Check this page in their regularly published pc building guide article:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/21876/2
This is a link to their 'Econobox' , the cheapest system build that can play games well.
it's the fall edition of their pc building guide (they may release a holiday one soon). But they regularly make these building guides to help people out when they are building system, to get an idea of performance and price range.
The table they provide is nice. You can swap out components you think are expensive for other cheaper products. If you already have a case, you don't need to buy one. If you already have a DVD/CDRW burner, you don't need another one... so you can buy what you need and/or replace whatever is expensive on their list.
However $400 range is too low. Also consider that hard-disk drives are very expensive now because the flooding in Thailand... HDD prices have gone up like 100% + , for people who build their own PCs. If you buy a PC from a large manufacturer (Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc) they should not be increasing their prices because HDD manufacturers are said to maintain regular pricing for them, but they have extremely high pricing for people who build their own systems.
Funny how people hate on Origin. Steam was total shit when it started too.
that's a vague generalization. What I remember about Steam in its early days was poor performance and arguments about "what happens if Valve/Steam shut down? we lose the game?" etc..
Today the problem with Origin, isn't really the performance --from what I've read, but the EULA and a user's privacy. EA tries to down play it, but there is no better way to clear the situation up than by being precise with their EULA and allowing customer choice in the process. The customer is going to pay $60 for your product.... you're going treat them like dog shit too?
But I don't recall, not that I remember everything, too much concerns about the EULA with Steam early on, with respect to scanning computers. I didn't frequent the forums back then to read everything. I don't remember, not to say it didn't exist. I just remember 'poor performance and gaming freedom' type of arguments. And these issues still exist today and I consider them to still be a problem. My most expensive download service game is $9.99 and my total digital purchases does not exceed $50.
Digital downloads give me the impression that the game is not 'mine'; that I can't play it whenever and however I want. However companies today are introducing a grey area... so like BF3 or MW for example. You go to the store and buy the hard copy of BF3 or MW but when you go home to install it, the software requires an internet connection where you must be connected to Origin, or Steam respectively to get use out of it... the game operates only when those applications operate.
They're trying to break the idea that what you buy is yours to do with as you please. They don't want you to buy something once and then leave; only to return when they work their butts off and release something several years down the line. No. They want you to be a consistent consumer. "Nothin' to do? buy a hat for your avatar!". Things like this. "Bored of the game? Buy these maps (that we cut out of the full version only to sell later)".
They want you to buy year-round, all the time until the next major release. That's fine (if they come out-right and say that's their stance), but developers/publishers are trying to pass it off as the natural 'evolution' of the game. "Yeah man, the game has evolved. Don't live in the past". But they fail to mention that the 'evolution' is driven by the greedy corporate stooges. "No it's not! It's from our telemetry." ... they introduce on purpose addictive elements into their games as a launch pad to take their business direction even further next time.
At the end of the day, in my eyes, Origin, Steam, and all the other digital distributors.... they're all like drug pushers, drug dealers. There are articles, if you search, that explain the addictive nature of the games today and how dangerous they are. One article is titled "Two hours gaming = a line of cocaine" . Some people claim it's hogwash, with respect to the direct connection of 2 hours of gaming equals a line of cocaine, but there are many other articles expressing the excessively addictive nature of games and their harm to the brain. A recent article this week is titled "South Korea gaming curfew put into effect". In China there are even clinics to combat the addiction to gaming. It's a serious issue, yet in western countries it's business. Maybe it'll become like cigarettes. Initially all was fine and dandy, but then "Oh cigarettes are addictive and harmful to you, we'll just increase the price sky high as a penalty to make you stop using them". But the addicted people will continue on... it's a scam. They get you addicted and then they find a way to increase the price sky-high, knowing that you're addicted and will continue to pay... ruining families in the process.
Gaming addiction is seen starting from a young age... So calling these gaming companies drug dealing mafiosi, I think, is not far off. So when you go to a gamestop or the electronics section of a store and see people huddled around the video games... they're addicts looking to get their high; but you may see them dressed nicely and look clean cut, so you don't think anything of it and you go about your business. There may be instances of people buying once and not playing ever again, never looking back; but I think those are in the minority.
Anyway.....
So when there is a discussion on which service is better, Steam or Origin.... they're both "drug dealers" , they're both "bad guys"... so the discussion is on which "bad guy" is slightly better; but don't forget, they're both bad.
BF1943 has existed on the Playstation Network since initial release.... the thing is... the Sony president guy person thing said that it would be included on the same blueray disc as BF3.
Since 1943 was not included on the disc, this raises questions. You see... they were able to have 1943 running on the PS3 via digital download to the PS3 hdd from before BF3. The question is, did EA have BF1943 developed to run from the bluray with BF3 on it? Having BF1943 on the disc means that you shouldn't need to install the game, that it will run without being installed.
Maybe BF3 development was down to the wire and they didn't want to divert man-power to make BF1943 run off the disc? ... with menus and stuff like that, to make a custom user interface that would provide options for either BF3 or 1943. Without 1943 on the same disc as BF3, for PS3, it shows that it is nothing more than a cookie-cutting operation for all platforms.
Something happened during BF3's developing moments. He could have said from the beginning that all PS3 customers get a voucher for a free download of BF1943 off of the PSN, but he didn't. He said it would be on the disc.
Some may say "that's still $15 cheaper than $60" , sure... but EA can say that BF3 is worth $80. If BF3 were $80 , then at the $45 price point you'd be saving a whopping $35! !!!!1! WOW
For a PC game... it should be $50 retail, that's what it has always been. So in fact the price of $45 is only a $5 discount at the end of the day, if you go with their 'sale'.
Why $45 and not $30? Because EA has said that they will include the Back to Karkand DLC on the main rotation of multiplayer maps. This means that if you are playing on a regular map and then the server goes to one of those DLC maps, you will be kicked [I assume] for not having the map. So if you are playing with friends and then they kick you out? that sucks, right? So in essence you will be 'forced' to buy the DLC. I put forced in quotes because it will be a psychological force of being removed from the 'fun room' playing with your friends or just general play, that will 'force' you to make the purchase so you are not kicked. Maybe you can surpass this and wait for a $5 DLC sale.
One must wonder if they will do this with expansions after the Back to Karkand, to include maps in the main rotation. With Bad Company 2 and its Vietnam DLC, people rose up and complained that it would divide the community, the haves and the have nots, but now.... no one is saying anything like this; rather people are saying "Serves them right for not buying the Limited Edition" .. a completely hostile look at other people of the community. Before there was care and understanding... now there seems to be a selfish asshole type aura.
But if this does not bother you, nor does the Origin software bother you by scanning your system with out your knowledge or consent.... go for it. Maybe you can wait for Back to Karkand to be on sale for $5 in a future sale, so what was once $45 is now a potential $35...
Something to note here is that EA did not make available the change log to anybody. They made it available to customers of BF3. Sure people accessing Battlelog could then paste it elsewhere... but the thing I want to highlight is that why couldn't EA paste the few more lines of text to the Battlefield blog? disk space? bandwidth?
So news sites were picking up this information and posting the partial change log, and they were linking to Battlelog as if everyone had a Battlelog account. This is EA hitting the subconscious mind in order to 'suggest' more and more that Battlefield is no longer a standard game, but rather a service.
Anyway, I'm glad I didn't buy BF3. I like visiting the forums, sitting back and watching all the [people-who-were-suckered] whine about problems to be fixed, when they were known from before.
Nobody was trying to sell you the game in the first place; you made up your mind about the game without having to play it.
What?!
They were talking to me! A "Battlefield vet".
They were telling me that BF3 would have the largest maps ever in any Battlefield game!
They were getting me souped up; getting me hyped about the game that would take BF2 to the next level, with more teamplay and larger maps and just sheer awesomeness. This was not exactly the case. I played the "ALPHA" and the "BETA" versions of BF3 in order to wade through their marketing; maps are smaller, graphics are essentially the same [or worse than Bad Company 2 -- contrast issues], jets have been neutered [as compared to even BF1942], voip doesn't work as expected, commo-rose tacked on at the last minute, operation corridor, squad mechanism lacking, etc, etc....
Sure the sound effects are nice, but are you buying the game for sound effects now? $60 worth of sound effects? Old games that look/sound ugly are still played today because the gameplay offered is just too good and irreplaceable and unsubstitutable .
Maybe I'm picky. BF3 wants to force you into the fight; you can't play it the way you want even if they say otherwise. That's why you have some hesitant/relaxed players, camping or sniping. There are people who just want to slow stuff down; camping and/or sniping gives people that rest period. BF2 gave people a breather. You'd get a break [going from flag to flag -- or defending a location] and then you'd 'build' some adrenaline and rush in on some enemies on your own will. Now BF3 removes the period of 'calm' and tries to keep you in a state of constant hyperventilating. The game should be neutral, the players should have the power to create their own fun.
They were marketing this game as a Battlefield game, when in fact their goal was to mimic Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. COD sells. The original Battlefield formula apparently doesn't sell well, since EA isn't continuing it. BUT they do not hesitate to utilize the Battlefield name when selling the product. They want to keep the name that many people are familiar with, but change the gameplay. I'm not saying they shouldn't have made the game they made, but at least name it differently; make it a new IP. If however they made a new IP, it may have been difficult to market.
"I'm glad I didn't buy it" because I didn't play all the maps, so in fact the retail version could have pulled off a reversal (from the ALPHA and BETA), but it didn't. So reflecting back on my decision, knowing what I know, to avoid BF3 for now, "I'm glad".
also interesting to observe the total player counts for each platform... http://bf3stats.com/ As of this post:
Global stats PC online 182,558 PS3 online 174,328 360 online 241,583
It will be interesting to see how this holds up post MW3 launch, because BF3 is just feeding an empty period of lacking games. Soon Skyrim and MW3... people will consider trading-in. However maybe EA is counting on an OCD of unlocking all items and getting dogtags in order to compel people to not trade-in... maybe also B2K thing too. Will be an interesting week.
@Akrid: I don't look at BF3 at being a good value. I liked the "old" gameplay found in BF2. In BC2, I overlooked the lack of BF2-ness because I saw it as a console port and I thought it would 'hold me over' until the true sequel arrived (BF3). But BF3 turned out to be just an extension of BC2. I think the only thing left is ARMA3 (as a game that stays, for the most part, true to itself). If BF3 goes on a discount---bargain-bin, or they offer a good combo-deal... I may go for it at a future time; but I won't enter at $59.99 because I do not support their path. Though I also want to see what will happen with Germany and the Origin thing too. EA's EULA for Origin is vague. Being vague can provide cover for them to do more sinister things.
It's a multifaceted situation, in my view. I think there are a large amount of people who do things without an understanding of the ramifications of accepting vague EULAs and lower quality products; they just "go with the flow" , they go with the horde mentality. Business people like customers who "go with the flow" if it's in the business people's interest.
from the videos I've seen and from the BETA I've played, jets in BF3 have had their role reduced.
Before BF3's release people were making posts concerned if there would be a proper anti-aircraft mechanism in-place to deal with aircraft. These comments were made, correct me if I'm logically wrong here, with respect to BF2's aircraft strengths and weaknesses.
EA, before BF3's release, leaks that there would be AA (stringers, SA7) for players. The community seems happy that "They've listened to their concerns". But when the BETA came out with Caspian Border, it was finally seen and verified that aircraft would not drop bombs like in all previous Battlefield games.
In BF3 jets are always under threat and they do not have the teeth anymore. In past Battlefield games, the sound of jets made you seek cover... now in BF3 they are just a sound-effect part of the environment that can be engaged at will without fear.
It appears that EA want everyone to die often in the game. They do not want an environment where someone can go on a 'long streak' easily. So EA introduces many gimping features to everything; from vehicles disabling; appearing on the map when firing; spawn on any squad member... etc. But one etc, that seems interesting to highlight is that EA want you to be in constant fire-fights. If jets could drop dumb bombs like in all past BF games, that may ruin that 'constant fire-fights' formula that they want to mimic from COD.
Anyway, I'm glad I didn't buy BF3. I like visiting the forums, sitting back and watching all the [people-who-were-suckered] whine about problems to be fixed, when they were known from before. The canary-in-the-coal-mine was how EA were talking about wanting beat COD. The logical response to this would be "focus on the gameplay that made Battlefield be Battlefield". Rather, they introduced features more in line with Call of Duty. Translation..... they used 'Battlefield' assets to mimic COD gameplay. This is similar to what EA did with C&C4, where they used C&C assets in conjunction with gameplay that was popular in South Korea; this resulted in C&C4 not playing anything like the original C&C games made by Westwood.
Though where EA failed with C&C4, the same technique seems to have succeeded with Battlefield. They used many marketing tricks to perform a subtle but firm misinterpretation of what BF3 was going to be.
"PC lead". What you read that what do you think? Let me guess "EA are going to make a game that is closer to BF2" ? or something of this nature. EA on the other hand considers "PC lead" to EA mean 'making a game that is optimized for the PC hardware'. That is all; it is not about making custom gameplay elements for the PC.
Large maps So large maps.... yeah... large draw distances with maps that have a faction of the playable area.... very crafty wording. They are vague terms where you misinterpret the meaning. You think massive playable areas, expanding upon BF2 maps; but when you get down to it, the areas are in fact miniscule compared to the past.
30 years So does the final retail version look like 30 years has gone into it? People are crying about it non-stop. Maybe they need another 60 years, then they'll say buy our new product.
Free social-networking announced by EA; claiming that they have a leg-up against COD who is charging for such a service. What they didn't come forth with was that EA's service would not be an add-on accessory function, rather it is the ONLY way to play the game. You cannot voip chat with strangers without making them friends... The realization that Battlog would run the game came very close to release. People who claimed Battlelog runs the game and sucks, from the time of the Alpha, were just ignored with the reasoning that it was an 'Alpha'... They forgot to add "but it's an..." ALPHA... They get you in the cycle shown above because they know you'll "muddle through it" , that you're psychologically weakened to their marketing tactics. You'll fall victim all the time; it becomes textbook.
Log in to comment