Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
Sir_Substance

43 million deaths

Recommended Posts

over at TGdaily there was an article about how the number of player kills in BF1943 has now reached 43 million frags.

 

EA is proud of htis achievement, however the author of the article feels that using the number of frags as a measure of the games success is distasteful.

 

there is significant fallout in the comments of the article and much namecalling, however i was interested to see what atomic thinks.

 

for my part i dont see a problem with using the number of kills as a method of demonstrating the success of the game, i see video games as very separate from real combat, and i dont equate BF1943 with WWII as the author seems to.

 

what do you think?

 

PS: thanks maxx for helping me decide where to put this :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BF1943 = Pacific Campaign of WW2.

 

I'd say it's a pretty straight forward equation.

 

As for the kills, it's certainly a way of showing just how many people are playing it.

 

Being the fastest selling game on XBLA it's a novel way of showing its popularity in a way that appeals to the gamers that are likely to play the game (FPS players...without the killing, there IS no FPS genre) more than just saying "We have XX players!".

 

EDIT: And I'd say MAXX needs help too, as BF1943 is only on consoles.

Edited by hectorbustnuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah but how many of those were "friendly-fire" frags? :-P

Edited by Oracle X

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was actually an additional map-unlock at the 43 million kill mark for each system.

 

1943 -> 43 -> 43 million

 

Bit tongue in cheek, but kind of cool.

 

(The Xbox 360 reached the milestone a few days before the PS3 if I recall correctly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

360 players actually passed the mark on the 15th, can't find any info on whether or not it has been passed on PS3 yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18th for PS3.

 

Stragglers.

Bigger install base that's all, fastest selling title on XBLA ever I read somewhere. Which is the reason the game was unplayable for quite a few folks in the first couple of days EA didn't put enough servers in place for it. Which is in itself idiotic, they're the only company which requires their own servers to be run in their games. All other publishers games run peer 2 peer with game matching done via the backend at Microsoft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield needs massive bandwidth. Peer to peer hosting would not work with the kind of uploads home users have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MrInsaneBuff

I wont have any chance to play it till the 9th of August when the i get uncapped.

 

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield needs massive bandwidth. Peer to peer hosting would not work with the kind of uploads home users have.

Works for Halo 3, COD, GoW 2. I'd say they're all bigger than Battlefield. EA insisting on having their own servers is simply so they can use the info gathered to push in game advertising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield needs massive bandwidth. Peer to peer hosting would not work with the kind of uploads home users have.

Works for Halo 3, COD, GoW 2. I'd say they're all bigger than Battlefield. EA insisting on having their own servers is simply so they can use the info gathered to push in game advertising.

 

 

Are you basing this on anything or just being obstinate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield needs massive bandwidth. Peer to peer hosting would not work with the kind of uploads home users have.

Works for Halo 3, COD, GoW 2. I'd say they're all bigger than Battlefield. EA insisting on having their own servers is simply so they can use the info gathered to push in game advertising.

 

 

Are you basing this on anything or just being obstinate?

 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/EA+Signs+Agr......-a0150644578 An old article but it shows evidence of what I'm talking about

 

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:N_YJX...lient=firefox-a While I'm usually loathe to use info from a company to discuss a product this is the clearest info I could find.

 

So rather than counter my point you belittle me? There is advertising in plenty of games but EA are the only company that push new ads to players via their servers. My personal experience with it was in Bad Company (The Watchmen ads with Dr. Manhattan were very distracting.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Battlefield needs massive bandwidth. Peer to peer hosting would not work with the kind of uploads home users have.

Works for Halo 3, COD, GoW 2. I'd say they're all bigger than Battlefield. EA insisting on having their own servers is simply so they can use the info gathered to push in game advertising.

 

 

Are you basing this on anything or just being obstinate?

 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/EA+Signs+Agr......-a0150644578 An old article but it shows evidence of what I'm talking about

 

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:N_YJX...lient=firefox-a While I'm usually loathe to use info from a company to discuss a product this is the clearest info I could find.

 

So rather than counter my point you belittle me? There is advertising in plenty of games but EA are the only company that push new ads to players via their servers. My personal experience with it was in Bad Company (The Watchmen ads with Dr. Manhattan were very distracting.)

 

Yet to see any sort of advertisement in 1943 here.

But maybe I'm not looking hard enough.

 

Also, it might be just me, but I fail to see what's actually wrong with having current, relevant advertising in games rather than crappy outdated static ads. So long as they're just as unobtrusive as their static counterparts, If I had a choice, I'd be opting for current ones.

Seriously, if the bandwidth that these ads consume really THAT much of an issue, I'd suggest revising some of the other links you probably follow browsing the internet.

Edited by MoshVandal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty hard to stick a Pepsi billboard on Iwo Jima without crossing a line.

Maybe they're advertising it as a tourist destination?

"Come to Iwo Jima! See the mighty campers lighthouse! Climb Mt. Suribachi without that annoying enemy fire! Launch an air raid of your very own!"

Edited by MoshVandal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/EA+Signs+Agr......-a0150644578 An old article but it shows evidence of what I'm talking about

 

http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:N_YJX...lient=firefox-a While I'm usually loathe to use info from a company to discuss a product this is the clearest info I could find.

 

So rather than counter my point you belittle me? There is advertising in plenty of games but EA are the only company that push new ads to players via their servers. My personal experience with it was in Bad Company (The Watchmen ads with Dr. Manhattan were very distracting.)

How is pushing ads via servers different to Peer to peer ad updating. Saints Row 2 has constant billboard updating in their games.

 

Anyway, having dedicated game servers is a much more enjoyable expierience and usually offers a higher player count. Pity there arent any servers in Australia though. Biggest problem I have found with EA is their ability to offer anything but average online to anyone outside the EU or USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with hector, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone took offence, especially if they have experienced WWII.

 

It should also be noted then when I hear this statistic I don't have the pictures of war and horror in my mind; having played it, to me it's a generation enjoying their past time, senseless shoot'em up games like this should be treated like sport not vile evil violence.

 

When I play someone I'm not trying to hurt them, I'm just trying to compete with them.

Edited by King_TriTAN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×