EA's Latest Attempt To Sabotage BF3

[ShiBDiB]

I could care less about mod tools (as modding a game with rank progression is too open to exploitation).

But WTF put this on steam or lose a big chunk of players.

 

[digibucc]

So why doesn't EA/Dice/etc. want anyone to mod BF3? Due to the work involved with creating/releasing modding tools?

my guess. i would love to see mods on that engine. LOVE IT. but i don't in turn
hate that they might not exist. I wasn't expecting it, so now it's just a possible +

(as modding a game with rank progression is too open to exploitation)

that may be part of it, but that doesn't mean it's not more than possible to make
modding easy, and still have it secure online.

 

[MadClown]

I wouldn't call a generic modern shooter "art", no matter how well it plays.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

All games are an artistic expression of the developers, as the Supreme Court implied.

 

[digibucc]

I wouldn't call a generic modern shooter "art", no matter how well it plays.

i wouldn't call many of the generic, modern movies and albums art.
i wouldn't call many generic modern paintings art either, i imagine.

there is a fine line between art and a commercial product. but rather
than say no games are art, i say games are art some are just crap.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

...there is such a thing as crappy art. All arts are creative expressions. Even application code is considered art in many respects, even if it is broken.

 

[ktr]

So why doesn't EA/Dice/etc. want anyone to mod BF3? Due to the work involved with creating/releasing modding tools?

So they can charge for expansion packs and DLC.

 

[1Kurgan1]

So they can charge for expansion packs and DLC.

I would love to agree, but both 1942 and BF2 had more expansions released (than BC2, which had no mods) and both of them had a ton of mods, and they still made their money off those.

 

[xenocide]

I would love to agree, but both 1942 and BF2 had more expansions released (than BC2, which had no mods) and both of them had a ton of mods, and they still made their money off those.

Get out of here with your logic...

 

[Frick]

I would love to agree, but both 1942 and BF2 had more expansions released (than BC2, which had no mods) and both of them had a ton of mods, and they still made their money off those.

Both of those were released before this DLC madness.

 

[Platibus]

Game developers and publishers used to think "Man, imagine how much fun people will have with this game." Now all they think is "Man, imagine how much money we'll get with this game." That's how I see it.

 

[1Kurgan1]

Both of those were released before this DLC madness.

So what your saying is instead of 2-3 expansions like those games had, they want 4 - 6? When BC2 only had 1 real DLC (doesn't sound like much madness to me).

 

[ktr]

I would love to agree, but both 1942 and BF2 had more expansions released (than BC2, which had no mods) and both of them had a ton of mods, and they still made their money off those.

You know why? Because expansion packs came out before mods. But, mods kept the game going, not the expansion packs.

 

[Mr McC]

Game developers and publishers used to think "Man, imagine how much fun people will have with this game." Now all they think is "Man, imagine how much money we'll get with this game." That's how I see it.

I can agree, up to a point: since gaming moved from being a big to a colossal industry, the tunnel-vision of the predominant marketing strategies has had a detrimental effect on creativity and diversity, but a number of titles still manage to prove enjoyable, in spite of the developers and publishers, or because of their occasional ability to break with this modus operandi. The picture isn't as bleak as you paint it, rejoice and be at one with the Buddha.

 

[1Kurgan1]

You know why? Because expansion packs came out before mods. But, mods kept the game going, not the expansion packs.

False, Road to Rome came out for 1942 in Feb 03, DC mod came out in like December of 02, oldest version I can find is v0.2 and even that was uploaded in Jan 03. And remember 1942 was the game with no mod tools, yet DC mod (which was massively successful) was out there before the expansions were. Facts are key to an argument.

And remember, 1942 only released in like Sept 02, took them dedicated fans 3 - 4 months to start modding a game that left DICE doors without them intending for it to be modded.

 

[ctrain]

So why doesn't EA/Dice/etc. want anyone to mod BF3? Due to the work involved with creating/releasing modding tools?

That's a given among other things.

They have no plans to license out the engine, it's EA / DICE exclusive tech and uses EA exclusive middleware that they probably can't distribute even if they wanted to... and then on top of that there's MORE middleware they have to worry about licensing in a way that allows others to use it. For all people know, the entire thing is a buggy, broken fucking mess internally, it's not uncommon or impossible. The tool chain behind it is probably ridiculous.

It's not meant for public consumption any way you slice it. DICE doesn't want it, EA doesn't want it. It's their tech, it's their advantage, they want to make games with it that destroy others. Epic, Valve, Crytek, etc are all in the engine licensing business, letting people go hog wild is free advertisement. It's win / win for them and they get to pick up talent along the way.

 

[Conti027]

How people feel/think about this game will show itself once the beta is released. That's when people will care or not about mod tools, commander, como-rose, etc.

I agree. Just cause they take something out/add something or change something doesn't mean the game will be bad. You just need to see how it all plays together. I was playing Some BF2142 tonight and I'll miss the Commander but doesn't mean the game will be bad without it. I also love how they did the LMG in BF2142 compared to BFBC2.