Just loaded the new game. Can’t even connect thanks to full servers. Of course Day One issues are to be expected, but the biggest problem with this is you can’t play singleplayer. You can’t set up your keybinds. You can’t set up your graphics settings. That’s just irritating and pretty shitty design. Always-on connections for the loss.
E: LOL, and this is why there isn’t a gaming “community” and I leave VoIP/in game text chat off. Comments are “Fuck you for trying to play a game by a popular studio.”
I know I’m late to reply here, but I’m with you on your edit… I think Lemmy specifically has a demographic that overlaps very little with AAA FPS players, as compared to other platforms. I think the user base tends to be older and less into live-service games. But also, Lemmy/the threadiverse, being FOSS, has a big user base that’s passionate about FOSS software. And that often correlates with being critical of big corporations, products, etc.
Also many of those users use Linux, which this game notably won’t work on because of its invasive anticheat. So many of these replies may be fueled by that, too: Either jealousy of being able to play it, or “moral high ground” for choosing not to. (Note: I am in this situation and my preferred OS is a big reason I am not buying this title).
I don’t generally find it productive, though, to blame any individual consumer for funding a corporation. We live in a capitalist society, and we all have to participate to some extent to even live, often including to the benefit of mega corporations with poor morals and ties. I feel there exists better ways of fighting back against those practices, inequalities and abuses (though the government angle, at least in the US, has been falling real short there lately).
And, honestly, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect anyone to forgo major goods and services from their life, including entertainment, for the sake of morals.
If you thought the game was worth the price, it’s fair to buy it. And tbh, there’s a lot of hype and (imo) good changes with this title, so I don’t blame you.
That doesn’t make the game immune from criticism either— if you couldn’t play it whatsoever at launch because of server capacity and always-online requirements, that’s worth criticizing! And I agree with your post, always-online requirements are such BS for games with singleplayer content. I understand the motivation for the company, but it’s incredibly anti-consumer nonetheless.
Lastly, your post absolutely belongs in a gaming community— FPS games are one of the biggest genres in gaming, and pretty synonymous with “gaming”. And this is a massive release! Sorry that the general response you got wasn’t very positive or kind, though.
Thanks, and agreed on all counts. I appreciate linux gaming as much as the next person, but it’s not all the way there yet. My edit was more to do with the gaming “community” that wastes no opportunity to s**t on fellow players, whether it be griefing/ganking or someone who criticizes some aspect of gaming…many of the responses here proving that.
This is why I don’t pre-order and don’t play games with no support for dedicated player hosted servers anymore. AAA publishers will never front the cost for a sufficient amount of servers to meet the demand. They’re perfectly fine with this outcome if they already have your money.
Why are you shocked? You yourself came here to complain about a very common problem in AAA games (always online single player). You know the way to fix that? Don’t play games from studios who care more about the analytics you generate than the games they produce.
You paid $70-$90 to not be able to play a game. You could have taken that money and bought 2-5 indie games that would actually let you play them because the designers aren’t out to sell data on how people interact with their product.
You’re telling me I shouldn’t be surprised re my edit, which basically noted everyone’s poor replies, but then you switch gears and make it about the servers. These are not the same thing, and you’re par for the crappy attitude course.
I’m trying to imagine what it would have been like back in the day before dev ran servers and matchmaking services to see every single server of a game full to capacity for hours at a time.
I mean if every server in the world was full, though, so you could not play the game until one opened up. Essentially waiting in queue but without any automation. That would have been nuts. The oldest game I remember having a queue to connect was Anarchy Online. Before that, the only kind of queue for a game I saw was waiting for a group to move on from a boss spawn in EverQuest; but that was just player to player etiquette due to the unfortunate design of the game.
I’ve been curious for a while if it’s one person or just an internal developer culture thing for weird and boneheaded UI decisions on the Battlefield team.
Like BF3 and having to load into games through your web browser (even the single player campaign).
It took about 5 minutes. It’ll get better I expect. Yeah, settings behind a server availability “wall” is messed up. Can’t even do setup while waiting for a server, and people will tie up server space trying to do their settings.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
No Let’s Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates.
(Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources.
If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
I know I’m late to reply here, but I’m with you on your edit… I think Lemmy specifically has a demographic that overlaps very little with AAA FPS players, as compared to other platforms. I think the user base tends to be older and less into live-service games. But also, Lemmy/the threadiverse, being FOSS, has a big user base that’s passionate about FOSS software. And that often correlates with being critical of big corporations, products, etc.
Also many of those users use Linux, which this game notably won’t work on because of its invasive anticheat. So many of these replies may be fueled by that, too: Either jealousy of being able to play it, or “moral high ground” for choosing not to. (Note: I am in this situation and my preferred OS is a big reason I am not buying this title).
I don’t generally find it productive, though, to blame any individual consumer for funding a corporation. We live in a capitalist society, and we all have to participate to some extent to even live, often including to the benefit of mega corporations with poor morals and ties. I feel there exists better ways of fighting back against those practices, inequalities and abuses (though the government angle, at least in the US, has been falling real short there lately).
And, honestly, I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect anyone to forgo major goods and services from their life, including entertainment, for the sake of morals.
If you thought the game was worth the price, it’s fair to buy it. And tbh, there’s a lot of hype and (imo) good changes with this title, so I don’t blame you.
That doesn’t make the game immune from criticism either— if you couldn’t play it whatsoever at launch because of server capacity and always-online requirements, that’s worth criticizing! And I agree with your post, always-online requirements are such BS for games with singleplayer content. I understand the motivation for the company, but it’s incredibly anti-consumer nonetheless.
Lastly, your post absolutely belongs in a gaming community— FPS games are one of the biggest genres in gaming, and pretty synonymous with “gaming”. And this is a massive release! Sorry that the general response you got wasn’t very positive or kind, though.
Thanks, and agreed on all counts. I appreciate linux gaming as much as the next person, but it’s not all the way there yet. My edit was more to do with the gaming “community” that wastes no opportunity to s**t on fellow players, whether it be griefing/ganking or someone who criticizes some aspect of gaming…many of the responses here proving that.
This is why I don’t pre-order and don’t play games with no support for dedicated player hosted servers anymore. AAA publishers will never front the cost for a sufficient amount of servers to meet the demand. They’re perfectly fine with this outcome if they already have your money.
maybe you should pay more, or buy the game again.
you’re literally causing your own issues by supporting these twats year after year.
Re: your edit
Why are you shocked? You yourself came here to complain about a very common problem in AAA games (always online single player). You know the way to fix that? Don’t play games from studios who care more about the analytics you generate than the games they produce.
You paid $70-$90 to not be able to play a game. You could have taken that money and bought 2-5 indie games that would actually let you play them because the designers aren’t out to sell data on how people interact with their product.
You’re telling me I shouldn’t be surprised re my edit, which basically noted everyone’s poor replies, but then you switch gears and make it about the servers. These are not the same thing, and you’re par for the crappy attitude course.
Welcome to the club
Aren’t you glad you put money in Kushner’s pocket for this wonderful experience?
Fuck EA.
Fuck EA for sure… and they already had my money before the Kush private equity tools stuck their fingers into it.
And did you learn to not preorder?
I didn’t preorder.
Is this an EA game? This is what the EA Skate pre release is like too
Is that picture real? That game only had a 750.000 player peak on Steam but you’re telling me 300.000 of them landed in a queue?
Did they not prepare their infrastructure for the launch at all?
It was only a problem for the first ~4 hours. And apparently it moved very fast.
First time?
Loading 6? Sure. Playing? Thanks for the sarcasm.
I’m trying to imagine what it would have been like back in the day before dev ran servers and matchmaking services to see every single server of a game full to capacity for hours at a time.
It was truly glorious, for BF3 and BF4 I helped run a server and we had that thing full with 64 people from 5pm to 3 am everyday.
I mean if every server in the world was full, though, so you could not play the game until one opened up. Essentially waiting in queue but without any automation. That would have been nuts. The oldest game I remember having a queue to connect was Anarchy Online. Before that, the only kind of queue for a game I saw was waiting for a group to move on from a boss spawn in EverQuest; but that was just player to player etiquette due to the unfortunate design of the game.
I’ve been curious for a while if it’s one person or just an internal developer culture thing for weird and boneheaded UI decisions on the Battlefield team.
Like BF3 and having to load into games through your web browser (even the single player campaign).
I remember on the open beta I just had to wait a few minutes before I got in. Tying literally all game settings to be after the queue is super stupid.
It took about 5 minutes. It’ll get better I expect. Yeah, settings behind a server availability “wall” is messed up. Can’t even do setup while waiting for a server, and people will tie up server space trying to do their settings.
Supporting the Emirates. Real nice