EA will never get my money again...

[Wardawg1001]

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.

Way to twist my words. I'm not discounting what doesn't support my criteria, I explained exactly why they don't count - they are not relevant to my statement that modding is not a major factor in TODAY's and FUTURE FPS's, this isn't a discussion about what FPS gaming was in the past, therefore they are not relevant to the discussion. Lets try to keep the bullshit out of this okay?

Yes you do have to prove to me that GPU enhancements have fallen off in the last 8 years (or whatever timeframe you gave in an earlier post) because you are the one making the claim. If its true, I won't deny it, but I don't see any evidence of it, and if its going to be one of your supporting arguments, you'd better back it up or shut up.

 

[Wardawg1001]

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.

And what is the popularity level of these mods? Do they change the game in really significant ways? Are the mods so influential and game changing that people actually buy the game for the purpose of playing the modded versions? A big fat no, with maybe the exception of STALKER, which I hear does have at least a lot of community patching support, though that doesn't count as modding really.

Let me be clear, I'm not taking about extra maps, minor balance changes, community patches, or crap like that. I'm talking about things like complete overhaul in gameplay like you see in Civilization mods, massive graphics improvements and complete redesign of game mechanics that you see in games like the Elder Scrolls series, or to take it even further the modding available in WC3 which has quite literally spawned or at least blown in to the mainstream the existence of two new genres of gaming, those being Tower Defense games and MOBA games (DOTA2, Heroes of Newerth, and others).

 

[Wardawg1001]

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.

Who says my experience isn't indicative of the community as a whole, theres been a total of like 4 people who've disagreed with me so far (though that doesnt mean there aren't more who disagree and just didn't bother to post). I think that fact that FPS gaming has shifted in huge proportions over to consoles is the only proof I need that modding is not much of a factor in FPS gaming for PC's. If it was then there wouldn't have been such a huge migration to completely non-moddable console FPS's.

(a) I can run BF3 at Ultra settings with everything turned up to its max with 30+ fps in the middle of a 30 man firefight
(b) I got out of FPS gaming altogether after the Doom/Quake/UT time frame, moved on to strategy games and RPG's mostly. Consoles are what finally drew me back to FPS games, so my preference is console (pretty sure I already stated this multiple times)
(c) That said, I own a fair number of modern FPS games on PC, including BF3, Killing Floor, L4D and L4D2, all 3 STALKER games, Doom 3, all of the Half-Life series, Metro 2033, and RAGE. I also have many older PC FPS games/series, all of the old Doom, Quake, Unreal Tournament, Hexen, Heretic, Wolfenstein 3D games.
(d) Not in particular. I rarely play FPS games for anything but multiplayer these days (pretty sure I'm not in the minority here either) and you absolutely cannot mod most multiplayer FPS games because most of them are run by automated matchmaking services. If you want to play a modded multiplayer FPS then you need to find an independently run server, and then all of the other things I hate that I've said over and over come in to play - it has to be moderated, its going to be filled with the same players all the time, etc.

Once again, its no guess that my default choice is console, I think all my previous posts on the topic make that abundantly clear - but it wasn't always that way. I got tired of the bullshit you have to put up with in online FPS gaming.

 

[thespyder]

Way to twist my words. I'm not discounting what doesn't support my criteria, I explained exactly why they don't count - they are not relevant to my statement that modding is not a major factor in TODAY's and FUTURE FPS's, this isn't a discussion about what FPS gaming was in the past, therefore they are not relevant to the discussion. Lets try to keep the bullshit out of this okay?

Didn't twist anything. You are discounting games that do have mods. Games including old and new (Quake, doom, unreal, Crysis, Rage) and the whole plethera of games that have custom levels and mods out there today. You list in your other post Half Life. There are a BUNCH of mods for Half Life. So if you consider that current, then that kills your argument right there. Same goes for Stalker. and although you don't consider Skyrim to be an FPS, I think under these criteria, it very definitely needs to be considered. And how many mods are there for that? Hundreds? More? And since you don't have a crystal ball to see the future, you can't say that mods won't exist for 'Future' games. I, on the other hand, can predict that, so long as the possibility exists for modding, the very talented modding community will still find ways to extend their gaming experience. And, since there clearly are mods out there, I predict that there will continue to be mods made for these games.

Yes you do have to prove to me that GPU enhancements have fallen off in the last 8 years (or whatever timeframe you gave in an earlier post) because you are the one making the claim. If its true, I won't deny it, but I don't see any evidence of it, and if its going to be one of your supporting arguments, you'd better back it up or shut up.

I only have to prove something to you if I care if you believe me or not. I don't. You are wrong, pure and simple. If you don't believe me, do some research. But I am not your parent that needs to spell it out for you. That is 100% on you.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Didn't twist anything. You are discounting games that do have mods. Games including old and new (Quake, doom, unreal, Crysis, Rage) and the whole plethera of games that have custom levels and mods out there today. You list in your other post Half Life. There are a BUNCH of mods for Half Life. So if you consider that current, then that kills your argument right there. Same goes for Stalker. and although you don't consider Skyrim to be an FPS, I think under these criteria, it very definitely needs to be considered. And how many mods are there for that? Hundreds? More? And since you don't have a crystal ball to see the future, you can't say that mods won't exist for 'Future' games. I, on the other hand, can predict that, so long as the possibility exists for modding, the very talented modding community will still find ways to extend their gaming experience. And, since there clearly are mods out there, I predict that there will continue to be mods made for these games.

I only have to prove something to you if I care if you believe me or not. I don't. You are wrong, pure and simple. If you don't believe me, do some research. But I am not your parent that needs to spell it out for you. That is 100% on you.

I'll just agree to disagree on the modding capabilities of FPS gaming, we clearly have different definitions of what we consider 'modding' to be, and if you think a game like Skyrim should be included in the category of FPS, then we aren't going to get anywhere.

As far as who needs to prove what, I think its a pretty general consensus that if you make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. Even more so when its something as far out as to blame the slowdown of the technology advancements of an entire industry on the rise of console gaming - thats quite a big claim to make without any kind of evidence to back it up.

 

[BrightCandle]

Arms 2 is a current fps and the only reason its still played heavily by its community is the mods. DayZ become a big selling point for the game recently and many people have played the mod and not the main game or the previously big mods like ace and acre.

But not all moddable games benefit from being mod able. Very much depends on what can be changed and how easy it is.

 

[Raduque]

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.

Multiplayer is not the only way to game, get over yourself.

 

[thespyder]

As far as who needs to prove what, I think its a pretty general consensus that if you make a claim the onus is on you to prove it. Even more so when its something as far out as to blame the slowdown of the technology advancements of an entire industry on the rise of console gaming - thats quite a big claim to make without any kind of evidence to back it up.

LOL. OK. if you say so. (rolls eyes)

 

[Dkcode]

Even more so when its something as far out as to blame the slowdown of the technology advancements of an entire industry on the rise of console gaming - thats quite a big claim to make without any kind of evidence to back it up.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

@ OP. Talk to origin support, the first time i bought BF3 i was pissed because the controller support was half-assed. I said it was unplayable for me, they game me a refund.

I ended up buying the game later when it was on sale anyway. Its worth a shot if you havent resolved this issue yet.

 

[Wardawg1001]

Multiplayer is not the only way to game, get over yourself.

The fact that I even mentioned hackers and cheaters should have made it pretty clear that I was referring to ONLINE MULTIPLAYER FPS GAMING. Are you clueless or just willfully stupid?

 

[Wardawg1001]

Arms 2 is a current fps and the only reason its still played heavily by its community is the mods. DayZ become a big selling point for the game recently and many people have played the mod and not the main game or the previously big mods like ace and acre.

But not all moddable games benefit from being mod able. Very much depends on what can be changed and how easy it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong but DayZ is a mod that was developed and continues to be developed by a group of the actual developers of the game isn't it?

 

[Wardawg1001]

LOL. OK. if you say so. (rolls eyes)

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

In many situations, one side has the burden of proof resting on it. This side is obligated to provide evidence for its position. The claim of the other side, the one that does not bear the burden of proof, is assumed to be true unless proven otherwise. The difficulty in such cases is determining which side, if any, the burden of proof rests on. In many cases, settling this issue can be a matter of significant debate. In some cases the burden of proof is set by the situation. For example, in American law a person is assumed to be innocent until proven guilty (hence the burden of proof is on the prosecution). As another example, in debate the burden of proof is placed on the affirmative team. As a final example, in most cases the burden of proof rests on those who claim something exists (such as Bigfoot, psychic powers, universals, and sense data).

Pay close attention to the bolded part. You claim theres a link between the slowdown of technological advancements by graphics card developers and that this can be linked to the rise of consoles. Show your evidence, or shut up.

I don't even know what thats supposed to mean.

 

[thespyder]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

LOL. Cute link, but proves nothing. I am under no obligation to PROVE anything to you so long as I don't care if you believe me or not. You don't. That's 100% your problem. Not mine.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Another EA Origin forum ban extended to all of person's games:

http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/user/D4ISY_CUTTER/

Anyone who says this is justified is unwilling to accept that EA steps over the line.

Apparently, someone made a thread about being unable to access a German server and this person said jokingly "inb4nazies". And was then Origin banned from all his games.

you can see it at http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654489853772866/ ; his post was wiped by a forum admin but the admin forgot to remove sgttittiemilk's quoting of it.

And to be clear : This is about the theft of the guy's rightfully purchased games. Forum violations should be limited to forum bans. Apparently they didn't even ban him from the forums for a forum violation since he seems to still be posting : http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654489866567979/

 

[thespyder]

I have nothing to say about what action EA can/should take. And until actual legislation goes in, they will continue to do what they feel they can get away with. Complaining about it isn't going to change that.

But that poster went well over the line. And quite frankly deserved everything they got. There was no call to be racist and offensive on that level in a public form, regardless of the circumstances or provocation. And yes, I would see that as a (significant) breach of terms of service.

If EA thought that the only leverage they had in stopping such behavior was to take drastic measures? So be it. Particularly when being removed from the forum isn't even a slap on the wrist. What's to stop them from signing up with a different account and doing it again?

I have seen people fired from their jobs because of things they said in their off hours at a local bar. Or because of stuff they posted in the internet under their own ids and on their own time. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean that you have unrestricted 'Rights' to express them to the world. Grow up and understand that there are consequences for inappropriate and anti-social behavior.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I have nothing to say about what action EA can/should take. And until actual legislation goes in, they will continue to do what they feel they can get away with. Complaining about it isn't going to change that.

But that poster went over the line. And quite frankly deserved everything they got. There was no call to be racist and offensive on that level in a public form, regardless of the circumstances or provocation. And yes, I would see that as a (significant) breach of terms of service.

If EA thought that the only leverage they had in stopping such behavior was to take drastic measures? So be it. Particularly when being removed from the forum isn't even a slap on the wrist. What's to stop them from signing up with a different account and doing it again?

I have seen people fired from their jobs because of things they said in their off hours at a local bar. Or because of stuff they posted in the internet under their own ids and on their own time. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean that you have unrestricted 'Rights' to express them to the world. Grow up and understand that there are consequences for inappropriate and anti-social behavior.

This particular situation may be a bit more charged because of "racism", but most of these bans I've heard of seem to be for reasons as simple as saying "fuck" even if not directed at anyone.

No one is claiming that you should have the right to say inappropriate things on a privately owned forum and not be banned from that forum. No one is saying that you should be exempt from termination from employment if you demonstrate poor character and this could reflect on your employer. However, your bank can't foreclose on your home because you're socially inappropriate. The grocery store can't come into your home and take back your food. Wal-Mart can't come into your home and take back your CDs, DVDs, and Playstation games. And EA shouldn't be able to ban you from your games just because they are digital. Theft is theft, and terms of service should not be able to justify retaliatory crimes.

Also, if EA isn't capable of properly and completely keeping people off a forum through IP bans or other measures, then people who have been robbed of their games are going to be that much more motivated to abuse the forums. And on that point, you seem to have missed the fact that, apparently, this particular guy can still post on the forums but, apparently, is merely banned from his games. That's not effective and is pretty capricious. It's like saying, "feel free to keep doing what you did wrong, but here's a kick to the groin".

Lastly, as of right now, you can only access the Battlelog forums with a purchase of BF3. So, even if someone can create another account, only by having purchased BF3 for the account can you use the forum.

And this bears repeating: THIS situation might be a bit unique because apparently "Nazi" is racist(despite the fact he said "inb4nazi, which means he was not calling anyone a nazi, but jokingly anticipating that someone else would), but again, most of the Origin bans I've heard of are nowhere near this.

 

[Nvidiaguy07]

I have nothing to say about what action EA can/should take. And until actual legislation goes in, they will continue to do what they feel they can get away with. Complaining about it isn't going to change that.

But that poster went well over the line. And quite frankly deserved everything they got. There was no call to be racist and offensive on that level in a public form, regardless of the circumstances or provocation. And yes, I would see that as a (significant) breach of terms of service.

If EA thought that the only leverage they had in stopping such behavior was to take drastic measures? So be it. Particularly when being removed from the forum isn't even a slap on the wrist. What's to stop them from signing up with a different account and doing it again?

I have seen people fired from their jobs because of things they said in their off hours at a local bar. Or because of stuff they posted in the internet under their own ids and on their own time. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean that you have unrestricted 'Rights' to express them to the world. Grow up and understand that there are consequences for inappropriate and anti-social behavior.

Are you serious? So because he swore in a forum, he loses access to HIS games that he owns and paid for? Being fired from your job is completely unrelated. When you work for a company, you represent that company and your actions reflect the company. sure they can fire you, but they cant come and take your car that you bought with the money you made from working there.

This is absolutely ridiculous if its true. Anyone who sides with EA on this one needs to have their head examined.

 

[thespyder]

Are you serious? So because he swore in a forum, he loses access to HIS games that he owns and paid for? Being fired from your job is completely unrelated. When you work for a company, you represent that company and your actions reflect the company. sure they can fire you, but they cant come and take your car that you bought with the money you made from working there.

This is absolutely ridiculous if its true. Anyone who sides with EA on this one needs to have their head examined.

You are starting from an incorrect premise. That they games are 'Owned' by the consumer. According to EA (and others) they aren't. The consumer has contracted for the right to use EA property. Effectively, it is rented.

From that perspective, it makes perfect sense that, if you violate the terms of service, that they reserve the right to terminate all ongong business transactions, including the revoking of 'Rented' licenses for products operated by the company. this is further supported by the fact that they offender needs to actually use EA resources (i.e. sign into an EA server to run the game).

I AM NOT SAYING I THINK EA IS RIGHT ON THIS POINT. Merely that there is precedent.

Equally, I am not saying that I agree with the whole 'Rental' stance. merely (as I stated in my previous post) that until there is actual legislation enacted, you can disagree with it all you like. That isn't going to stop EA and others from doing it.

And to say that anyone who chooses to be hurtful and offensive in public on the order of that poster, something needs to get their attention. If that is what it takes, so be it. Anyone disagreeing with THAT needs to get either their head or their morals examined.

 

[diesbudt]

I have nothing to say about what action EA can/should take. And until actual legislation goes in, they will continue to do what they feel they can get away with. Complaining about it isn't going to change that.

But that poster went well over the line. And quite frankly deserved everything they got. There was no call to be racist and offensive on that level in a public form, regardless of the circumstances or provocation. And yes, I would see that as a (significant) breach of terms of service.

If EA thought that the only leverage they had in stopping such behavior was to take drastic measures? So be it. Particularly when being removed from the forum isn't even a slap on the wrist. What's to stop them from signing up with a different account and doing it again?

I have seen people fired from their jobs because of things they said in their off hours at a local bar. Or because of stuff they posted in the internet under their own ids and on their own time. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean that you have unrestricted 'Rights' to express them to the world. Grow up and understand that there are consequences for inappropriate and anti-social behavior.

Ah... facebook and twitter also. Because what you say there too. Work WILL watch what you say if they can, and you can get in trouble via that too.

 

[thespyder]

Ah... facebook and twitter also. Because what you say there too. Work WILL watch what you say if they can, and you can get in trouble via that too.

My point was, people think that they are in public domain and have free reign to say whatever comes into their heads with zero consequences.

EA (and other companies) maintain the forums with the intent that people will restrain themselves from subjecting the community to that type of trash (in the eyes of the owners). When they see someone acting in a manner unbecoming, or in a manner that they feel the rest of their consumers shouldn't be subjected to, they have a right to take action.

Where this relates to employers is this is exactly what they are doing. You may not be on the clock, but you are still representing the company. In EA's terms, you may think you have no responsibility to EA, but you are impacting those who come to the EA sites with the expectation of not having to face that type of poor conduct. It's the same thing.

Now, I do believe that there will come a time when someone will take EA (or someone equally as belligerent) to task and to court. And that legislation will come down that will curtail some of the shenanigans that companies can get away with. But I really do think that, if someone is as obnoxious and anti-social (racist) as that poster, they have bigger problems. and have never been shown where the line is. They have it coming.

 

[Kev]

You are starting from an incorrect premise. That they games are 'Owned' by the consumer. According to EA (and others) they aren't. The consumer has contracted for the right to use EA property. Effectively, it is rented.

Wow. Just... no.

 

[thespyder]

Wow. Just... no.

Please read my full post. Most specifically the Bolded section (done so that it would draw the eye of even the laziest of readers).

Thank you.