Welcome to the New Shacknews

You're currently viewing the beginning of a full site renovation for Shacknews.com. You might find something working oddly. If you do, let us know! More exciting new features to follow.

Battlefield 3 PC doesn't have in-game server browser

A set of tweets from DICE senior gameplay designer Alan Kertz seems to imply that Battlefield 3 won't use a traditional in-game server browser, instead relying on the web-based Battlelog to switch servers.

65

Battlefield 3 may not have an in-game server browser on PC, instead relying on the built-in Battlelog. In response to a question about changing servers, DICE senior gameplay designer Alan Kertz suggests quitting out of the game completely and starting it up again.

The tweet answer (via unofficial fan site BF3 Blog) was in response to a pointed question ("why no in-game servr brwsr on PC"). In other tweets, Kertz says the Battlelog is the main menu, but then references using alt-tab. He also compared the method to Bad Company 2.

Even if going through the Battlelog is lightning-fast, it's a big change from traditional PC server structure that builds browsers into the main menu, and seems to force users to quit out of the game only to start it up again. PC stalwarts aren't likely to appreciate the hassle even in the most ideal of circumstances.

Shacknews has contacted EA regarding the fate of an in-game server browser, but has not heard back at the time of publishing.

Editor-In-Chief

From The Chatty

  • reply
    August 19, 2011 6:00 PM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, Battlefield 3 PC doesn't have in-game server browser.

    A set of tweets from DICE senior gameplay designer Alan Kertz seems to imply that Battlefield 3 won't use a traditional in-game server browser, instead relying on the web-based Battlelog to switch servers.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 6:01 PM

      Eat shit EA. You managed to ruin another franchise too. It seems like you're trying to make people not buy your game.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 6:04 PM

      When I played the alpha alt tabbing was seamless and not a hassle. The only problem is if you don't want your browser leaking memory you've got to close it.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 6:15 PM

        Yeah, definitely, the whole thing blew me away to be honest. As for the browser thing, you can always just open IE9, which is relatively light.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 6:05 PM

      In the alpha the game did start up fast and joined me right in the server, but what happens when the site goes down? You need flash and java (most people do) to play the game now, also it didn't work for IE users (I don't know why people even use IE).

      Why would they ever think it was a good idea to make a website the main menu? Trying to stand out is ok, but when you stand out to much you look like an idiot.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 6:08 PM

        I don't remember the last time I've had Java installed (probably 5+ years), yet the alpha worked flawlessly for me. I don't remember it using flash either, but I could be wrong there. What it did require was a plugin that lets the browser launch the game and start up voice chat.

      • reply
        August 24, 2011 1:59 AM

        The question now is how many CoD fanboys does it take to ddos the site enough to where it's slowed down and causes performance issues and ruins launch

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 6:05 PM

      This worked great in the alpha and I'm really looking forward to seeing how they can make it even better. Since this is all web-based, I'm also interested in seeing just what the community can do to enhance it as well.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 6:30 PM

        Agreed, worked fine.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 7:42 PM

        Good to hear that it worked well from the people with actual experience with it. Could you alt-tab out of BF3 to join a new server or did you need to reload the game each time? I understand that the game loads rather quickly, so the latter isn't too bad if it's the case.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 3:29 AM

        Yep. People shouldn't complain without having tried it. It's great, better than any server browser in recent memory.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 7:10 PM

      well, this sealed it for me. Cancelling pre-order. Was leaning that way anyway since this "build for pc game" does not have dedicated servers, mod tools, nor LAN support. Guess MW3 gets my money, with dedicated servers. ;) LAME BF3 just LAME !! Hope the game flops.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 7:24 PM

        BF3 has dedicated servers..... do you know what a dedicated server is?

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 9:09 PM

          yes, of course, do you? dedicated servers can mean lots of things. I'm not talking about the ability for a hosting company running a server without having to launch the game and someone being on that server live, a listen server style. I'm talking dedicated server as is you can host your own server, which you can not and they have said you can not. So, no, BF3 does not have dedicated servers and THEY have stated they will not.

          • reply
            August 19, 2011 9:55 PM

            BF2's ranked servers had to be through a hosting company, which was almost all servers in existence. The main difference here is LAN support, but for the rest of it I don't see it as a large change for the majority of people.

            • reply
              August 20, 2011 8:00 AM

              Yes, Ranked servers for BF2 were via hosting companies, but not just renting slots. You could have a dedicated server on a hosting company and run a ranked server on it, which is completely different than renting slots. Then there is the fact you can run an unranked server anywhere. So the main difference is not LAN and there is a major difference in how the server works. It has gotten worse over time.

              I understand why they are doing it. They want to keep a consistant server population so people will not complain and blame when they join a server that is not up to standards. But if the do proper filtering and regulations they could resolve it and keep dedicated servers true.

          • reply
            August 20, 2011 9:21 AM

            Just because you can't host your own server doesn't mean its not dedicated, it just means they forcing you to use other companies for the dedicated server. A dedicated server is a sever that is dedicated to one game server (hence the word dedicated) or a web site. They do have dedicated servers, and if you mean LAN then no they don't have that because it stops hacks? (really? that doesn't make sense at all)

          • reply
            August 20, 2011 3:05 PM

            A dedicated server is just that. A machine that solely acts as a server. That's what BF3 has just like BF2 did.

            • reply
              August 20, 2011 4:26 PM

              You could host your own dedicated server in BF2... so it's not like dedicated servers in BF3 outside of playing with semantics to make it seem the same.

        • reply
          August 21, 2011 5:21 AM

          No, it doesn't. It has PAID dedicated servers. Not the same.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 7:31 PM

        BF3 of course has dedicated servers but they aren't providing the server software to the public. You have to rent a ranked server pretty much like people have been doing since BF2. Its lamentable but I can't think of any modern game that still has LAN support other than maybe Source Engine based games.

        I really don't like the idea of using a a website to launch a game which could be overloaded like say launch day. If they are tying us down to a EA service why not just tie it to the Origin client and provide the features steam has like voip, server browser, community integration. Battlelog may be an improvement over what BC2 called a server browser doesn't I want to be forced to install yet another browser plugin.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 9:14 PM

          seriously, your comment that they have been doing this since BF2 just shows you do not know what you are speaking about. If you do not know does not mean it does not exist. because there ARE modern games that have LAN support (Homefront, Brink, need I go on? ) And of course, BF2 DOES NOT have "true" dedicated servers.

          Unfortunately some "new" gamers are clouded as to what dedicated servers truly are, as deveoplers have twisted it and making people think it is something it is not. And threads like this just show that people do not really know what dedicated servers are.

          • reply
            August 19, 2011 10:07 PM

            I'm pretty sure it's exactly what dedicated servers are. Just because you can't host it doesn't mean it's not a dedicated server. If you are not talking about software that runs independent of the game then you are not talking about dedicated servers.

            Enjoy playing on crouch servers in MW3.

            • reply
              August 20, 2011 4:55 PM

              interesting, I guess the deveopers of MW3 do not know what dedicated servers are either:

              http://www.shacknews.com/article/69771/modern-warfare-3-on-pc-to-support-dedicated-servers

              Oh wait, I think they do and you are the one uneducated in what they are.

              • reply
                August 20, 2011 5:29 PM

                This is all very amusing. By your definition, the developers of Call of Duty Black Ops don't know what dedicated servers are, though! They call their solution dedicated servers even though they're through a hosting company because... they're dedicated servers!

                A hosted dedicated server is still a dedicated server. Just because the hosting files aren't freely available doesn't prevent it from being a dedicated server.

                • reply
                  August 20, 2011 6:47 PM

                  Seriously? My point was to show that they do and calling me out when I state something about dedicated server would be like calling the same thing out to the story I posted. I was not being specific to a "type" of dedicated server, I figured people had the brain power to figure out the diference and not need to defined to a childs level.

                  • reply
                    August 20, 2011 10:11 PM

                    I guess I do need it defined at a child's level, since I'm suddenly a little confused.

                    I thought your point was that hosted (non-public) dedicated servers weren't dedicated servers?

                    Your link mentioned how Infinity Ward announced that MW3 will have dedicated servers once again, since their previous game did not (MW2).

                    I brought up Black Ops since they had hosted dedicated servers and they were referred to as dedicated servers. Nowhere in the MW3 article was it stated that Black Ops didn't have dedicated servers. I made my post since I didn't see how your MW3 mention fit into the discussion, as it didn't dispute the definition of a dedicated server.

                    Regardless of what your definition of a dedicated server is, this is hardly worth continuing. No matter what we call them, we all know what options exist.

                    • reply
                      August 21, 2011 5:23 AM

                      You DO need it defined at child's level.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 7:44 PM

        I'm REALLY MAD about a feature that makes my life easier! http://i.imgur.com/sAIXZ.png

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 8:14 PM

          well then good, skip that bullshit for the 360 version too and make me happy as well.

          fucking loading up BC2 on the 360 is horse shit. I usually go look for food or smokes, jerk off, take a piss... have a nap. THEN i can get into the game.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 8:12 PM

        You are stupid.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 9:15 PM

          hahahahaha, did your Mom type that for you?

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 7:44 PM

      LoL does not have an in-game server browser and it's a total non-issue. It's fine people. Nothing to see here. Carry on.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 7:44 PM

      Anyone who bitches about using a web browser to launch a game needs to cancel their Steam account, uninstall it, and shut the fuck for all eternity because STEAM IS A WEBKIT BASED BROWSER INTERFACE.

      Have Steam running? Web browser is running.
      In a Steam game? Web browser is running.
      Press Shift Tab? Web browser is running.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 8:21 PM

        So you think it is OK to have a game's entire main menu be provide by a webpage for both Singleplayer and multiplayer. Steam at the very least as offline mode for running singleplayer games.

        My issue with Battlelog has nothing to do with memory consumption but with the browser security model. I void installing plug-ins beyond the almost mandatory flash plugin. Why should a plug-in continue to run in the background while during non-gaming web sessions. EA/Dice have 2 other games using plugins to launch games (heroes and play4free) so why not standardize this into the actual origin client. Origin should be the launcher not a regular browser.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 10:06 PM

          This is one of the few valid issues I've heard regarding battlelog being the main menu. I would hope their plugins are secure so we never run into an issue with this, but only time will tell.

          If they want to continue this approach, it would make sense to integrate it more with Origin. I'd guess it could come down to time constraints with the launch of Origin happening recently and BF3 coming up soon.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 12:00 AM

          Yes, I think it's ok. I don't think it's a particularly great idea, but I'm willing to see it through.

          As far as security concerns about the browser model, I'm right there with you. I think there is room for improvement with their model, And I look forward to community solutions in advance of vendor solutions, like configuring a browser profile just for this purpose.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 3:31 AM

          It's not the entire in game menu, it's the server browser.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 8:46 PM

        God are you dumb as hell. So steam is just a web browser? Huh, could have sworn it was a program.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 8:53 PM

          The store in the Steam client is just the website. The News section is the same.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 9:23 PM

          Well technically the client program is a heavily modified form of Internet Explorer.

          • reply
            August 19, 2011 9:34 PM

            Not anymore. They switched to WebKit when they went on Macs.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 11:56 PM

          Jesus fuck you are dumber than fuck all. That's like saying "So Chrome is just a web browser? Huh, I could have sworn it was a program."

          They're all programs you fucktard. What the fuck do you think, that web browsers aren't programs? Do you have any idea what a web browser is, or a client server architecture, or what a fucking program is?

          You have about as much insight as a mole rat.

          • reply
            August 20, 2011 7:57 AM

            Steam pulls in a website for the main page, that doesn't make it a browser. It is more of a download manger with a friends list. I know what a god damn web browser is, but you might want to look up the definition. If Steam is a web browser then so is AIM, Xfire, Yahoo Messenger, MSN messenger, etc.


            Also I know computer programming so don't ask me stupid questions about what servers and shit are.

            • reply
              August 20, 2011 12:45 PM

              Open Steam. Click Store. Right-click. View Source.

              !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd"

              Open Steam. Launch game. Shift Tab. Click Web Browser.

              HOLY FUCKING BATSHIT ROBIN IS THAT A TABBED BROWSER INTERFACE?

              I bet those smartypants programmers designed Steam so that it loads WebKit so it can run itself, and then they magically unload all of WebKit when you start a game, despite the fact that the entire Steam interface relies on WebKit and you can still have the Steam window open in another monitor and actively use it, like I do, while simultaneously playing the game.

              Then when you hit shift tab and open the browser and it opens immediately, it's not because Steam kept that shit in memory so it could open quickly. No way, every programmer knows the most efficient method of managing your UI is to unload everything needed to render it so each time someone wants to use it you have to read from disk and load that shit back, while you're in the middle of a game that is probably thrashing the disk at the same time.

              It's a good thing you're here, since you clearly know how to computer, and your hyper-awareness of rhetoric is doing you huge favors. I would have thought a program that has a full tabbed browser interface, that I can browse any website on, watch YouTube, and jerk off at pornhub with, would have made it a web browser.

              After reading you talk about shit like you're the hottest motherfucker on the planet with computering, I really couldn't help but hear this voice in my head for your text:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENTy1nAugOI

              • reply
                August 20, 2011 1:21 PM

                Because Steam has always used an embedded browser engine doesn't mean that the entire client is simply a "browser." The UI itself (not whatever is displayed in a browser viewport...), copy protection, server browser, download management services, etc is still "native" for lack of a better word. A few years back, the in-game browser didn't even exist.

                • reply
                  August 20, 2011 11:23 PM

                  Everything you described is a part of browsers. Chrome has its UI code, its auto update code, its flash downloader, etc. The fact that some portion of the application is not actively displaying web pages does not mean that chrome is not a webkit based application.

                  And we're talking about Steam, which means the currently usable version of steam, available right now, so it's not exactly relevant that it didn't always have the in game browser (it also wasn't based on webkit before, but again, doesn't matter).

            • reply
              August 22, 2011 9:23 PM

              IT Professional!

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 1:21 AM

          hahaha

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 9:17 PM

        guess you need to go back to school to learn how to read, as it is not just launching the game from a web browser that is the complaint. This is nothing like Steam and compairing it to Steam only shows you have no clue. Stick with a console and enjoy the game.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:40 AM

        The store, news page, and community pages are served as a plain old webpage. To launch a game, use the server browser, chat with friends and so on, you need to use the client... which isn't done with Webkit. Shift+Tab opens the overlay (if you have it enabled), which contains a link to open up a web browser. It's not a browser itself.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 7:54 PM

      My god, did any of you people bitching ever play a previous Battlefield game? The UI and browser for EVERY PREVIOUS BF GAME was a total disaster! I WELCOME something that actually works properly.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 8:41 PM

        That's how I feel. It's a big improvement, and they're doing something new (and seems to work very well right now, and did in alpha.) The WORST in game browser I have ever experienced is basically ALL previous DICE games.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 9:18 PM

          There's no reason why an in-game browser needs to suck so badly as it did in DICE games, though. Maybe they finally fired the guy and hired some new UI developer. I'd still rather have a good in-game browser, like in Counter-Strike: Source.

        • reply
          August 19, 2011 9:18 PM

          I'm all for new and something different, but this is not the way to go. It is not that bad, and alone is not the deal breaker for me, but with all the other things it just pushed it over the edge. Think about what is coming that we do not know about yet. ;)

          • reply
            August 19, 2011 10:11 PM

            Nope, this is definitely the way to go. I hope all games follow up this idea.

            • reply
              August 20, 2011 8:04 AM

              I agree an alternative to the ingame browser is the way to go, but from what I have read about how this is being done this specific method could use some major improvements. Hopefully they will make it into something great.

              • reply
                August 20, 2011 9:19 AM

                It is absolutely great. Obviously you did not play the Alpha. It works 100% flawlessly, which is more than anyone can say for the previous Battlefield server browsers.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 12:41 AM

        Of course they didn't bother to look into the subject. They just decided to bitch because "EA is the devilz!" rather than actually doing any sort of research into the browser.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 8:47 PM

      The only issue I would have had (played the alpha) was IF it were like GameSpy or ASE where my spot could get picked by someone else. That didn't happen with the alpha and it felt mostly seamless. It's a shame that I have to leave the game to change up (for now) the server.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 8:57 PM

      This sucks and is obviously just done to reduce stress on their backend servers to avoid the launch fail of BFBC2. Fuck you Dice or EA or whoever took this decision.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 9:22 PM

        Why would it reduce stress on the back-end servers? Does this new browser-based server-browser not behave like a typical server-browser which queries all servers, i.e. does it so some other shit like only showing some static list of servers which only get refreshed hourly or something like that?

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 3:32 AM

        You don't understand how connections work, do you? This is purely an interface decision.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 8:59 PM

      As long as I dont have to wait to get into the game i dont give a shit

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 9:12 PM

      Guys, they have a way better shot at creating a useable web interface than a usable in game GUI. HTML is more dice's speed when it comes to ui. Hopefully.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 10:14 PM

      Simmer down people, and try listening to those of us who have already gotten our hands on this setup. It SOUNDS different, but that does not mean WORKS different.

      You still browse servers from a menu, it is just in Battlelog. When you want to change servers, you still simply disconnect and it takes you back to the server browser. What you don't see is that it has pulled you all the way out of the game back to Battlelog. It is not slower or less convenient, it is actually faster and allows for several Steam-like featrues, such as the ability for your friends to send you an in-game invite that will automatically relocate you from your current server to your friends.

      This is a NON-ISSUE. Let's not make it one because of a reporters ignorant impression.

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 10:20 PM

        Glad to see someone has common sense around here.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 7:54 AM

        the ability for your friends to send you an in-game invite that will automatically relocate you from your current server to your friends.

        sweeeet

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:34 AM

        Can you 'party' up with friends to join servers together?

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 10:36 AM

          Yes, along with voice chat if you want.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 10:42 PM

      this thread is hilarious

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 1:13 AM

        This game is proving to be amusing on several levels. It's like a microcosm of the human condition.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 3:33 AM

        I'm glad if some of these people cancel their preorder.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 8:27 AM

          good grief. when it all comes down to it, you'll end up succumbing to shackhype after release and buy it anyways and have fun.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 12:07 PM

        It boggles my mind how many people don't get it. I have yet to see one person how even claimed to be in the alpha test not like it. I was in the alpha, and not even comparing to previous Battlefield games, it works really well. The load times on my computer were faster than Bad Company 2. Entering and exiting the game was no problem and happened incredibly quickly.

        People just hate change I think, and without good reason.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 1:31 PM

          i think it just comes down to that if it's not one thing to complain about it's another, PC gaming and such and such, blah-dee-blah, tired BS as per usual, etc, etc

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 11:07 PM

      that's possibly one of the worst and most useless menus ever

      • reply
        August 19, 2011 11:20 PM

        I hope you aren't basing that off a single screenshot.

    • reply
      August 19, 2011 11:23 PM

      Way to be on top of things shack editors.

      this was known information in the alpha... and was made big news over 18 hours ago in the other stupid thread about this.

      What a fucking useless way to drive hits.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 12:26 AM

        I come to Shack News every day and this is the first I've heard about this, so this IS news to me. I suspect I'm not the only one. And yes, I do read all I can about BF3 on other web sites as well.

        So STFU retard.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 7:50 AM

          Sup frontpager.

          • reply
            August 20, 2011 9:04 AM

            i need a script to filter out shacknews front page articles. the news is usually a day late and it contains posts from the front page rabble.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 1:10 AM

      I liked the webbased, it let me keep access to the desktop IM and Lamp running so I didn't have to be in game.

      I wonder if you can post urls like on the shack to join a game for the Thursday night Shackbattles which redirects to the site or into the game. That was be fucking sweet.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 2:03 AM

      Although initially angry at this "fuck PC Gamers" attitude, on reflection it could be a good thing. DICE can't make a server browser to save their lives anyway, so this could be a step forward.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 3:03 PM

        Yea I guess it doesn't matter since Dice has never had a good server browser anyways.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 2:27 AM

      The server browsers in the BF games that I have played have always been complete shit for the first few months after release. It amazes me how one company can make the same mistake over and over.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 3:10 AM

      I'm sure all 600,000 people who buy the game will care. The rest of the planet will be playing games that don't suck.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 7:51 AM

        Lol... Have you tried it?

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 9:41 AM

        lol

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 9:50 AM

        wha?

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:08 AM

        Aren't the preorders already over 3 million?

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:22 AM

        hahaha so dumb

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:25 AM

        hahahahha right. this is very silly AP.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:28 AM

        another terrible post brought to you by agentpothead

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:41 AM

        I'm pretty sure BF3 is going to be a fun game even if a bit rough around the edges like some of the other BFs.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 12:03 PM

        Pothead, normally you're just being a pothead but this is just plain dumb. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about and you should shut up because you're not helping yourself.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 3:32 AM

      I think it depends on the loading times. If I have to rewatch publisher, distributor and hardware vendors logos/intros everytime this is a real bummer. Otherwise it's ok.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 4:56 AM

      I read this and I'm a super mad guy. But I guess they know what they're doing.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 9:15 AM

      This website is full of retards. Jesus christ.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 9:48 AM

      I don't really care whether it's in-game or in a browser or a separate application or whatever, so long as 1) it works and 2) it is fast.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 9:53 AM

        Which is the point of the whole thing. The author seems to have missed the point of this and the fact that the reception to it from the people who have actually used it have been close to unanimously positive.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 10:06 AM

          Hi -efx-, you guys are doing awesome; kudos on an innovative frontend and a great automatcher. Don't let the troglodytes drag you down, battlelog is great and a nice breath of fresh air.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 10:35 AM

          Have you guys considered embedding it into the game via a small browser overlay or something? It would be pretty neat if you guys could have pulled something like that off considering that UI changes/fixes to the battlelog would be pretty damned easy now.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 10:22 AM

      Do we know if there are going to be a bunch of movies playing each time the game loads? Usually there are ways to bypass them but I'd hate to join a server and then get have to wait while the nvidia, intel, rad, EA, dice logos play.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:30 AM

        There weren't any videos in the alpha and the outrage would be immense if they included videos in the full-game for launching an MP game.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 12:09 PM

          If it took 2 minutes to load that might be understandable that they would do that, but I don't think it ever took more than 30-35 seconds on my PC to load the map in the alpha test.

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 10:33 AM

        I've heard that there are no intro movies when joining through the site.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 11:01 AM

          That's good. I'm a little weary of using the alpha as evidence since they may just not have been implemented yet but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on this one.

        • reply
          August 20, 2011 11:03 AM

          That's a great touch

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 12:07 PM

        Zero intro videos.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 10:43 AM

      I think this relevant - http://t.co/CQR1qd5

      • reply
        August 20, 2011 11:35 AM

        very relevant. people are being cunts about this. wait and see how it works before you cry like a bitch.

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 4:25 PM

      ...and it starts.

      It's interesting how people are comparing this to past BF games. It's like they didn't read the article where it said you have to exit and restart the game to change servers...

    • reply
      August 20, 2011 10:25 PM

      Sometimes people take out features, sometimes due to a better one, maybe due to something else...

      Perhaps a lack of inspiration, or of motivation, that they can keep selling these 3d models and 3d maps they keep makin and own, and nobody can copy or reuse, and if you start now you look like notch and minecraft, with his neat new idea that would really kick ass if mixed in with good tools, like how microsoft made xna and c# and c++, all their platform and directx sdks are mostly covered in the cost of windows + dev tools (express are free), and are the only tools where you own what you make....that are also good and popular, i should mention oss and gcc, you do own what you make with those too and they also have source + freelegal copy, however they don't mesh with the system of physical trade and physical goods that has always existed until electricity with the telegraph wires and the easy of puttin money into copying and distro faster over telereporters ... and also makin a chokepoint of info too, i have a blog i go into depth on this ;P

      Yet they did the black ops mod tools, with no documentation, lol maybe if they made a 'tools sdk' version, with built in app store and community, maybe a mmo-like training system to build mw2-like (or random other) games with those tools, easy 'grouping' and resource/info sharing, and plenty of free and paid apps including with automatic popularity pricing :), so you must make them free until popular, or any other way.

      before makin things for people, i suppose you'd just be given one piece of the tools, and a problem or series that can be solved with that brush, like 1 of the warcraft skills, but something they use, perhaps with microsoft inspired (note: they got paid) , freedom and limitations as well....although 'real early' microsoft was almost pro-piracy; he saw it as being there and fundamental to how the computers happen to be, unlike most else, while also noting that truly 'open sourcing' his patented bits that were very, very popular probably since they included good tools where you could win by making something popular

    • reply
      August 21, 2011 5:25 AM

      Once again, DICE removing more features.

      Hey, your system is fucking fantastic and nobody will want to use a traditional ingame browser?. Don't be so sure. Why not support both?.

      Because they're fucking dicks, that's why. LAN, true dedis, modding, mapping, less features than consoles... I don't know why people want to buy this carcass of a game.

    • reply
      August 21, 2011 9:44 AM

      If they do this it would be like every major car manufacturer saying, "hey, we decided to move the gas cap inside the trunk of your car, we know it might take longer to fill up because you have to open the trunk and close it each time you wanna fill up. having the gas cap on the side isn't in tune with our efforts of making your car less of a hassle." Looks like I might be buying Modern Warfare after all.

    • reply
      August 21, 2011 2:15 PM

      I have nothing more to say than, Thats Retarded!!!

    • reply
      August 22, 2011 1:53 AM

      From best fps on radar -->orgin -->servers --> to one im tempted to skip

      • reply
        August 22, 2011 1:54 AM

        haha its true that the old server bowser was a disatar most of the time :-) Orgin is still crap though!

    • reply
      August 22, 2011 8:22 AM

      You guys realize that a separate browser window allows for richer server browser experience and probably better game performance.
      Also it will let you play the game while browsing servers on a 2nd screen.
      I'm 100% ok with this news.