I pirate from them all, fuck them. unless it’s worth it. I used to pay £20 for physical games and that was expensive because ‘it goes toward research and development’ lol still paying rip off prices because they pocketed the money so fuck them.
maybe true, but the fact remains that they are actively making it harder to actually OWN these games that you "bought". older consoles, and consoles in general, are the only way to do this as afaik there aren't discs for the game on PC
Very true I bought ori and the blind forest for my kid when the Xbox one first came out all of a sudden it was gone from the game library when I contacted Microsoft about it they were telling me I haven't bought it it was a digital purchase and at the same time they had took it off the Xbox market so my kid couldn't even play a game I had paid for ridiculous
But this really doesn't apply to this game. BF3 still has a fully functional single player mode. They're not revoking your license. And servers shutting down is nothing new. Tons of games even before the move to digital had servers shut down.
They honestly kept them up for a very long time considering how old these games are. And the PC servers will be up for quite a bit longer and you don't really need a power PC to run BF3 in 2024. The last time I tried BF3 for giggles on the ps3 I could barely find matches on there. You might see an influx of players now but let's not pretend they are shutting down a super active community (speaking of consoles only)
This feels like pushing for outrage when what EA is doing isn't that outrageous.
That's an insane position.
I bought albums on physical media 35 years ago that I can still play. Most people have never even heard of the bands these days, but I can still listen whenever I want - I have transferred the analog vinyl to digital and also have a record player for when I want to listen to it that way.
I can also listen to the album with my friends.
Even if there are only 64 people in the entire world who want to play the game online - the version we were sold, no less - then there should be options for them to play it. It's a great game.
Imagine being told you could no longer listen to an album with your friends because it is no longer profitable for the artists to allow you to do so.
Don't compare physical music mdia to online modes on video games. Servers upkeep cost money. No company has to maintain and pay upkeep cost on your vinyl and CDs at home nor can they prevent you from using them. What absolute shit take and comparison on this issue.
Stop making up fantasy scenarios trying to make your point. At least make an anology that makes sense and is comparable. Talk about insane position.
I agree. Closest comparison to what he had made is single player. CDs being played for your enjoyment and those in your company, not you playing them for someone in another country. Single player games are just like that, for you and your company.
Is that what this is about? I'm honestly shocked they're even still hosting servers. Even 4+ years ago it seemed like most preferred dedicated community-hosted servers.
This might be difficult unless you consult someone who worked on that version of the frostbite engine (afaik frostbite is hard to work with) and also you'd get sued out of existence by ea
I mean would they though you only have to change the name and your good to go- battlebit exist and that's literally a copy of battlefield has maps literally pulled from the game like u could overlay them and they'd match up perfectly- same guns, same class system etc etc
Or is it because it would be running off frostbite? I dunno if that's their own proprietary engine and they don't outsource it, so if that is the case you mite have issues there I suppose.
I don't think battlebit literally copied assets and code from battlefield, it's just a similar concept. You could recreate it and maybe get away with it, but you couldn't make a blatant copy afaik
I mean it probably didn't lift actual code from the game but uses maps that are 1 for 1 replications- not all are copied but a lot of them are.
Its what made the game blow up I'd bet, its a battlefield clone.
What maps did it copy? I've played a decent amount of battlebit and none of the maps stood out as recognizable from battlefield, unless they copied ones from over a decade ago where I haven't played them
I don't know the names specifically, but when I played they was recognisable af stuff to me from 3/4 and it's kinda the appeal of the game is its a bf clone otherwise id just be playing a roblox shooter.
Well maybe I'm wrong but they sure as hell feel and look like 1 for 1 carbon copies to me from my Albiet admittedly small play time with it
But I can say that many of them I played I was like "oh this is that map" so they are if not 1 for 1 copies basically the same maps.
And that's not hate for the game that's a strength, like I say if it wasn't for it being a battlefield clone nobody would care about it and it certainly wouldn't of blown up the way it did.
Perhaps I named the wrong thing then but I'm fairly certain not -> the minecraft/robolox models- battlefield clone yes?
Where you have the 4 classes from bf.
Like it's 100% a rip off of battlefield otherwise nobody would of gave a shit about a roblox looking shooter, its because it was basically battlefield of old that people got hype about it.
like it was literally mentioned to me as have you heard about that battlefield clone? - so it's not like im making this up lol
Tbf, battlefield maps are typically pretty generic / grounded in the real world, so its to be expected that other games may also have generic types of maps that are based on, or take inspiration from the real world. That's where we live, it's what we know and generally expect to see across many genres of games. (I'm not using the word generic in a demeaning way btw, BF games on the whole have had some absolute bangers of maps, as many other games have as well)
I get what your saying but iv never seen another game that made me go "oh this is that battlefield map" because they generally have their own feel to them and not literally replicating a battlefield map and I'm not saying that as a bad thing either it's kinda the driven point of the game, it's a battlefield clone but with roblox models.
I too get where you're coming from, but I've read your other comments where you can't cite any instance of this ;) seriously though I get it, it's a subjective feeling and that's totally fair.
Imo there's nothing particularly special about the vast majority of BF maps that stand out to me as something truly unique (idk maybe damavand peak on rush because a core part of the maps identity is the cliff jump, otherwise it's basically just normal 'wilderness' spaces + some industrial stuff). Again, I think the majority of BF maps are well designed and fun to play, I just don't think they're all that unique in the grand scheme of things.
In my mind though I feel like it's unfair to call something a BF clone because it has what I see as generic/grounded maps, and has class based combat. That style of game has been around since like the early 2000s, pre-dating even the original BF1942 (im thinking of the original Day of Defeat in 2001, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other examples from before that). Going off of your line of thinking, it'd be fair to say all BF games are clones of Day of Defeat, which is obviously not the case despite there being similarities in their core concept.
Its a lot more than the maps thing that make it a clone, it's the 4 classes the exact same 4 from og bf - With the exact same weapon options (like sup gets lmg)
the weapons themselves are the same (albeit this one gets let off as its just kinda modern day weaponry although there is the point of well they could of used different weapons).
suppression- which is pretty humongous with battlefield I can't think of a single other game that isn't these two that have it- but maybe there are and I just haven't played them, I'd be interested to know if u have played some?.
Obviously then there's the aesthetic/charecter models being well soldiers and this doesn't get let off because its roblox charecter models so u already have a green light do basically anything because I wouldn't go "oh that looks weird, why are we all humanoid sheep"
As for its a subjective feeling thing I don't think it is, I'm fairly they are identical in layout because my first game i was like oh it's this map and having never played this map before supposedly I knew where the hot spots/areas people tend to come from are and flank routes etc because I knew the map layout, I knew that spawn was over there and there's a corner that leads the enemy here so they tend to come through this alley as opposed to that ally - which is a totally different feeling than playing a map for the very first time and being a lost boy in the woods trying to figure out wtf is happening.
as for the reasons why I already said I can't name specific because I don't care to remember the names of specifc maps to the point I could 100% tell you the right name for the map I actually mean
But I can give you an example and the names probably wrong but ul know the map I mean presumably and can be like ohhhh yeah it is that map
So the uh shipment container one Im battlebit is identical in layout to I think it was called nosahll canals? But it's the one with the containers that u climb up/in and fight in amongst them on bf - except on battlefield there's also a ship and some other stuff that goes on but that's because the maps far far larger, the shipment container part of the map is the same even down to having the two overhanging platforms in the same places. (Strerching horizontally along the plane of the level if u was looking from top down).
I also cannot disagree with you more firmly about them being not unique there's not a single battlefield map that iv ever seen replicated in any game that wasn't this one which is trying to be a battlefield clone and it succeeded I mean it blew up because it was a clone and we had been craving og battlefield after the shitshow that is 2042 but you know maybe u just don't like them and that's fine but I don't think it's fair to say they aren't unique or at least og battlefields before everything just became wide open flat land - because yeah that's pretty fking generic and it's why they suck imo anyway
I mean I don't think this would be an abuse of copyright, you're literally stealing something they made, modifying it (probably illegally) and distributing it without their consent (almost defo illegally)
No, but books are usually sold for longer periods of time. Also books are usually part of public domain or internet archives, at least if they're stopped being published, thus they can be accessed after the writer or publishers give up on them. This cannot be done with games, especially in modern day where users get zero autonomy on their ownership of the game and aren't allowed to try to recover it if the developers decide it's not profitable enough. While modding projects exist to create custom servers for older battlefield games, I highly doubt those would be possible for newer ones, and EA could still decide they don't want that and purge the games from the internet completely.
which is why I mentioned public archives, both physical and digital. such does not exist for videogames; while I assume the devs keep records of the code/games, these records are not given to the public to access
Isn't there websites that show, like, most books? I'm sure I've come across those before, at least in text form, for people who can't access the print forms or if the print forms are no longer being published. I assume there is some law allowing books' texts to be archived or recorded
Does the author need revenue from his work 70 years after his death. Do his grandchildren deserve profits from his hard work, or rather his publisher.
As someone else said books, films and such media should have longer copyright (maybe not the lifespan+70 years tho), as they can be appreciated long after first publishing and don't deteriorate, need maintenance etc. A game after being abandoned is a race against the clock, after a few years the game won't even start on modern machines, if servers are shut down for multiplayer it's worthless and so forth. For video games there should be a rule that after a game is abandoned or sunset it enters the public domain after 5-10 years.
An even better idea but would require more work is if it can be proven the copyright holder is no longer profiting or intending to profit on their work it gets a 5 year timer before entering the public domain. A publisher stopping development, maintenance updates or shutting down servers would be a pretty clear case that they no longer intend to profit from the work. A book falling out of print completely would be a fair argument for entering it into the public domain after 5-10 years. This also gives the copyright holder the possibility to take actions to keep their copyright, say by republishing a book or maintaining their game
No
But try and play EA's *The Sims 2* legally today.
Load up Rockstar's *GTA IV* and listen to Radio Vladivostok.
Or better still, play Ubisoft's *The Crew*.
I think you’re missing the obvious thing here as are a lot of the other people upset about them closing some legacy servers.
Here’s my perspective as a day to day server Engineer on why those servers need to go.
1. Vulnerabilities - It’s unlikely these legacy servers are well maintained and even if they are they’re executing old code riddled with vulnerabilities that could be exploited potentially.
2. Operational Costs - Servers cost money to build and maintain. Sometimes older servers also have extended service update costs to keep them up to date.
3. Response and Engineering - any issues that happen which WILL happen. Will require intervention and troubleshooting.
In addition to the Server costs themselves each of those Engineers clocks in at around 75k/yr minimum to support them.
These servers don’t make money they cost money it ONLY makes sense to shutdown servers for consoles that are… checks notes 3 generations ago.
I would never be able to successfully defend these in a meeting just because the 20 people still playing on 360 are mad. Leadership would laugh me out of the room.
I’m just saying, who the hell decided to put Xbox multiplayer behind a subscription fee? This isn’t even solely about a remake, just Xbox gaming as a whole.
It's 1000 times easier to just make it from scratch and just copy the principles of game.
But the truth is, if it won't have Battlefield label or won't be supported by big enough studio, it will fail pretty fast.
Dev made chages people didn't like, reverted some, didn't revert others, and has now taken months to fix things that weren't broken in the first place.
It's not an MMO that absolutely requires high player counts at all times. Player numbers for all games usually shrink after the first few weeks and rise around the time of updates
They can't sue as long as you don't actually use their code. In case of the zelda decomps Nintendo can't do anything because they aren't using original code and not supplying assets. In theory someone could do this with BF3. Users just have to provide their own game assets from a copy of BF3. But the whole server and MP might he trickier to pull off legally or without EA trying every loophole to shut that down.
Hundreds of developers have worked on this game for years... but yeah, sure. Go ahead, I'm sure you can do it and then release it and EA would just, you know... let you.
SM2 failed because the devs were absolutely stupid.
Imagine you have the green light from ATVI and then violate the terms of the permission they gave you
Not really, battlebit was somewhat different to battlefield, at least enough to not be a copy or remaster. Also honestly nowadays 2042 is better, although it's a very low bar
Kinda hate how "AAA" games nowdays roll, hype shit up, under deliver, apologize.jpeg, tries to fix it for the next few years or just abandoning it completely. Learned my lesson tho, don't expect good shit on release.
Yeah I started playing 2042 in around early 2023 iirc so it wasn't the worst thing in the world, and was actually great in the summer. Kinda fell off tho, or at least got boring for me
It depends on how far you want to take it. How much does it need to be like the original thing?
Theoretically, you can get a working map in Unreal in an afternoon, but it just be an asset flip. To get a proper game, say 3-4 experienced guys working for a year? That could get you close.
You can't be mad that their no longer going to support the game. They don't want to spend their resources maintaining servers that don't actually earn them any revenue. This is capitalism manifest
If buying isn’t owning, pirating isn’t stealing.
Wise words my friend, i only dont pirate from indie devs, everything else gets pirated except a select few
I pirate from them all, fuck them. unless it’s worth it. I used to pay £20 for physical games and that was expensive because ‘it goes toward research and development’ lol still paying rip off prices because they pocketed the money so fuck them.
Ur kind of an asshole then tbh.
We’re all downloading stuff we haven’t paid for. So you’re morals go by number of employees then? Weird metric but ok
Nah, my morals go by if the company is a piece of shit or run by a handful of cool nerds
They’re not removing the game from existence, just shutting down 15+ year old servers on consoles that released almost 20 years ago
maybe true, but the fact remains that they are actively making it harder to actually OWN these games that you "bought". older consoles, and consoles in general, are the only way to do this as afaik there aren't discs for the game on PC
Very true I bought ori and the blind forest for my kid when the Xbox one first came out all of a sudden it was gone from the game library when I contacted Microsoft about it they were telling me I haven't bought it it was a digital purchase and at the same time they had took it off the Xbox market so my kid couldn't even play a game I had paid for ridiculous
But this really doesn't apply to this game. BF3 still has a fully functional single player mode. They're not revoking your license. And servers shutting down is nothing new. Tons of games even before the move to digital had servers shut down. They honestly kept them up for a very long time considering how old these games are. And the PC servers will be up for quite a bit longer and you don't really need a power PC to run BF3 in 2024. The last time I tried BF3 for giggles on the ps3 I could barely find matches on there. You might see an influx of players now but let's not pretend they are shutting down a super active community (speaking of consoles only) This feels like pushing for outrage when what EA is doing isn't that outrageous.
That's an insane position. I bought albums on physical media 35 years ago that I can still play. Most people have never even heard of the bands these days, but I can still listen whenever I want - I have transferred the analog vinyl to digital and also have a record player for when I want to listen to it that way. I can also listen to the album with my friends. Even if there are only 64 people in the entire world who want to play the game online - the version we were sold, no less - then there should be options for them to play it. It's a great game. Imagine being told you could no longer listen to an album with your friends because it is no longer profitable for the artists to allow you to do so.
Don't compare physical music mdia to online modes on video games. Servers upkeep cost money. No company has to maintain and pay upkeep cost on your vinyl and CDs at home nor can they prevent you from using them. What absolute shit take and comparison on this issue. Stop making up fantasy scenarios trying to make your point. At least make an anology that makes sense and is comparable. Talk about insane position.
I agree. Closest comparison to what he had made is single player. CDs being played for your enjoyment and those in your company, not you playing them for someone in another country. Single player games are just like that, for you and your company.
Is that what this is about? I'm honestly shocked they're even still hosting servers. Even 4+ years ago it seemed like most preferred dedicated community-hosted servers.
I assume they're shutting down ALL servers, even those that people normally pay for. Hence why older games are just unplayable without modded servers.
Ah, my bad. I'm reading up on it and see it's only for ps3/xbox 360. So ya, most likely no options on those consoles anymore.
Wait for a source code leak and build from there
Someone hire a group to hack Dice HQ
That does not apply to bf3. The game wasn't removed, the servers was just shut down.
Just give it some time. EA will probably do what Ubisoft did and start taking the game out of players’ libraries. Would you put it past them?
Pretty sure EA already removes games
This might be difficult unless you consult someone who worked on that version of the frostbite engine (afaik frostbite is hard to work with) and also you'd get sued out of existence by ea
I mean would they though you only have to change the name and your good to go- battlebit exist and that's literally a copy of battlefield has maps literally pulled from the game like u could overlay them and they'd match up perfectly- same guns, same class system etc etc Or is it because it would be running off frostbite? I dunno if that's their own proprietary engine and they don't outsource it, so if that is the case you mite have issues there I suppose.
I don't think battlebit literally copied assets and code from battlefield, it's just a similar concept. You could recreate it and maybe get away with it, but you couldn't make a blatant copy afaik
I mean it probably didn't lift actual code from the game but uses maps that are 1 for 1 replications- not all are copied but a lot of them are. Its what made the game blow up I'd bet, its a battlefield clone.
What maps did it copy? I've played a decent amount of battlebit and none of the maps stood out as recognizable from battlefield, unless they copied ones from over a decade ago where I haven't played them
I don't know the names specifically, but when I played they was recognisable af stuff to me from 3/4 and it's kinda the appeal of the game is its a bf clone otherwise id just be playing a roblox shooter.
I can’t think of a single battlebit map thats a 1 for 1 copy of a battlefield map
Well maybe I'm wrong but they sure as hell feel and look like 1 for 1 carbon copies to me from my Albiet admittedly small play time with it But I can say that many of them I played I was like "oh this is that map" so they are if not 1 for 1 copies basically the same maps. And that's not hate for the game that's a strength, like I say if it wasn't for it being a battlefield clone nobody would care about it and it certainly wouldn't of blown up the way it did.
dude you just made all that up there no same maps between the games.
Perhaps I named the wrong thing then but I'm fairly certain not -> the minecraft/robolox models- battlefield clone yes? Where you have the 4 classes from bf. Like it's 100% a rip off of battlefield otherwise nobody would of gave a shit about a roblox looking shooter, its because it was basically battlefield of old that people got hype about it. like it was literally mentioned to me as have you heard about that battlefield clone? - so it's not like im making this up lol
Tbf, battlefield maps are typically pretty generic / grounded in the real world, so its to be expected that other games may also have generic types of maps that are based on, or take inspiration from the real world. That's where we live, it's what we know and generally expect to see across many genres of games. (I'm not using the word generic in a demeaning way btw, BF games on the whole have had some absolute bangers of maps, as many other games have as well)
I get what your saying but iv never seen another game that made me go "oh this is that battlefield map" because they generally have their own feel to them and not literally replicating a battlefield map and I'm not saying that as a bad thing either it's kinda the driven point of the game, it's a battlefield clone but with roblox models.
I too get where you're coming from, but I've read your other comments where you can't cite any instance of this ;) seriously though I get it, it's a subjective feeling and that's totally fair. Imo there's nothing particularly special about the vast majority of BF maps that stand out to me as something truly unique (idk maybe damavand peak on rush because a core part of the maps identity is the cliff jump, otherwise it's basically just normal 'wilderness' spaces + some industrial stuff). Again, I think the majority of BF maps are well designed and fun to play, I just don't think they're all that unique in the grand scheme of things. In my mind though I feel like it's unfair to call something a BF clone because it has what I see as generic/grounded maps, and has class based combat. That style of game has been around since like the early 2000s, pre-dating even the original BF1942 (im thinking of the original Day of Defeat in 2001, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other examples from before that). Going off of your line of thinking, it'd be fair to say all BF games are clones of Day of Defeat, which is obviously not the case despite there being similarities in their core concept.
Its a lot more than the maps thing that make it a clone, it's the 4 classes the exact same 4 from og bf - With the exact same weapon options (like sup gets lmg) the weapons themselves are the same (albeit this one gets let off as its just kinda modern day weaponry although there is the point of well they could of used different weapons). suppression- which is pretty humongous with battlefield I can't think of a single other game that isn't these two that have it- but maybe there are and I just haven't played them, I'd be interested to know if u have played some?. Obviously then there's the aesthetic/charecter models being well soldiers and this doesn't get let off because its roblox charecter models so u already have a green light do basically anything because I wouldn't go "oh that looks weird, why are we all humanoid sheep" As for its a subjective feeling thing I don't think it is, I'm fairly they are identical in layout because my first game i was like oh it's this map and having never played this map before supposedly I knew where the hot spots/areas people tend to come from are and flank routes etc because I knew the map layout, I knew that spawn was over there and there's a corner that leads the enemy here so they tend to come through this alley as opposed to that ally - which is a totally different feeling than playing a map for the very first time and being a lost boy in the woods trying to figure out wtf is happening. as for the reasons why I already said I can't name specific because I don't care to remember the names of specifc maps to the point I could 100% tell you the right name for the map I actually mean But I can give you an example and the names probably wrong but ul know the map I mean presumably and can be like ohhhh yeah it is that map So the uh shipment container one Im battlebit is identical in layout to I think it was called nosahll canals? But it's the one with the containers that u climb up/in and fight in amongst them on bf - except on battlefield there's also a ship and some other stuff that goes on but that's because the maps far far larger, the shipment container part of the map is the same even down to having the two overhanging platforms in the same places. (Strerching horizontally along the plane of the level if u was looking from top down). I also cannot disagree with you more firmly about them being not unique there's not a single battlefield map that iv ever seen replicated in any game that wasn't this one which is trying to be a battlefield clone and it succeeded I mean it blew up because it was a clone and we had been craving og battlefield after the shitshow that is 2042 but you know maybe u just don't like them and that's fine but I don't think it's fair to say they aren't unique or at least og battlefields before everything just became wide open flat land - because yeah that's pretty fking generic and it's why they suck imo anyway
I fucking hate corporatism’s abuse of copyright. Fuck you Disney for clinging on to Steambiat Willie and lobbying copyright bills.
I mean I don't think this would be an abuse of copyright, you're literally stealing something they made, modifying it (probably illegally) and distributing it without their consent (almost defo illegally)
True, but one would imagine the copyright would expire once they abandon the game. If we lived in a world that wasn’t plagued with nepotism.
Does copyright expire on a book because it’s old?
No, but books are usually sold for longer periods of time. Also books are usually part of public domain or internet archives, at least if they're stopped being published, thus they can be accessed after the writer or publishers give up on them. This cannot be done with games, especially in modern day where users get zero autonomy on their ownership of the game and aren't allowed to try to recover it if the developers decide it's not profitable enough. While modding projects exist to create custom servers for older battlefield games, I highly doubt those would be possible for newer ones, and EA could still decide they don't want that and purge the games from the internet completely.
books go out of print very quickly most of the time.
which is why I mentioned public archives, both physical and digital. such does not exist for videogames; while I assume the devs keep records of the code/games, these records are not given to the public to access
Like you said they will keep builds and repos of work, but even thought the developers made the content it will be under the ownership of DICE or EA.
fair enough -- i thought you meant public domain and *the internet archive*, a repository for public domain things (and crime)
Isn't there websites that show, like, most books? I'm sure I've come across those before, at least in text form, for people who can't access the print forms or if the print forms are no longer being published. I assume there is some law allowing books' texts to be archived or recorded
>while I assume the devs keep records of the code/games *sad Saints Row 2 noises*
Does the author need revenue from his work 70 years after his death. Do his grandchildren deserve profits from his hard work, or rather his publisher. As someone else said books, films and such media should have longer copyright (maybe not the lifespan+70 years tho), as they can be appreciated long after first publishing and don't deteriorate, need maintenance etc. A game after being abandoned is a race against the clock, after a few years the game won't even start on modern machines, if servers are shut down for multiplayer it's worthless and so forth. For video games there should be a rule that after a game is abandoned or sunset it enters the public domain after 5-10 years. An even better idea but would require more work is if it can be proven the copyright holder is no longer profiting or intending to profit on their work it gets a 5 year timer before entering the public domain. A publisher stopping development, maintenance updates or shutting down servers would be a pretty clear case that they no longer intend to profit from the work. A book falling out of print completely would be a fair argument for entering it into the public domain after 5-10 years. This also gives the copyright holder the possibility to take actions to keep their copyright, say by republishing a book or maintaining their game
No But try and play EA's *The Sims 2* legally today. Load up Rockstar's *GTA IV* and listen to Radio Vladivostok. Or better still, play Ubisoft's *The Crew*.
I feel like you’re using words you don’t understand to sound indignant. What does Nepotism have to do with the Battlefield 3 copyright like what?
Maybe “lobbying” would’ve been a better word.
I think you’re missing the obvious thing here as are a lot of the other people upset about them closing some legacy servers. Here’s my perspective as a day to day server Engineer on why those servers need to go. 1. Vulnerabilities - It’s unlikely these legacy servers are well maintained and even if they are they’re executing old code riddled with vulnerabilities that could be exploited potentially. 2. Operational Costs - Servers cost money to build and maintain. Sometimes older servers also have extended service update costs to keep them up to date. 3. Response and Engineering - any issues that happen which WILL happen. Will require intervention and troubleshooting. In addition to the Server costs themselves each of those Engineers clocks in at around 75k/yr minimum to support them. These servers don’t make money they cost money it ONLY makes sense to shutdown servers for consoles that are… checks notes 3 generations ago. I would never be able to successfully defend these in a meeting just because the 20 people still playing on 360 are mad. Leadership would laugh me out of the room.
Thats not how copyright works
the game still cost if you didn't have xbox live gold.
I hate bill gates.
way to miss the point
I’m just saying, who the hell decided to put Xbox multiplayer behind a subscription fee? This isn’t even solely about a remake, just Xbox gaming as a whole.
You need to step outside mate.
Agreed. Fuck socialism.
this isn't really abuse of copyright the game came out a decade ago lol
by you? uhhhhh, mostly impossible?
Yeah if you have to ask how difficult it would be, probably very very difficult lol
And with their PFP, something tells me it would take them like 19 years to get to anything substantial
Already done for battlefield 3 (venice unleashed) but not sure if it's discontinued
.
.
It's 1000 times easier to just make it from scratch and just copy the principles of game. But the truth is, if it won't have Battlefield label or won't be supported by big enough studio, it will fail pretty fast.
Wasn't there a parody of BF launched to mock 2042 that had a better player base? Anyone know if it's still going?
I know there's a couple games similar to battlefield and were called "battlefield killer", WW3 and battlebit, but those both flopped
Oh geez, what happened to Battlebit?
Dev made chages people didn't like, reverted some, didn't revert others, and has now taken months to fix things that weren't broken in the first place.
This + imo it was kinda boring/mid already
Nothing, it's still there to play
Player count tanked though
It's not an MMO that absolutely requires high player counts at all times. Player numbers for all games usually shrink after the first few weeks and rise around the time of updates
You could ask the people who made Venice Unleashed for Battlefield 3. God i really wanted that to pop off but it hasnt yet.
how is it any different to the vanilla game
Mhm not sure, mostly just the game being moddable now,so night maps and custom maps etc. Tick rate and stuff too i think.
Big player limits(124) and bots, there are weekend events for some servers which is when they're populated
this post will be used against you in court when ea sues you
I just want another 2010 era modern war shooter without all the modern junk plaguing games these days
Battlefield 3, but the DLCs are like Team Fortress 2 updates
I’m too high to comprehend what you just said. I still upvoted just for the cat pic.
[Venice Unleashed](https://veniceunleashed.net/) is a thing.
Good luck dealing with the frostbite engine
Reverse engineering is not the biggest problem, it would be the huge lawsuit you would receive for doing so
put an office in russia or china
They can't sue as long as you don't actually use their code. In case of the zelda decomps Nintendo can't do anything because they aren't using original code and not supplying assets. In theory someone could do this with BF3. Users just have to provide their own game assets from a copy of BF3. But the whole server and MP might he trickier to pull off legally or without EA trying every loophole to shut that down.
Hundreds of developers have worked on this game for years... but yeah, sure. Go ahead, I'm sure you can do it and then release it and EA would just, you know... let you.
crowdfund it. Kickstarter etc. The people will support. as long as people do what they say.
If by some miracle your friend manages to do it, it would be sweet if it were to be called "Field of Battle"
dont worry guys ill do it tomorrow
Thx, I have zero coding knowledge and I like not having my wallet molested by some EA lawyers.
You really think its that easy ?😂😂
Probably a lot harder to do on a 360 or PS3.
China is on line 1 sir.
Battlebit ?
Even if you do it it will just end up like sm2.
SM2 failed because the devs were absolutely stupid. Imagine you have the green light from ATVI and then violate the terms of the permission they gave you
A truthful remake of BF1942...
I’d give up my left nut for a good remaster of BF3… but why would EA (in all their cash grabbing wisdom) do that?
Probably gonna get a cease and desist because BF3 is a copyrighted property and all of the assets probably are as well
You know, Venice Unleashed already exists so if the PC servers shut down in the near future, we have that as a plan B
Battlefield 3 doesn't need a remake, visuals and audio are still great, runs amazing on modern hardware, and has private servers.
Isn't that just Battlebit Remastered? Gone popular literally because 2042 sucked.
Not really, battlebit was somewhat different to battlefield, at least enough to not be a copy or remaster. Also honestly nowadays 2042 is better, although it's a very low bar
Kinda hate how "AAA" games nowdays roll, hype shit up, under deliver, apologize.jpeg, tries to fix it for the next few years or just abandoning it completely. Learned my lesson tho, don't expect good shit on release.
Yeah I started playing 2042 in around early 2023 iirc so it wasn't the worst thing in the world, and was actually great in the summer. Kinda fell off tho, or at least got boring for me
BattleBit
Try it out and let us know.
I mean, ask battlebit. (Half joking)
What wants you to own nothing? Sounds an awful lot like the insane conspiracy people peddle about the WMF....
Thai was the best game ever
It depends on how far you want to take it. How much does it need to be like the original thing? Theoretically, you can get a working map in Unreal in an afternoon, but it just be an asset flip. To get a proper game, say 3-4 experienced guys working for a year? That could get you close.
Hmmm… actually, porting the maps to something like Bonelab or Gmod would be pretty cool. Or maybe even port them to Black Ops 3 custom zombies.
It’s called battlebit
Very difficult but not impossible. Anyway, you don't need to reverse engineer a game to create a remake of it.
Battle bit
Has to be a "Clean room" project, you can't use the same code.
You'll be better off starting your own indie studio and develop a BF3.5 type of clone/tribute game.
I’ve actually seriously contemplated that and made a Google doc listing all the maps and weapons.
Good Luck modeling the assets
You can't be mad that their no longer going to support the game. They don't want to spend their resources maintaining servers that don't actually earn them any revenue. This is capitalism manifest
Not at all easy and would probably take years
Ask the guys who did WW3
If they ever make bf1 unplayable I’m suing EA.
So you want to end up in jail ? Actually its very difficult and it depends if your Remake involves new 3d Models
you might be able to get Ai to write the code with source code as ref. At least do some of the heavy lifting.