Frame-by-frame proof:  

• Engineer carrying a Support gun, and he didn't pick up a fallen Support's kit because he still had his repair tool, the tool that was changed to a blowtorch in the beta. 
• SCAR-H with a round shotgun reticle instead of a crosshair 
• Suppression disperses moments after it begins, the way it was in the Alpha
• And more.

Growl DLC creation time-frame growl.

You expected better of our corporate overlords?

EA is pretty full of crap.

Dude, maybe stop playing this game. There are things in life other than Battlefield 3.

I am trading my my Xbox version of Bf3 and on an my second EA Boycott. After the rent a server stuff., man BF3 for xbox is pointless to me. Those servers should list the thing you can do instead of cant.

So if I cared I am sure this would have been the final straw. More so I like PDW's havnt used one in BF3 since maps are usually big and Metro is just xp farm. However my thoughts of Close Quarters was PDWs/SMGs.

I give up in overall. Its simpler to and healthier.

@The_Nubster: He's pointing out anti-consumer behavior so people can do the responsible thing and not buy it. Dude maybe don't post if that's all you have to say.

A trailer is designed for the masses. EA has proven time and again that they don't care for the core base. Well what do I know, lets just keep beating a dead horse.

It's not like the game felt like it was missing some vital piece of content at launch; I mean, what's the big deal about them working on it before the game came out? All this proves is that at some point they had a rough version of the game that had these features, but that doesn't mean it was being worked on as DLC. It's like if Diablo 3 gets DLC adding the Cauldron back in, and you claim it was DLC being worked on before the games launch simply because it was in old gameplay. That's just not how it works. Some features just don't work in early versions and it just makes more sense to add them back in when they're more polished or if the game feels fine without them. Don't be so crotchety, mate.

Sure.

Don't buy it.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were made during normal development and wouldn't much care. Sometimes that's who these things are budgeted out. We can make these maps if we sell them as DLC. If they are being dishonest about when or why they were made then that's kind of lame but whatever. I think I'm happier with them not being included though. Metro is terrible and I don't want any more maps that are anything like that one.

It's a map pack for a game that had a perfectly acceptable amount of maps in the first place. Who gives a shit if it was worked on prior to the games release. I'm sure COD teams and other FPS devs work on map packs prior to the game release too. Who fucking cares. If you don't like it don't buy it.

It's not like the game felt like it was missing some vital piece of content at launch; I mean, what's the big deal about them working on it before the game came out? All this proves is that at some point they had a rough version of the game that had these features, but that doesn't mean it was being worked on as DLC. It's like if Diablo 3 gets DLC adding the Cauldron back in, and you claim it was DLC being worked on before the games launch simply because it was in old gameplay. That's just not how it works. Some features just don't work in early versions and it just makes more sense to add them back in when they're more polished or if the game feels fine without them. Don't get be crotchety, mate.

@The_Nubster: He's pointing out anti-consumer behavior so people can do the responsible thing and not buy it. Dude maybe don't post if that's all you have to say.

By "Created" you mean "conceptualized". Your wording makes it seem like you want people to think it was finished back in November.

@UnrealDP said:

It's not like the game felt like it was missing some vital piece of content at launch; I mean, what's the big deal about them working on it before the game came out? All this proves is that at some point they had a rough version of the game that had these features, but that doesn't mean it was being worked on as DLC. It's like if Diablo 3 gets DLC adding the Cauldron back in, and you claim it was DLC being worked on before the games launch simply because it was in old gameplay. That's just not how it works. Some features just don't work in early versions and it just makes more sense to add them back in when they're more polished or if the game feels fine without them. Don't get be crotchety, mate.

This, also you dont know that they were "ready or complete" just because there is some gameplay footage.

@Dagbiker said:

@UnrealDP said:

It's not like the game felt like it was missing some vital piece of content at launch; I mean, what's the big deal about them working on it before the game came out? All this proves is that at some point they had a rough version of the game that had these features, but that doesn't mean it was being worked on as DLC. It's like if Diablo 3 gets DLC adding the Cauldron back in, and you claim it was DLC being worked on before the games launch simply because it was in old gameplay. That's just not how it works. Some features just don't work in early versions and it just makes more sense to add them back in when they're more polished or if the game feels fine without them. Don't get be crotchety, mate.

This, also you dont know that they were "ready or complete" just because there is some gameplay footage.

Indeed. Certainly too early to tell. Steam releases in, what, 43 minutes? THEN you'll be able to tell.

Didn't @Gamer_152 explain why this isn't necessarily a bad thing, or at least why it isn't something we shouldn't find unexpected?

@CL60: @Mesoian said:

@Dagbiker said:

@UnrealDP said:

It's not like the game felt like it was missing some vital piece of content at launch; I mean, what's the big deal about them working on it before the game came out? All this proves is that at some point they had a rough version of the game that had these features, but that doesn't mean it was being worked on as DLC. It's like if Diablo 3 gets DLC adding the Cauldron back in, and you claim it was DLC being worked on before the games launch simply because it was in old gameplay. That's just not how it works. Some features just don't work in early versions and it just makes more sense to add them back in when they're more polished or if the game feels fine without them. Don't get be crotchety, mate.

This, also you dont know that they were "ready or complete" just because there is some gameplay footage.

Indeed. Certainly too early to tell. Steam releases in, what, 43 minutes? THEN you'll be able to tell.

Awww, you guys are too awesome, and the Steam thing too.

meh... I don't care. I think I got 60 dollars worth of bf3 goodness, especially with the free DLC for reserving a copy.

I however, haven't really gotten back into BF3 since the patch release, I just haven't enjoyed having to relearn the gunplay

It's very obvious that Dice ran out of time when making this game. The huge launch day patch proved that. Most likely they worked on these maps during development, didn't have enough time to finish them, and they were cut. When certain map styles proved popular they took these unused concepts and developed them into working maps. Having a version of something doesn't mean it is finished or even close to finished. Game design is about iteration. Every game you've ever played has had content cut before it was released. Sometimes you design something and find out that it isn't fun, or come up with a cool idea and prototype it only to find out actually implementing it would take too much time. I wouldn't put it past EA to develop DLC for the game at the same time as the game itself, but even then the budget for the map packs, and the team creating them would have been different than the core B3 team and may not have been completed until around this time. Developers don't cut finished content from a game and then sell it back later as DLC. They make content designed to be DLC from the start or they add things like maps that had to be cut for budgetary reasons. Pretty simple.

@Video_Game_King said:

Didn't @Gamer_152 explain why this isn't necessarily a bad thing, or at least why it isn't something we shouldn't find unexpected?

Basically, although not a ton of people agreed with me. I still don't trust the console manufacturers and EA to provide map packs that are properly priced for the content contained in them, but I still fail to see why the fact that they were created before the game's release is a problem.

Come on man. Maybe try just being positive about a game once in a while.

This video proves that the footage in the video was taken from an old build. It does not prove when the maps were made. That is true for either proving when they were in development or when they were finished.

yeah and??

There are plenty of examples of companies removing vital pieces of content from games so they can sell them later. This isn't one of them. It seems like this anger should be redirected to Capcom.

Lets forget that drip feeding content is healthy for a game community.

Or perhaps they are bringing back the old torch and this was rendered a few months ago before the patches? If all of this was already done it would have been released earlier. This doesn't really prove much, plus again who cares.

if it's free like bad company 2 then cool, but I doubt this will be free. the objectives in metro don't even matter, it will be the same with this, too chaotic

@kermoosh said:

if it's free like bad company 2 then cool, but I doubt this will be free. the objectives in metro don't even matter, it will be the same with this, too chaotic

Paid DLC, just like BF2.

or they had stock of guys running and falling ( and people behind cover ) and just reused them since the point of the video is to show the map and I am sure that the people that made this video is probably a intern that didnt want to bother rigging models. Also the point about the gameplay is stupid that is all fucking set up to make cool trailer shots.

it is getting a bit annoying these days all the crap about dlc either being on the disc or being made before the game was released.

The people who keep complaining about it should just not buy it and let us decide if we want to or not.

When i see these threads it makes me want to go and buy the dlc about 10 times.

I have bf3 for 360 and pc but i dont play on the pc much really but i might buy the dlc for both anyway just because.

And not a single shit was given that day

I gave up on BF3. I tried to play it for longer periods of time on several occasions but it just isn't as fun as Bad Company 2.

If you somehow feel that BF3 released with a lack of content then I don't know what to tell you....I got my $60 worth and then some.

Also, I'm no industry insider but I've heard from many sources, including our very own Giantbomb, that when a game is completed and is awaiting certification, or whatever small enhancements until release day, a small group of devs will split off and begin to work on DLC (Yes DLC is a thing now, get over it) instead of having them sit on their asses and do nothing. This is something our british friend here probably doesn't know and that explains why beta welding torches and such are present in this trailer.

Did you know, that in all actuality, ALL of the maps in Battlefield 3 were made before the game was released?
 
Now who's the hypocrite?
 

At what stage a map pack is developed is of no concern to me, we all knew that map DLC was going to be part of BF3. Activision were making far too much money for EA to simply ignore it and I don't really blame them. The only thing I care about is if it's worth the money.

I will still be playing it while everyone else is probably still crying about it.  
I swear, every time it's like the end of the fucking world for some people when they see that some DLC was made before a game was released

I don´t care when a dlc is created or how it is delivered. If I buy a game I try to judge if, what is there, is worth my money or not. Same goes for dlc. They make an offer, I either accept it or not. Seems so simple to me.

Anybody who thinks, there were not enough maps in BF3 at launch should not have bought it.

@AhmadMetallic: For what it's worth, I'd bet a 100 dollars on there being a New York map in the last map pack. Partly because one of the first screenshots leaked (on this forum) was in New York.

That video proves nothing. Models used for cinematic could be old ones and video of gameplay could be an internal build or a build before the suppression buff. That guy has absolutely no proof.

I am so fucking sick of people constantly whining and complaining about DLC being made during the development of the game. DLC is a great way to keep the game fresh and bring players back, and if you don't like, don't fucking buy it ..

CQ looked like it was going to suck before this revelation so they still won't be getting me to buy it either way.

I fail to give any shits. I'm still having fun playing the game once or twice a week. I had zero interest in this map pack before, so this doesn't really change anything for me.

This video proves that the footage in the video was taken from an old build. It does not prove when the maps were made. That is true for either proving when they were in development or when they were finished.

Come on man. Maybe try just being positive about a game once in a while.

Doesn't prove a thing. As the dude was so intent on pointing out, those are cinematics. Not far-fetched to think that they'd use outdated models for it. That animation was probably made on that rig, and they didn't want to bother re-targeting it for a simple trailer.

Not only is it wildly speculative to gauge suppression the way he did, the supression change is fairly recent. Totally possible that they shot the gameplay in the trailer before the patch.

And hey, could easily be wrong, but I'm gonna say the SCAR-H did not have a shotgun reticle in the beta.

@The_Nubster said:

Dude, maybe stop playing this game. There are things in life other than Battlefield 3.

Really? What a profound and mature statement.

I quit playing when the rent-a-server began and am considering trading it in because I don't see me going back and I don't see EA abandoning something that is making them money. But honestly don't care about when the DLC was ready. The number of maps(especially including the free Karkand pack) was sufficient so I have no problem with that.

I'm already not buying any more EA products, so I'm not sure how else I can have an effect on anything.

What ridiculous assumptions ... I don't even ...

I think I played one round of Battlefield 3. Am best purchase.

@drag said:

What ridiculous assumptions ... I don't even ...

Hey, people need something to freak out about. It's been a while.