EA Logic. yup EA for you. and gel: the ‘China mm" pack all nu . F: -gut for do-': einar-: 9 mass the vast and majestic range mainland in low mane maps, using in gaming
Click to expand

EA Logic

Tags: gaming
and gel: the ‘China mm"
pack all nu .
F: -gut for do-': einar-: 9 mass the vast and majestic
range mainland in low mane maps, using
in Ha.
the. eltit Tan:
rs. aixo
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 41264
Favorited: 42
Submitted: 05/23/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to bluelight submit to reddit


What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#3 - qqqqqqqqq (05/24/2013) [-]
#35 to #3 - WiggsMaGee ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
End of Bad company 2 the russians are invading through Alaska....
And thats where the multiplayer picks up, Port Valdez, White Pass and Nelson bay battles being fought by the US in Alaska
With the others being fought in mainly southern America (Isla Innocentes and Valapariso)
User avatar #6 to #3 - trojanmannn (05/24/2013) [-]
never actually finished the campaign. I tried like 7 times but couldn't finish it for some reason. What happened? I'm assuming black guy died because he was retiring in 2 days.
User avatar #7 to #6 - Jewssassin (05/24/2013) [-]
Nope, he didnt die.

Spoiler below

The first one ended with them driving away with the gold, the second one ending with them jumping out of an out of control Russian cargo plane into Texas, then being picked up by an Army General because the war was raging in China, I think.
User avatar #10 to #7 - breakfastskippa (05/24/2013) [-]
I swear the russians were invading alaska or something.
User avatar #11 to #10 - waffies (05/24/2013) [-]
this is correct, the guy says all too cheerfully "They're coming, through Alaska!" and drives off
User avatar #13 to #11 - zomaru ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
.... Fallout is beckoned by a invasion of Alaska....
User avatar #29 to #13 - itachijebest (05/24/2013) [-]
and there you go, these guys went to operation anchorage after that, and the rest is in the fallout series
User avatar #37 to #29 - onceuponagary (05/24/2013) [-]
But that was the Chinese now its the Russians
User avatar #84 to #37 - trojanmannn (05/24/2013) [-]
Oh wait I did finish the campaign, I remember that part now.
#89 to #3 - LOLWUTS (05/24/2013) [-]
I ******* love those guys. I believe FOX is making a comedy series featuring them.

MFW if this is true
User avatar #59 to #3 - messerauditore (05/24/2013) [-]
That'll be 30 minutes of fresh new gameplay for battlefield 8, coming in 2015. It'll be $40 DLC though.
User avatar #1 - OperationValkyrie (05/23/2013) [-]
I just love this. The ******* console that the the game will be on isn't even out yet, and they already announced DLC.
#2 to #1 - Rascal (05/23/2013) [-]
It's great to be a PC player then huh?
And btw, they did the same thing with BF3.
You get a chance to order the premium edition with all DLC's for about 1,5x the game price. If you wait and buy each DLC individually, it will cost about 2x the game price. Since the game is 60 euro/dollar, the total cost of the game will be 90 euro/dollar if you preorder.
User avatar #63 to #1 - JariWeis (05/24/2013) [-]
The "platform" it will be on has been out since forever.
It's called a PC.
User avatar #120 to #1 - izzscorpionx (05/24/2013) [-]
I might be wrong, but when they have finished making the game and it's in it's final stages it doesn't require everyone who has worked on the game to check everything and make sure works, so the people who are not needed get put on a new task, usually a DLC for the game. Sometimes they have long enough time before release to finish the DLC and then announce it with launch.

I might be wrong though.
User avatar #14 to #1 - gokombwantu (05/24/2013) [-]
Ot's going to be on 360 and PS3 as well so you are kind of wrong
User avatar #42 to #14 - OperationValkyrie (05/24/2013) [-]
Are you sure? It doesn't seem like it so far.
User avatar #46 to #42 - dusters (05/24/2013) [-]
It is coming out on 360 and ps3, unless they cancel it which would be quite dumb from them. The only differences between the two versions are that on 360 and ps3 the multiplayer games will be limited to 24 players instead of 64 and that obviously the graphics won't be as pretty.
User avatar #20 - gravitystereo (05/24/2013) [-]
what was that thing those costumers had again
was it feelings
it must've been money
#149 to #20 - firesky ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
#23 to #20 - nimba (05/24/2013) [-]
#117 - captaincapital ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
Thanks for sensoring " ******* "

I'm sure everyone would've gone crazy if you didn't do it.
User avatar #121 to #117 - bromop (05/24/2013) [-]
It's probably a repost of someone who censored it.
#123 to #117 - bitchplzzz (05/24/2013) [-]
**** you, OP. **** you.
#61 - ragged (05/24/2013) [-]
Anybody else miss WW2 shooters?
User avatar #126 to #61 - harbingerwolf ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
No, there was way too many of them.
User avatar #132 to #61 - popcornisland (05/24/2013) [-]
User avatar #133 to #132 - defiantly (05/24/2013) [-]
You probably meant to use "definitely".
User avatar #140 to #133 - potatot ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
I remember a post about you.
User avatar #134 to #133 - popcornisland (05/24/2013) [-]
Yes, Yes I did.
User avatar #65 to #61 - snapze ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
yes, love how much harder it is to use the old guns
#66 to #65 - ragged (05/24/2013) [-]
I just prefer shooting Nazis as opposed to Russians, Asians, and assorted brown people.
User avatar #76 to #61 - osimonmagus (05/24/2013) [-]
I play Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad on steam. Campaign is boring but the multiplayer is where it's at. You can always find a server close to full. You can play as Nazi's or Russians, naturally. Rising Storm just got released by the same developers and it focuses on the USMC's Island Hopping campaign in the Pacific. It's supposed to be dope as hell.
User avatar #142 to #76 - arisaka (05/24/2013) [-]
I have been waiting for rising storm for over a year.

It is glorious.
#62 - mysweetestpoison (05/24/2013) [-]
screw EA
#69 to #62 - veryboredlookfunny (05/24/2013) [-]
ya then we get annoying games that need a constant internet connection and register games to the console because of this, thanks fagget
#106 to #69 - certifiedidiot (05/24/2013) [-]
Or the publishers/game companies could just cease with this endless dickery they call sales techniques.
#86 to #62 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
This is an attitude I can never understand
Surely if you still put in the effort to download the damn thing it shows that despite all the things you hate about them, you're still willing to play it. This completely invalidates all the negatives you bring up about them. I dislike EA as much as the next guy, but stick by your dislike, don't jump ship the moment the opportunity arises
User avatar #88 to #86 - mysweetestpoison (05/24/2013) [-]
i pay for alot of games, mostly indie stuff, cause i want to support the makers for their great work.
but publishing unfinished games and take more and more moneys for dlc's to make the game complete is just wrong.
especially if they are already done when the game is finished... or even on the disk, but not activated.

i'd pay for addons, too, but dlc's mostly just aren't

my english gotta suck
#96 to #88 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
Nobody ever said you need to buy the DLC I can understand where you're coming from, honestly. But saying that you will pirate a publishers game still shows that you are interested in the product and (by extension) the company. Just take the high-ground and don't fork out and give them your money. (Money from used purchases don't go to the publishers right?)
User avatar #99 to #96 - mysweetestpoison (05/24/2013) [-]
you got to register the most games to your account, so you cant just buy every game used, you know?
#100 to #99 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
So don't buy it?
#93 to #88 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
Yeah, but the point is that if you refuse to pay for a game, whatever the reason, generally because "it's a bad game, not worth of money", then you should ignore that game completely.

If you refuse to pay for a game but you're still going to play it, that's hypocrisy.

Different anon.
User avatar #94 to #93 - mysweetestpoison (05/24/2013) [-]
i dont refuse to pay, because they are bad games.

i refuse because the EA policy just sucks.. hard

mainly unjustified dlc's and to be forced to be online all the time. it's just the wrong way
#104 to #94 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
Yet you are still going to play their games.
You say their politics are bad but you still can enjoy their games, if they're ruinning things they're are ruinning the games, but if you still like them it kind of breaks the point.
On the contrary, if they really make the game unlikeable to you, why would you still play them even for free?
#166 to #104 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
You're completely wrong fellow anon.

Everyone has a price. I doubt people, including pirates, actually believe the games EA makes are worth absolutely nothing, and so long as that is they will continue to be pirated. They sure as hell aren't worth what EA charges, but people will keep buying them so long as there are stupid kids and dumb ass parents to placate them.

EA makes mediocre games at best IMO, despite that they are a horrid company with appalling politics/policy. Their games are still fun at some level, so even a pirate has justification for what they do.

I just don't think it's anywhere close to being worth it. I've pirated every single game I have except one for this reason. If SimCity was sold for 50 cents. I'd buy it. I love SimCity. But the game I'm getting is essentially just copyable information, and I give far less value to that than most people would.

My exception? Minecraft. Fun, innovative, unique, pay once, (and not that much), and you get everything forever.
#168 to #166 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
You're deviated from the thruth.
It's true that this society is drown in corruption, as such, the only important actions are one's personal.
To buy the games you like because you LIKE them.
To ignore the games you don't like because you DON'T LIKE them.

Isn't this but a right path of chivarly?

User avatar #108 to #86 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
This is an attitude I can never undersand.
Me liking a game made by a company I don't like doesn't mean that I stop disliking the company nor does it invalidate the negatives I bring up about them. If a company sucks in my eyes they don't suddenly become gods when they bring out I game I'd like to play.
I'm not inclined to suddenly start throwing money at them because of one game that I might want to experience, because, again, their policies can still suck no matter how many good games they make/publish.
#113 to #108 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
That's all well and good, but EA don't make the games, they publish them
User avatar #114 to #113 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
Hue. Read my statement again.
#116 to #114 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
You said "made", mate.
User avatar #118 to #116 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
It doesn't even make a difference though. What are you adding to the argument?
#128 to #118 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
You are arguing that you don't like the developers.
The developers make the game, and once it's finished the publisher takes the product and sells it to the public.
I know you mean to say that you don't like EA, which is the publisher, a.k.a the one who sells games.
But isn't your mentality a little harsh, at least with the developers, your predefined concept is making you refuse to use your money, but you're actually liking a game while ignoring your duty as a consumer. You don't like the way the game is sold to you, and with that you demerit the developers job.
And the bad part is that you're still going to use those predefined ideas you had to justify your actions.
User avatar #139 to #128 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
And no, I didn't mean to say I don't like EA. This is about no company, dev or publisher, in particular.
User avatar #136 to #128 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
I'm arguing against a hypothetical company that deals in games. Could be a developer or publisher. Either way bad business practices can outweigh any merit they may deserve for making good games. That's how I see it.
#141 to #136 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
The problem is that you are removing the valor of the actions any other party has as result of a singular subject's behavior.
Take for example, kids in a school.
You're in class, there is a teacher with a bad mood(you) judging them.
A student suddenly raises the voice, and everybody gets a detention.
How do the other innocent students actually feel?

That's what the way you see things does.
User avatar #143 to #141 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
This has literally nothing to do with the topic at hand. What other parties are you talking about?
#144 to #143 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
You are obtuse.
Everysingle involved person is a party.
If the developers do a good job but the publishers are doing a bad job, you make them both take the blame.
If the developers make a bad job and the publisher still tries to support them, you make them both take the blame.
You could say the same from when they ignore the gamers needs, but you're a consumer, alright?, so you got to think as a consumer.
User avatar #148 to #144 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
Who said anything about making them both take the blame? You deduced that from nothing. I'll blame the one bloody responsible, be it the dev or the publisher or both.
Your arguments are absolutely off topic at this point. Come to think of it, they were from the start.
#154 to #148 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
"I'm not inclined to suddenly start throwing money at them because of one game that I might want to experience, because, again, their policies can still suck no matter how many good games they make/publish"

" Either way bad business practices can outweigh any merit they may deserve for making good games. That's how I see it."

How dare you say this: " I'll blame the one bloody responsible, be it the dev or the publisher or both. " after saying that?

No, I'm not off-topic, it's always been the same topic but you are slow.

You 'blame' everyone involved due to the actions of a single subject, you've already said it, that you do. Blame them means that you say it's everybodies fault that you refuse to pay money.
But in the end, can you understand it? that your actions are affecting those that are involved and yet aren't guilty. Because you already have a prejudice, and your opinion won't change despite the good actions of the other. But you can't understand this.
User avatar #156 to #154 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
I don't think my statements are incoherent. Please elaborate.
As for the blame part, to repeat, bad business practice equals no money given no matter how great the game. I understand, as much as you might think I don't, that this affects the developer or whatever party involved instead of the publisher or whatever other party involved. All I can say in regard to that is that the whole is incoherent, so the individual doesn't matter. Wouldn't it be nice to buy games directly from, for example, Maxis instead of buying them through Electronic "Asshat" Arts? Well, too ******* bad, you can't, and as a result I'd rather not buy it.
#165 to #156 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
That's an acceptable statement, that since they're working together they're responsible of each other actions.
It's a justifiable action till some point, the one that stated the first anon. You don't want to buy their games, then don't buy them. In exchange, don't play them.
Why would you still be resilient if you can enjoy their games, huh?
If they made something you like, recognize their achievement, and offer them a reward.
If they made something you don't like, don't play it, why would you play something you don't approve?
Any other course of action is wrong.
User avatar #157 to #156 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
Replace that instead of with as well as. Sorry, too tired.
#125 to #118 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
I'm pretty sure that makes a fairly big difference
User avatar #137 to #125 - randomserb (05/24/2013) [-]
How so?
User avatar #162 to #86 - thewaronbeingcool (05/24/2013) [-]
There is plenty of stuff I would never pay for, but I'd gladly use it if it were free.

There have been plenty of movies I wouldn't pay to see in a million years, but when they're on tv or something I'll give them a watch.
#103 to #86 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
EA doesn't make the games... We don't want to give money to EA because none of it goes to the producers, EA pays them before the game is released. EA then gets all the money they charge for all this **** ...
#107 to #103 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
...and if it wasn't for the publishers funding the game wouldn't have been made?
#101 - suewingyu (05/24/2013) [-]
Stormtrooper: Me   
Drink: Battlefield Content
Stormtrooper: Me
Drink: Battlefield Content
User avatar #26 - niggernazi (05/24/2013) [-]
i hope mao zedong is a playable character in battlefield 4:chinatown ricing
#28 - jalthelas (05/24/2013) [-]
EA's face when
EA's face when
User avatar #40 - daesu (05/24/2013) [-]
You cant spell disease without EA
#38 - monkeybrains ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
*******		 EA
******* EA
#153 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
To the people bitchin about pirating from EA:

What the **** is wrong with not giving money to EA? I don't get it? Why do you want to spend money for EA games? The **** is wrong with you?
#127 - Lulzilla (05/24/2013) [-]
MFW I realized the "Because it's EA. That's why. E Mother ******* A." was me.
#15 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
So why dont people just NOT buy this then? I mean come on, masses bitch and moan about EA being dicks. About their douchebaggery they call "bussiness practise", and yet millions end up buying into this anyway.

"ow they are complaining about us! ow wait, nvm, they are still throwing their money at it. Moar dlc!"
#49 to #15 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
and what the **** should I do if I want to play the game?
#177 to #49 - Rascal (05/24/2013) [-]
Accept you aren't doing anything against the problem.
User avatar #159 to #15 - Fgner (05/24/2013) [-]
I'm not buying it. I boycotted EA products. If I play any of their games - it's a pirated version. EA can suck my tits.
User avatar #17 to #15 - bloodspider (05/24/2013) [-]
I won't be buying it, I bought BF3 and was disappointed at all the features that were missing since BF2 but, it is still one of my favorite shooters. I'm just sad to see what it has become.
User avatar #8 - Metallicock (05/24/2013) [-]
and then they link it through Adfly to make even more money? What the **** ?
User avatar #5 - bossguycumsplash ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
Battle field didnt have this untill it went console.
User avatar #147 - schneidend (05/24/2013) [-]
This is just a pre-order incentive to encourage non-used sales of the product. It's free if you pre-order. I don't see the problem. If you were planning to get BF4 anyway, then why not pre-order it?
#150 to #147 - sjrigney (05/24/2013) [-]
The point is that they create content that's a part of the game, remove it, and then charge people for it. If you're buying the game, you should get ALL of the content and not be nickle and dimed at a later time. Sure you'll get it AT NO CHARGE if you pre-order it, but people that do not will be CHARGED EXTRA FOR CONTENT THAT'S SUPPOSE TO BE IN THE 			*******		 GAME TO BEGIN WITH.
The point is that they create content that's a part of the game, remove it, and then charge people for it. If you're buying the game, you should get ALL of the content and not be nickle and dimed at a later time. Sure you'll get it AT NO CHARGE if you pre-order it, but people that do not will be CHARGED EXTRA FOR CONTENT THAT'S SUPPOSE TO BE IN THE ******* GAME TO BEGIN WITH.
User avatar #170 to #150 - schneidend (05/24/2013) [-]
Define "supposed to be in the game to begin with." That's EA's decision, not yours. Sure, Hasbro could package every Tansformers or My Little Pony in a given toy line in one big box because, well, they're all made at the same time and thus should come together, right? Wrong. You pay for the license to play the game, in this case Battlefield 4. Nobody ever said you would just get any additional content developed parallel to the game's development (because that's how that works, they don't make the content and take it out of the game, a separate team makes the content and can finish after the game is shipped because their content is digital). You're not being charged extra for content that was denied to you, you're being charged for content. Period. Full stop. The Day One DLC model protects the company's interests, because used game sales and Gamefly-like services cut into the sales numbers of a given publisher.
#131 - nofeelsdaily (05/24/2013) [-]
Considering all you have to do is pre-order and not pay any additional cost, it's not that bad.

What is bad is that they'll introduce the 'premium' which will be all expansion packs for one price... this will include 'china rising' which means anyone who pre-orders and gets premium... will pay for it anyway.

Yet again, EA ******* us over
#98 - rollcore ONLINE (05/24/2013) [-]
**rollcore rolled a random image posted in comment #7 at give me your strangest gifs **
**rollcore rolled a random image posted in comment #7 at give me your strangest gifs **
User avatar #80 - Crusader (05/24/2013) [-]
It's a pre-order bonus.

It's an added incentive to buy it early.

It's like Nuketown and **** for BO2, you will most likely be able to buy it later, but for extra money because shockingly, EA is a company and they like to make money.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)