EA clarifies exclusive BF3 content, has choice words for MW3

By on June 16, 2011, 5:54 PM

Remember the exclusive Battlefield 3 content that prompted gamers to storm EA's forum, flipping cop cars and burning their bras along the way? Apparently, it was all just a misunderstanding. In a blog post today, DICE explained that the Physical Warfare Pack's content is a "time-based" exclusive and the company will eventually unlock the goodies for everyone.

You'd think that would've been mentioned from the get-go, so we're not sure if it was a genuinely clumsy omission or if EA is just conceding to the demand of an angry mob. Damage control or not, we're sure many of you will be happy to know that you'll get the Type 88 light machine gun, SKS flash suppressor and armor-piercing  flechette DAO-12 shells in due time.

Gamers who preorder the Physical Warfare Pack will still have temporarily exclusive access to the aforementioned armaments, so if you can't bear to face opponents with privileged loadouts, you'll want to grab the special offer when it launches in your region. It's only available in the UK right now, but DICE says the Physical Warfare Pack will soon appear worldwide.

The company also said a few words about the Back to Karkand DLC, which is bundled with all Battlefield 3 preorders, even non-Physical Warfare Pack versions. The expansion is being developed by the same team behind Battlefield: Bad Company 2 Vietnam and contains four Battlefield 2 maps that have been recreated with DICE's new Frostbite 2.0 game engine.

Although it didn't elaborate, DICE says Back to Karkand is "so much more than just four remixed maps." "If you played [Vietnam], you have a pretty good idea about the scope and ambition of our expansion packs." Non-preorder customers will have to buy Back to Karkand separately. Pricing is still unknown, but the DLC will supposedly be available on launch day.

Battlefield 3 is slated for a North American debut on October 25, while Europeans will be invited to the action on October 28. That's two weeks ahead of Modern Warfare 3's November 8 release and the competition is already heating up. In an interview with Industry Gamers, EA CEO John Riccitiello said he wants Activision's Call of Duty following to "rot from the core."

"I think our game is more authentic. It's definitely going to do a lot of things better. Lighting's better, physics is better, animations are better, particle effects are better, vehicles are better," Riccitiello continued. He also questioned Modern Warfare's "Elite" subscription, saying Activision should have delayed the announcement until after Modern Warfare 3's launch.




User Comments: 24

Got something to say? Post a comment
gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

"flipping cop cars and burning their bras along the way?"

In other words, "going Canadian" on them?

Guest said:

3rd YESSSSSSS

IAMTHESTIG said:

Nice recovery EA... lol.

BTW, no LAN support, no buy...

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

That was some fine tap dancing by EA, I'd say. :p

Guest said:

activision's call of duty 'mass audience', NOT 'following'. you made it sound like he hates everyone that plays COD...

Guest said:

no he just hates everyone who makes cod

ramonsterns said:

EA is the master of Damage Control. They should go in the Guinness Book of Records for fastest hands in the video game industry, because no one covers their own asses as fast as EA does.

Darkshadoe Darkshadoe said:

TomSEA said:

That was some fine tap dancing by EA, I'd say. :p

LOL Its early morning here and I read that as LAP DANCING...Which might not be far from the truth either :P

Guest said:

"Lighting's better, physics is better, animations are better, particle effects are better, vehicles are better".

Are these the new hallmarks of a great game?

pcnthuziast said:

Hallmarks? No. They just stated the stuff that may not be obvious to some. Gameplay being better is something obvious. :P

example1013 said:

People still play Diablo II. I don't think graphics is the best measure of quality for a game. The MW series (at least today) looks like ass, but it was at least fun for the first 2 (not judging 3 yet as I haven't played it). And since every CoD game starting with 4 has only had on-rails vehicle sequences (minus the chopper gunner in black ops), I'd say "better vehicles" is somewhat of a red herring, since BF is the only one of the two that has real vehicle things anyways.

It's like comparing MW3 to Dragon Age: Origins and saying DA has better swords. Duh!

Guest said:

pcnthuziast: Your statement is exactly backward. Game play being better is ANYTHING BUTobvious. Better graphics is obvious. But this is the world we live in. As long as it looks good who cares how it plays right?

customcarvin customcarvin said:

Guest said:

"Lighting's better, physics is better, animations are better, particle effects are better, vehicles are better".

Are these the new hallmarks of a great game?

I agree with you 100%.. So the game looks great, that's a plus, but how are the mechanics? I mean, from what i have been reading it seems as though BF3 is going to be Battlefield BC 2 with a fresh coat of paint, and some larger maps. Now that's not a bad thing, but Dice really doesn't seem to be reinventing or adding a whole lot more in terms of new game play elements to the established series. Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited to check the game out, but i don't understand where all this arrogance and "we're going to kill COD" mentality is coming from on Dice's end.

What i really hope to see is a very optimized game engine with Frostbite 2.0. All those nice textures and effects are great, but if it gets in the way of playability and overall smoothness of the game, then I'll be disappointed. Take Frostbite 1.0-1.5 for example, the engine has some of the worst frame fluctuation i have ever seen in a game. I mean with my 965BE C3 (@3.8) and my unlocked and OC'ed 6950, I can get anywhere from 170fps to 40fps @ 1680x1050 (measuring with Fraps) depending on whats happening on the screen. Now obviously fluctuation happens with every game because this is just the way hardware/software renders info, but it seems with the current Frostbite engine the frame spectrum is very wide, where in Black Ops, which IMO, looks just as good, my frame rates are anywhere from 180fps-90fps. Also, with Black Ops, i won't really notice the game play going down to 90 frames... but i definitely notice when BFBC2 goes down to 40! Just my 2

Guest said:

yeah sure fact tands that cosd sucks abnd battlefoild beytter

pcnthuziast said:

You obviously don't know sarcasm when you see it. smh

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

yeah sure fact tands that cosd sucks abnd battlefoild beytter

Curly is that you?

peperonikiller peperonikiller said:

customcarvin said:

Guest said:

"Lighting's better, physics is better, animations are better, particle effects are better, vehicles are better".

Are these the new hallmarks of a great game?

I agree with you 100%.. So the game looks great, that's a plus, but how are the mechanics? I mean, from what i have been reading it seems as though BF3 is going to be Battlefield BC 2 with a fresh coat of paint, and some larger maps. Now that's not a bad thing, but Dice really doesn't seem to be reinventing or adding a whole lot more in terms of new game play elements to the established series. Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited to check the game out, but i don't understand where all this arrogance and "we're going to kill COD" mentality is coming from on Dice's end.

What i really hope to see is a very optimized game engine with Frostbite 2.0. All those nice textures and effects are great, but if it gets in the way of playability and overall smoothness of the game, then I'll be disappointed. Take Frostbite 1.0-1.5 for example, the engine has some of the worst frame fluctuation i have ever seen in a game. I mean with my 965BE C3 (@3.8) and my unlocked and OC'ed 6950, I can get anywhere from 170fps to 40fps @ 1680x1050 (measuring with Fraps) depending on whats happening on the screen. Now obviously fluctuation happens with every game because this is just the way hardware/software renders info, but it seems with the current Frostbite engine the frame spectrum is very wide, where in Black Ops, which IMO, looks just as good, my frame rates are anywhere from 180fps-90fps. Also, with Black Ops, i won't really notice the game play going down to 90 frames... but i definitely notice when BFBC2 goes down to 40! Just my 2

Are you really going to complain about BC3 having similar gameplay mechanics when the CoD franchise has been using the same mechanics since effing CoD4.

customcarvin customcarvin said:

Are you really going to complain about BC3 having similar gameplay mechanics when the CoD franchise has been using the same mechanics since effing CoD4.

Nope, not complaining. If you actually read what i had posted, then you would understand that I was simply saying how i don't understand how Dice has this "we're so much better" attitude, when they really aren't doing anything different in comparison to the COD franchise. Both of these series come out every couple/few years, add a few new features, make it look prettier, and repeat.

If i was complaining about anything, it would be about how idiotic Dice is acting.

thatguyandrew92 said:

customcarvin said:

Guest said:

"Lighting's better, physics is better, animations are better, particle effects are better, vehicles are better".

Are these the new hallmarks of a great game?

I agree with you 100%.. So the game looks great, that's a plus, but how are the mechanics? I mean, from what i have been reading it seems as though BF3 is going to be Battlefield BC 2 with a fresh coat of paint, and some larger maps. Now that's not a bad thing, but Dice really doesn't seem to be reinventing or adding a whole lot more in terms of new game play elements to the established series. Don't get me wrong, I'm very excited to check the game out, but i don't understand where all this arrogance and "we're going to kill COD" mentality is coming from on Dice's end.

What i really hope to see is a very optimized game engine with Frostbite 2.0. All those nice textures and effects are great, but if it gets in the way of playability and overall smoothness of the game, then I'll be disappointed. Take Frostbite 1.0-1.5 for example, the engine has some of the worst frame fluctuation i have ever seen in a game. I mean with my 965BE C3 (@3.8) and my unlocked and OC'ed 6950, I can get anywhere from 170fps to 40fps @ 1680x1050 (measuring with Fraps) depending on whats happening on the screen. Now obviously fluctuation happens with every game because this is just the way hardware/software renders info, but it seems with the current Frostbite engine the frame spectrum is very wide, where in Black Ops, which IMO, looks just as good, my frame rates are anywhere from 180fps-90fps. Also, with Black Ops, i won't really notice the game play going down to 90 frames... but i definitely notice when BFBC2 goes down to 40! Just my 2

I see what you are saying, but I would argue that the improvement from BC2 to BF3 is FAR,FAR,FAR higher than the "improvements" in the cod series. The graphics in cod don't really improve. Ya, they added texture streaming but that was pretty lame. BF3 has much better graphics, sound, and destructibility. Cod hasn't really added anything. If you think about it, what can Dice really do, besides what they have done, to improve the game? They have added better graphics,animations,sound,destructibility, bigger maps, better squad support, more vehicles vs Cod which could do ALOT! I know BF3 is missing MODs ( sad face ) and possibly lan, but those aren't really in the same category.

Guest said:

how is it in any way like comparing mw2 with dragon age saying da has better swords??? did mw2 try and pull off a sword fight that i missed? no.. u missed the point. he said their vehicles are better because mw's vehicles are crap and like u say scripted on a rail, but they do exist. unlike swords in mw2. and another thing... did u play world at war? because last time i checked 5 comes after 4 and there were player controlled tanks in multi player. get your facts straight sonny

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

A good ol bash of the titans.

Enjoy these moments fellas.

Guest said:

hahahah, I like how among the things he said were "better" he didn't mention gameplay.

Guest said:

Ya know what, gameplay, graphics, star bursts. Who really knows?

We are blinded in the fog of war, and all us could end up as collateral damage, unless we keep our heads down.

It's the secrecy that gets me down, so many, many unanswered questions re what a console can actually achieve. No one really knows until it's released.

I for one don't wanna buy a new pc, but I may if I really miss out on the ps3 version.

I think we have to believe that they will do the best they can for each platform and then judge the actual games when they are out.

Either way, we all win, cos great games (bf3), are coming.

We just may, have to pay for it is all.

Love and blessings as I shoot you in the ace on bf2 grimblweed.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.