Gah, well that secures my stance on the xbox multiplayer aspect. I can't believe so many people are happy to pay a subscription on top of the price of their games, to have access to the multiplayer components of said games, it's just ridiculous. I understand a gold membership grants access to other things aswell, which is fine, but multiplayer access should NOT be part of that.
For those saying an extra $10 won't hurt, well the whole $60 certainly will for some people, and besides it's about principles, the price is only going to keep climbing if the consumers just lean back and take it.
I really wish microsoft would give up on gfwl already, it's horrible. I'd be more willing to give this change in direction a chance if it didn't force gfwl on you (i wouldn't mind if gfwl was actually useful, but it's not).
@A_Wet_Shamwow: I completely agree with you from the developer/publisher standpoint. It simply makes good business sense. Doesn't mean i'm happy about it though. I am all for more people enjoying the battlefield franchise, but i can't help but be a little dissapointed when my favourite franchise shows signs of deteriorating. Personally i feel the bad company series should have remained console exclusive, and have bf3 remain pc exclusive. I hate to sound so selfish, but it does kinda suck for the bf vets, and i'm sure anyone would feel the same way in the same position.
Of course if DICE/EA can manage to please console and pc players with bf3, i'd be all for it. On a side note, i don't think there's anything inherently wrong with console gaming, hell i'd buy a 360 or ps3 if i had the money atm, it's just the direction they seem to be taking which really bothers me, ie. simple money grabbing. Most notably requiring a subscription to play any game online for 360, and the insane amounts of dlc which simply aren't worth their price, but are lapped up anyway (with exceptions of course).
Hopefully i'm not sounding too much like an insane pc fanboy, cos i truelly despise fanboys (and the word itself...), and this article doesn't really reveal much about bf3, so take all that i have said as speculative commentary (or something), from the standpoint of a primarily pc gamer.
For those console gamers wondering why pc gamers would prefer this be a pc exclusive, it's not about being elitist. If this becomes multiplatform, it would be essentially like developing a game for the 360, wii and ps3, where the lowest common denominator (in this case the wii), is catered for. Inevitably this means due to hardware limitations and control differences, the 360 and ps3 versions will suffer, with graphics and physics, and player counts worse than what it could have been if developed exclusively for the 360 and ps3.
In the same way (as was seen with bc2 with its poor optimisation on the pc version), the pc version of bf3 will suffer this fate. It really is no secret that modern pc's are much more powerful machines than any of the current consoles (the only thing comparable atm is the cell processor and tri-core cpu on ps3 and x360, but there are still relatively cheap cpu's that can be had which would trump these). It most likely cannot be avoided since developing the games to be much different on each version would increase development costs drastically, something i somehow doubt EA would be willing to do.
EDIT: And for those pulling out the piracy card, seriously that has absolutely no basis for a battlefiled game, of which the gameplay is primarily focussed on multiplayer, which simply cannot be enjoyed to nearly the same extent with a pirated copy. Battlefield is one of those games where the pc gaming community would suddenly reappear, to give the game stellar sales. Just look at the pre-order sales for starcraft 2. If the pc gamers get a worthy pc game, it will be bought.
Log in to comment