In the early days of the Shouting Grounds, you may all recall JT and myself getting into a heated verbal dispute about console vs. pc gaming, specifically how I feel that PC gamers get the barb-studded shaft when it comes to sequels coming out exclusively for consoles when those games cut their teeth on the pc. Grand Theft Auto is my biggest let down…since I can vividly recall the first time I saw Dang playing GTA on his pc back in the day. Soon after GTA2 debuted on pc, it was ported to the PS2 and everything started to go pear-shaped. The third-person versions of GTA all debuted on consoles first, leaving loyal pc gamers to dangle. And now with the latest iteration of GTA, I still haven’t seen any indication that it will come to pc. But I digress…
This article is solely meant to point out the injustice that Battlefield has become. Again, I can very easily recall the first time I saw JT playing Battlefield: 1942 on his pc at a LAN at Redscape’s old apartment. We quickly became enamored by not only 1942, but the Desert Combat mod and played the holy hell out of it for many years. Battlefield: 1942 was only available for the pc, if I remember correctly. Battlefield: Vietnam was next, not as great but fun for as a break from DC for a little while…still pc only. Then in 2005, Battlefield 2 debuted across consoles and pc. Not well received by our gang…as it was built completely for online play with little LAN or single-player customization. Since then, EA’s changed the game via updates to allow it to be more like BF/DC, but at this point we’re slightly poisoned to it.
So now it’s 2008, and this summer Battlefield: Bad Company will be released. While it looks simply like an update to BF2, it does have completely deformable environments, which is sure to make battle all the more awesome. However…Bad Company is only going to be available for 360 and PS3. Once again, the PC is getting the bend-over-and-say-hail-mary. At this point, what difference does it make…right? Why the fuck should I care, since the game will probably blow in some major capacity.
Well now the ‘new faithful’, namely the consolers who are supposed to eat this bowl of puke that EA’s gonna charge $50-60 for, are getting their asses buttered and stuffed as well. EA has announced that Bad Company will ‘feature’ downloadable content (nothing new for console games) in the form of weapons n such. Again, BF2 featured ‘unlockable’ weapons once your character progressed in stature. The difference now is you have to FUCKING PAY FOR WEAPONS THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE EXORBITANT PRICE OF THE GAME IN THE FIRST PLACE! If I remember correctly, you’ll start with somewhere around 5-10 weapons, and beyond that you’ll have to fork over real-world money to get new ones. And you can be sure that there are plenty of silver-spooners that will simply buyout the weapons cache with daddy’s platinum, and proceed to annihilate the gamers that can’t afford to pay for more than just the game in a box.
What a complete ass-fuck. I can only hope that if you’ve read this far that your logic is solid enough to hate this shit as much as I do…if not then Knock-Knock-go-fuck-yourselves.
Bonus: Saw this video offa Digg this morning…inspired this article.
March 31st, 2008 at 8:36 am
Yes you are correct. This is a real stupid move on the part of publishers. Ever since Oblivion featured a “Horse Armor” option that you had to pay for it all started going downhill. Gamers should not be able to obtain a multiplayer advantage by simply buying in-game equipment or benefits. This just bullshit. Sony has tried to jump into this pricing concept with both feet. Grand Turismo 5: Prologue for PS3 originally had featured cars you had to purchase through the sony online store. I think at press time, G4 had calculated the final cost of the game, plus all the cars, at a few thousand dollars. I believe it has changed upon release with car to be bought with in-game money.
I can understand if they offer some materials that add a new dynamic to the game (portal gun or something) but not purely more firepower, because as you implied Magi, it becomes a battle between haves and have nots. The Oblivion horse-armor and other single player benefits really don’t matter in my opinion, because the benefits are in a vacuum and don’t affect the player online standing (besides achievement points, which for xbox are a flawed concept anyways, if you have and play the madden games you get several hundred points easy). If a player can buy gear for multiplayer matches that removes balance and fairness, on top of being a shitty money-making scheme.
Downloadable content that adds additional missions, quests, or maps are another thing altogether. I think being able to buy more levels or episodes is a good thing because you’re paying for the developer’s effort in extending the game, not merely (as in the case of BF2) adding back in the content they should have released with the game in the first place.
March 31st, 2008 at 9:08 am
I agree. In-game content that can be obtained by paying out real world money is the height of gaming gayness. It basically sets the stage for the have and have not’s and throws skill and experience totally out the window. It sounds to me like this game is ruined before it’s even come out.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:58 am
pay for upgrades. that makes me cry. kinda like how RockBand .. gotta pay for new songs
the whole thing should just be included in the subscription to xbox live…
of course. this is coming from someone who does not own consoles…
i still love PC gaming.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:29 am
Here here, Dang!
Except for Wii…love my Wii.