EA will never get my money again...

[Wardawg1001]

I would rather spend maybe 30 minutes finding a few good servers when I first get a game, than get stuck with complete idiots and randoms 90% of the time (like on the 360). There's nothing more frustrating than playing a team based FPS on XBL.

Also, I don't understand what you meant by the bolded line. How would you be "stuck" playing against the same people all the time? Why are you playing with people that you don't want to play with in the first place? And again, playing with the same good people all the time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> XBL randoms.

Don't get me wrong though, I play COD on my 360 a lot, and actually use my 360 more than my desktop lately, but that's for other reasons.

You can't really say consoles>pc or vice versa, they both suck equally, just in different ways.

Nothing wrong with your preference, but I sure as hell don't. I want to flip on my console or open up my BF3.exe and be shooting people within 120 seconds. Complete idiots and baddies abound everywhere, on both dedicated servers and on matchmaking services, I prefer the experience of not knowing who I'm with and who I'm up against in every new match. The 'bolded' line comes from having dedicated servers which are generally populated by largely the same crowd - maybe its a clan, a group of friends, doesn't matter.

Regarding the part I bolded in your post, its not that I play WITH a group of bad players all the time by choice, its that I don't want to have to run around and stick to the few servers that are actually monitored and have an active admin kicking hackers, etc. I don't give a fuck if I'm using a matchmaking service like Halo and I get paired with some idiots, its no big deal, because I probably won't ever see them again. What I don't want is to play against the same group of 60-80 players for months on end because those are the active players on this magical hack free server I found.

 

[gladiatorua]

You wasted your $45 when you decided to buy BF3 for the PC. PC FPS gaming is dead, hackers and cheaters are rampant, and theres no way to stop them.

Seriously? And money wasted on console version that has subpar graphics compared even to mediocre PC? And significantly longer loading screens and other consequences of 8 year old hardware meeting new game? Less product for same money! Thanks for paying for out high quality graphics! And if you take into account that pricing on PC is more flexible, we pay even less for more.
And the fact the console controller is not suited for FPS.

I just said FPS PC games are dead.

OMG! I don't even know how to respond to this. Maybe you are butthurt over the fact that the sum of all CoD game modes on steam can barely beat the original Counter-Strike... A 12 year old game. If we add CS:Source into the mix, the CoD franchise on PC gets obliterated. And this is one of the top FPS from consoles.
And then we have stuff like Team Fortress2, Tribes, Left4Dead, Killing Floor, ARMA and large amount of less popular ones.
Dead? Do consoles even have this much variety of multiplayer FPS?
The fact that you occasionally encounter cheaters and you can't be bothered to choose the server to avoid them doesn't make FPS on PC dead. And cheaters are not as big of a problem as stupid people. Especially if you choose your server randomly.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

OP I understand why you feel that way but good luck holding to that never statement, because EA publishes a huge amount of the games that we all buy so it is hard to completely boycott them.

 

[thejunglegod]

I just said FPS PC games are dead. The only reason they ever worked was because independently run servers with active admins who would monitor and ban cheaters, hackers, sore losers, and tools in general, and boot them out of the damn server.

Strongly disagree. One of the main reasons it still works is because of the WASD Keyboard and mouse control. And none of the bloody consoles out there can currently achieve that.

 

[Maximilian]

OP I understand why you feel that way but good luck holding to that never statement, because EA publishes a huge amount of the games that we all buy so it is hard to completely boycott them.

The only games EA publish that are still relevant today are battlefield, mass effect and dead space.

 

[thejunglegod]

The only games EA publish that are still relevant today are battlefield, mass effect and dead space.

You forgot the annual sports releases.

 

[wuliheron]

You forgot the annual sports releases.

Yeah, and EA just got slammed with a 27 million dollar lawsuit for price fixing involving their Madden games. They're profits and stocks are down and if there ever was a time to send a message to them you are not happy with their service now is the time.

 

[Martimus]

OP I understand why you feel that way but good luck holding to that never statement, because EA publishes a huge amount of the games that we all buy so it is hard to completely boycott them.

It isn't too hard, since so many other publishers make good games. The last game I got from EA is ME2, and while I would like to play ME3, I have so many other games that I don't really miss not playing it. I only have so much time to play games and removing EA and Ubisoft games from the options of games to play has still left so many good options to play that I haven't had any issue boycotting them for the last few years and still play fun games.

 

[Kristijonas]

I only buy games I truly support from companies and makers I truly support.
I'm not officially saying I'm pirating the rest.

 

[diesbudt]

The only games EA publish that are still relevant today are battlefield, mass effect and dead space.

Well all Bioware games now are also EA published. Like Swtor, and so on.

EA has their grasp on more games then anyone realizes. Whether subtley or blatently. So this would be a difficult to do.

 

[thespyder]

*rolleyes* because tobacco companies made a conscious decision to give you a paper cut. Way to go off into complete stupidity. I personally don't mind that DIII is always online. It's inherently multiplayer to me. That doesn't mean it's an equal priority to all people, or that people against it are somehow being dumb. They only need so much of a reason to avoid products they don't like; it's not necessary for everyone to form support groups and write their thesis about all the things they don't like about a company.

Um, Developers don't INTEND to make it difficult for paying customers to play the game. it is an unfortunate side effect of the way DRM is designed today. it is no more or less intentional than my paper cut example.

And D3 isn't always online BECAUSE of DRM. That is the excuse that they are peddling (and if you buy that, you will buy anything). The real reason for the always online is because of the Auction house.

And I am not saying that Thesis needs to be approved. Merely that if you hate EA (and for good reason), don't JUST blame DRM.

 

[thespyder]

Strongly disagree. One of the main reasons it still works is because of the WASD Keyboard and mouse control. And none of the bloody consoles out there can currently achieve that.

Agreed it is the control scheme and targeting argument that really make PC gaming far superior to console gaming.

 

[mindcycle]

OP I understand why you feel that way but good luck holding to that never statement, because EA publishes a huge amount of the games that we all buy so it is hard to completely boycott them.

It's not hard for me.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Seriously? And money wasted on console version that has subpar graphics compared even to mediocre PC? And significantly longer loading screens and other consequences of 8 year old hardware meeting new game? Less product for same money! Thanks for paying for out high quality graphics! And if you take into account that pricing on PC is more flexible, we pay even less for more.
And the fact the console controller is not suited for FPS.
OMG! I don't even know how to respond to this. Maybe you are butthurt over the fact that the sum of all CoD game modes on steam can barely beat the original Counter-Strike... A 12 year old game. If we add CS:Source into the mix, the CoD franchise on PC gets obliterated. And this is one of the top FPS from consoles.
And then we have stuff like Team Fortress2, Tribes, Left4Dead, Killing Floor, ARMA and large amount of less popular ones.
Dead? Do consoles even have this much variety of multiplayer FPS?
The fact that you occasionally encounter cheaters and you can't be bothered to choose the server to avoid them doesn't make FPS on PC dead. And cheaters are not as big of a problem as stupid people. Especially if you choose your server randomly.

The PC graphics are worthless. All you hear about is how games need to be about gameplay and not graphics, but then the same people whine that you cant get good graphics on consoles. I play for fun, and the graphics on consoles are just fine. Sure BF3 is pretty on my PC, but for all the reasons I've already stated, I'll take a cheater free environment over better looking pixels any day.

Console controller not suited for FPS? Doesn't seem to bother many of the most popular franchises on console. Please see Halo, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Call of Duty, Borderlands, Bioshock, just to name a few. Maybe the controller is just a little too difficult for you. Gotta use two thumbsticks and six buttons instead of just point and shoot? Dont worry, give it enough time and maybe you can learn.

As for Counter Strike, you want to cry about bad graphics being a problem for consoles, and then tout CS as the flagship of PC FPS game that crushes all console FPS gaming? Make up your mind buddy. Sure, maybe CS did get it right in the gameplay department, but its pretty much the only PC FPS being played anymore, everyone else has left PC FPS gaming for the improved experience you get on a console, even if the graphics aren't as shiny. You do know TF2, L4D, and ARMA are all available on console as well right?

 

[Wardawg1001]

Strongly disagree. One of the main reasons it still works is because of the WASD Keyboard and mouse control. And none of the bloody consoles out there can currently achieve that.

Who needs to? It didn't stop Halo 2 from selling over 8 million copies.

 

[thespyder]

Seriously? And money wasted on console version that has subpar graphics compared even to mediocre PC? And significantly longer loading screens and other consequences of 8 year old hardware meeting new game? Less product for same money! Thanks for paying for out high quality graphics! And if you take into account that pricing on PC is more flexible, we pay even less for more.

Um,... I am FIRMLY in the PC camp and strongly believe that PC is the better platform for all games (FPS included). However.

Gotta draw the line on this one. Graphics in PC games are marginally superior. Not "Worlds" difference. Not by a long chalk. Where this IS important is that PC Graphics have been held back BECAUSE of consoles. so, by design the differential is not significant enough to where it actually should be. Different? Yes. Orders of magnitude? No.

and as far as longer loading times, what? Your ADD kick in? 5 seconds instead of 2? Big deal?

As as far as cost bang for your buck, a console costs you $300. A good gaming PC can cost 2K or more. when you factor it all out, Console is MUCH more economical.

I still think, despite all of the above, that PC is the platform to go to. But the reasons given by this poster are far from the mark. PCs, for instance have much more resources. And the Modding community is much larger for PCs. More complex stuff can go on in a PC game than could ever go on in a console game (just look at DA:O vs DA2 as your proof).

but siting "Significant" graphics improvement and cost effectiveness, not even close.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Um,... I am FIRMLY in the PC camp and strongly believe that PC is the better platform for all games (FPS included). However.

Gotta draw the line on this one. Graphics in PC games are marginally superior. Not "Worlds" difference. Not by a long chalk. Where this IS important is that PC Graphics have been held back BECAUSE of consoles. so, by design the differential is not significant enough to where it actually should be. Different? Yes. Orders of magnitude? No.

and as far as longer loading times, what? Your ADD kick in? 5 seconds instead of 2? Big deal?

As as far as cost bang for your buck, a console costs you $300. A good gaming PC can cost 2K or more. when you factor it all out, Console is MUCH more economical.

I still think, despite all of the above, that PC is the platform to go to. But the reasons given by this poster are far from the mark. PCs, for instance have much more resources. And the Modding community is much larger for PCs. More complex stuff can go on in a PC game than could ever go on in a console game (just look at DA:O vs DA2 as your proof).

but siting "Significant" graphics improvement and cost effectiveness, not even close.

I know none of that was directed at me, but when are looking at the specific genre of FPS, none of your positives for PC really count. FPS mods are small and largely unknown/unpopular outside of some of the stuff done with the Valve games, and I can't think of a single developer that has released a mod kit or SDK for their FPS game (not that they aren't out there, I just don't know of any).

As far as consoles holding back PC gaming graphics, that is bogus as well. The people over at Intel, AMD, nVidia, etc, aren't sitting on their hands not developing better technology because they cant put it in a console yet. Yet every year we see games that need top end pc components just to play on medium to high settings. Developers can back-scale their graphics quality as much as they need in order for it to work on a console and still develop the best looking game they can on the PC version, whether they want to spend the time and money to do it is THEIR decision, its them you should be blaming.

 

[thespyder]

I know none of that was directed at me, but when are looking at the specific genre of FPS, none of your positives for PC really count. FPS mods are small and largely unknown/unpopular outside of some of the stuff done with the Valve games, and I can't think of a single developer that has released a mod kit or SDK for their FPS game (not that they aren't out there, I just don't know of any).

Quake, doom, unreal? there are loads of custom levels out there for any number of FPS.

As far as consoles holding back PC gaming graphics, that is bogus as well. The people over at Intel, AMD, nVidia, etc, aren't sitting on their hands not developing better technology because they cant put it in a console yet. Yet every year we see games that need top end pc components just to play on medium to high settings. Developers can back-scale their graphics quality as much as they need in order for it to work on a console and still develop the best looking game they can on the PC version, whether they want to spend the time and money to do it is THEIR decision, its them you should be blaming.

Um, absolutely wrong. If you take a look at the advancements of GPU a few years (prior to the current generation consoles coming out) back over the advancements in the last 8 years (since the consoles came out), you will see a marked decline.

the point is, the only real reason to pay $400 for a GPU is if you are playing a game. And most game developers today want the games to be multi-platform. And they don't want PC games to look so much better that they bastardize their sales on consoles, so they have no reason to demand High end performance that is orders of magnitudes above what is on the current generation consoles. So there is no push for nvidia or other companies to make ground breaking leaps and bounds on GPUs. Improvements? yes. but without the demand (games), the boundaries are simply not being challenged.

 

[mindcycle]

I can't think of a single developer that has released a mod kit or SDK for their FPS game (not that they aren't out there, I just don't know of any).

Unreal:
http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/UT3ModHome.html

Source Engine:
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Category:Modding

Skyrim (if you want to consider that an FPS):
http://www.gamespot.com/news/mod-tools-bundled-with-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-6286630

Rage:
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/RAGE-Mod-Tools-Coming-Soon-43444.html

Those are just tools for the more popular games. Well, maybe not Rage.. lol

If you are interested in PC modding and what's out there a good place to start is ModDB.
http://www.moddb.com/

 

[Wardawg1001]

Quake, doom, unreal? there are loads of custom levels out there for any number of FPS.



Um, absolutely wrong. If you take a look at the advancements of GPU a few years (prior to the current generation consoles coming out) back over the advancements in the last 8 years (since the consoles came out), you will see a marked decline.

the point is, the only real reason to pay $400 for a GPU is if you are playing a game. And most game developers today want the games to be multi-platform. And they don't want PC games to look so much better that they bastardize their sales on consoles, so they have no reason to demand High end performance that is orders of magnitudes above what is on the current generation consoles. So there is no push for nvidia or other companies to make ground breaking leaps and bounds on GPUs. Improvements? yes. but without the demand (games), the boundaries are simply not being challenged.

Quake, Doom, and Unreal are older than dirt so I discounted them, since this is a discussion about the current condition of and future direction of PC FPS gaming.. As far as your claim that GPU advancements have slowed down being evidence of the rise of console gaming, first I'm going to leave the onus on you to prove that claim that GPU advancements have even slowed down in the first place, and second you need to link that to the rise of console gaming versus the myriad of other reasons that could cause that. You are just conjecturing, especially given my earlier claim, that there ARE developers that are pushing the boundaries what modern GPU's can handle (Skyrim, BF3, Crysis, Metro 2033, just a few examples).

 

[Wardawg1001]

Unreal:
http://udn.epicgames.com/Three/UT3ModHome.html

Source Engine:
https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Category:Modding

Skyrim (if you want to consider that an FPS):
http://www.gamespot.com/news/mod-tools-bundled-with-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-6286630

Rage:
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/RAGE-Mod-Tools-Coming-Soon-43444.html

Those are just tools for the more popular games. Well, maybe not Rage.. lol

If you are interested in PC modding and what's out there a good place to start is ModDB.
http://www.moddb.com/

Unreal - old engine, and while many developers have made improvements on it and built games around it, its not really a mod tool in the sense that you can take a game built with the Unreal engine and mod it in any significant way, a la Civilization 4.

Source - I already mentioned Source as one of the few FPS based engines that people have developed numerous (and even some popular) mods around (I think it was in an earlier post so you may have missed it).

Skyrim - No I don't consider this an FPS in any way shape or form.

RAGE - I'll admit I didn't know they were going to release any kind of mod kit around RAGE, but as of now it remains to be seen if anything will come of it.

In short, I stand by my claim that modding is in no way a major boon for PC FPS games. They are few and far between, and very few reach any sort of popularity. That isn't to say that other PC genre's don't have fantastic and active modding communities of course.

 

[thespyder]

Quake, Doom, and Unreal are older than dirt so I discounted them, since this is a discussion about the current condition of and future direction of PC FPS gaming.. As far as your claim that GPU advancements have slowed down being evidence of the rise of console gaming, first I'm going to leave the onus on you to prove that claim that GPU advancements have even slowed down in the first place, and second you need to link that to the rise of console gaming versus the myriad of other reasons that could cause that. You are just conjecturing, especially given my earlier claim, that there ARE developers that are pushing the boundaries what modern GPU's can handle (Skyrim, BF3, Crysis, Metro 2033, just a few examples).

In other words, you discount any game that doesn't meet your criteria. Well, that isn't my problem. All humans are male (criteria, I only consider males in my sample size). Proves nothing.

Nor am I under any responsibility to prove anything to you. If you don't accept the truth, that is your own look out.

It is true that FPS that are designed specifically for Consoles have fewer mods. But that by no means proves your stance. But what you really mean is that no games that YOU play have mods enough to quantify the argument. which is a subset of all FPS.

And I have seen mods for Crysis, just to name one. And aren't there mods for the Cod games? And the BF games? I know that there are Hacks for both. And I am pretty sure there are custom maps, which count.

 

[diesbudt]

In other words, you discount any game that doesn't meet your criteria. Well, that isn't my problem. All humans are male (criteria, I only consider males in my sample size). Proves nothing.

Nor am I under any responsibility to prove anything to you. If you don't accept the truth, that is your own look out.

It is true that FPS that are designed specifically for Consoles have fewer mods. But that by no means proves your stance. But what you really mean is that no games that YOU play have mods enough to quantify the argument. which is a subset of all FPS.

And I have seen mods for Crysis, just to name one. And aren't there mods for the Cod games? And the BF games? I know that there are Hacks for both. And I am pretty sure there are custom maps, which count.

Modding has become so big in PC gaming now, almost any and ever game will be mod available soone enough on PCs. (Even steam supports it with steam workshop)

I love how people feel the need to use their own opinion or anecdotes as facts when debating on a topic.

(especially with steam now) There is also becoming less and less unique console IPs. (I heard next Final Fantasy game will also have a PC version). In contrast: PC still holds plenty of unique IPs, growing everyday based on indie game makers, Many RTSs, and MMOs that wouldn't work with the limitations of a console controller.

 

[Dkcode]

In other words, you discount any game that doesn't meet your criteria. Well, that isn't my problem. All humans are male (criteria, I only consider males in my sample size). Proves nothing.

Nor am I under any responsibility to prove anything to you. If you don't accept the truth, that is your own look out.

It is true that FPS that are designed specifically for Consoles have fewer mods. But that by no means proves your stance. But what you really mean is that no games that YOU play have mods enough to quantify the argument. which is a subset of all FPS.

And I have seen mods for Crysis, just to name one. And aren't there mods for the Cod games? And the BF games? I know that there are Hacks for both. And I am pretty sure there are custom maps, which count.

This.

There are tons of mods for recent PC FPS games; Crysis, STALKER, Arma Series, Source Engine, UDK, Battlefield 2 (Old game but check out Forgotten Hope) and plenty of niche titles.

I agree that the big developers have focused on consoles for their FPS games but there are plenty of niche shooters on the PC.

 

[thespyder]

In short, I stand by my claim that modding is in no way a major boon for PC FPS games. They are few and far between, and very few reach any sort of popularity. That isn't to say that other PC genre's don't have fantastic and active modding communities of course.

In reality, you haven't been exposed to enough MODs to make it a major boon TO YOU. However, as evident, your experiences are not indicative of the community as a whole. And are clearly missing out on potential enhancements to your gaming experience.

I would ask, (a) do you have a PC capable of running today's FPS at medium/high settings? (b) When given a choice to purchase FPS (or any game for that matter) Console vs PC, which do you choose regularly? (c) How many PC FPS games do you own? And finally (d) have you actually gone looking for mods for PC FPS and actually tried any of them?

I would bet that you default to console when given the choice and have therefore had no reason to explore the modding options available, hence your stance. But that is just a guess on my part.