term "opath" ?? No, it doesn't. It just means that a generation of people who'se sole experience with games involved either a board and dice or an early console with Pong or Pac-man have decided thatComputer and Video games are whats wrong with thier world and why thier kids are turning out not quite how they liked. "I'll be in my room on my computer" "Okay...I'll call when dinner is ready" Well...that takes care of the kids...they are indoors...safe where I know where they are. Welcome to late 20th / early 21st century families. Maybe if those busybodies who want to pass judgement spent a bit more time with thier kids or at least took more time to at least look into what they are up-to then they wouldn't be so "Oh my god !!...Its the end of the world !!!" I got into games in the mid 80's on the Commodore 64...and heres a throwback for fellow brits...the BBC Micro "B" and later the 128k. I guess this means I'm a terminal case and am due for spree of wanton violnce involving bad language, sexual gratification and multiple cases of henious crimes against random persons....seeing as I haven'thad one yet. The games haven't changed much since they first came out....the basic concept has always been the same...even since the early Pac-mans : to get ahead in the game you have to kill.!!The rest is just window dressing that reflects the times that the product is released in. Theres's always going to be some nay-saying group out there who are opposed to anything.... I loved to listen to Mary Whitehouse rant in the 80's and 90's...so its not suprising that Miss Diamond and Mr Titchmarsh are at the forefront (they were always part of the squeeky clean set....all thats missing is Nick Owen). This is just another fad that will pass in time...ad provide some amusement to those of us who clearly have more common sense than these ratings seeking idiots. Apart from that...its time to go find a server to kill people on......

lol..there were several "novelty" songs out in that period....quite a few from Spitting Image as well. And the music scene in general wasn't al that great. A lot of bubblegum pop/mall pop.

I'm trying to decide whats more shocking... That Anne Diamond and Alan Titchmarsh are still around...and spouting opinions ppl give a crap about...or that someone still remembers Roland Rat !!!