The AT Battlefield Bad Company 2 F.A.Q.

[matas]

so how is the game ? Worth buying it?

 

[TheJTrain]

Perfect, thank you so much for posting that link. Everything is now crystal clear.

However, wasn't EA also the company that gave only a limited amount of activations? Like once a game has an activated x amount of time then it can no longer be activated? Or that policy no longer exist? I will definitely not support any company that will put that kind of restriction on me. I'm definitely buying this game on March 2nd.

Sorry, was AFK, thx for stepping up w/that link tangent1138.

lsquare: Yes, EA was doing that, as was/is Ubisoft, Activision, Atari, and 2K Games (to name a few). EA decided not to do that for its more recent games like Sims 3, Mass Effect 2, and Dragon Age. BFBC2 is a bit of a hybrid approach, incorporating three styles of DRM that, IMO, provide the greatest level of consumer choice that we've yet seen.

1) Install the game and don't allow it to phone home (it should give you the option upon installation). You have to have the disc in to play every time you launch the game, but it will never phone home to EA, which means there's no "activation" of any kind. The game itself is still transferable (unlike if you buy it on Steam). Note: we're just talking about installation here, not about playing multiplayer.
Or:
2) Install the game and let it phone home to do its "activation" thing, and there is a complement of 10 activations provided by EA. Now you don't need the disc in the drive when you launch the game. Activations are refundable if you can uninstall the game while online; a hard drive crash or something similar will prevent that; EA says they'll "refill" the complement of 10 if you call and ask. The game is still technically transferable, though there's a caveat emptor side to it since the activations may be used up.
Now for multiplayer:
3) Install & register your game to your unique EA Account for access to the multiplayer Master Server. This action will render the disc you bought completely non-transferable (assuming it works like it did with BF2142), which (to me) would be a deal-breaker on a single-player-only game, but with persistent multiplayer like this where content is provided & stats are tracked server-side (like WoW, etc.) I can understand it.

So basically, as I understand it from the description in the linked blog post, you have to choose to do either 1) or 2) when you install the game, which determines whether there are activations being deducted/counted/refunded (but no disc-in-drive requirement) or not (but does have a disc-in-drive requirement). 3) will happen if/when you register for multiplayer but, I believe, has no bearing on the prior choice & effects of 1) or 2).

 

[GullyFoyle]

so how is the game ? Worth buying it?

If you like on-line multi-player FPS games, yes. The game is well worth the $45 (minimum) it takes to buy it. Most people that played the beta I think are buying it. For every person I saw on forums that hated it, there were 10 that loved it, and tried to convince the one give it more time or try again in the future.

If you like to play single-player only, maybe not. There is no BF1942 or BF2 style Conquest with Bots modes. It is more like the COD or Modern Warfare style single player campaign. How long it takes, and how many times you could play it through and still enjoy it I think is still to be answered.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

I know this game likes quad cores and I know there may or may not have been dual core optimizations...is there any middle ground benefit to AMD triple cores over AMD dual cores? Or is it quad core or bust if you want quad core benefits?

 

[JE78]

I know this game likes quad cores and I know there may or may not have been dual core optimizations...is there any middle ground benefit to AMD triple cores over AMD dual cores? Or is it quad core or bust if you want quad core benefits?

We've only played the BETA so its hard to tell, I don't think the BETA was the best to judge what type of CPU/GPU combo it will take to run this game. I see no reason you can't run it on a Dual-Core CPU. I know a friend of mine ran the BETA with a dual-core E6600 and 4850 and didn't say anything about graphics lag but I also don't know what settings he was running on.

 

[Tab]

so you're admitting that you pirated the game?

It for sale at target, not kidding.

 

[matas]

If you like on-line multi-player FPS games, yes. The game is well worth the $45 (minimum) it takes to buy it. Most people that played the beta I think are buying it. For every person I saw on forums that hated it, there were 10 that loved it, and tried to convince the one give it more time or try again in the future.

If you like to play single-player only, maybe not. There is no BF1942 or BF2 style Conquest with Bots modes. It is more like the COD or Modern Warfare style single player campaign. How long it takes, and how many times you could play it through and still enjoy it I think is still to be answered.

How does it compare to BF2? I played BF2 for like a month, but the screwed up upgrades and points made it less enjoyable. I liked using all the different types of vehicles/aircraft, that what made it different from games like COD.

 

[GullyFoyle]

There are guys discussing the performance of the retail version of the game. Conclusion: This performs just like the beta. repi jumped in to the conversation to say this:

Keep in mind that many of the fixes we did for the Beta and other optimizations aren't in the retail version but the day1 patch. And as you are playing the game before release the ~day1 patch is not available yet. It is not a day -4 patch

One example of such fixes are the RenderAheadLimit setting that we added in the beta, it is not in the retail disc but will be in the first patch. This is what causes the mouse sluggishness (just as the beta)
__________________
DICE - Rendering Architect - Frostbite Engine

==================================================

An interesting post on FPSAdmin.com about BFBC2 day-1 patch and the servers here.

One item in the post:

* On launch day, the game and the servers will not be the absolutely latest. We are still trying to work out how to handle server administration etc.

* Once the "day1 patch" goes out, they will have full access to the server administration interface.

* DICE is not committing to a release date for the "day1 patch". However we aim to release it during Mar 5th-7th (GMT).

The most important note here, no Admin access to your server (RCON) untill that "Day 1 Patch" is released!

You will be able to change the name of your server through the config editor, but that is about it I'm afraid.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

There are guys discussing the performance of the retail version of the game. Conclusion: This performs just like the beta. repi jumped in to the conversation to say this:



==================================================

An interesting post on FPSAdmin.com about BFBC2 day-1 patch and the servers here.

One item in the post:

I dont know why but day -4 patch made me laugh.

I hope they roll it out on March 2nd..

 

[JE78]

You will be able to change the name of your server through the config editor, but that is about it I'm afraid.

So whats that mean, no hardcore servers and no different games? I wonder what the default game is, probably conquest.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

So whats that mean, no hardcore servers and no different games? I wonder what the default game is, probably conquest.

I think he meant that's all you can do until actual launch day arrives.

 

[Scionix]

There are guys discussing the performance of the retail version of the game. Conclusion: This performs just like the beta. repi jumped in to the conversation to say this:



==================================================

An interesting post on FPSAdmin.com about BFBC2 day-1 patch and the servers here.

One item in the post:

So I'm forced to play with DX9 to get playability...

*sigh*

Am I being unreasonable in asking the game to perform like it should before release? I mean, I'm not an expert, but making sure the highest-end Nvidia card can actually play the game with DX10 on without horrible stutter/fps doesn't seem like a tall order.

/rage

 

[zerocool84]

So I'm forced to play with DX9 to get playability...

*sigh*

Am I being unreasonable in asking the game to perform like it should before release? I mean, I'm not an expert, but making sure the highest-end Nvidia card can actually play the game with DX10 on without horrible stutter/fps doesn't seem like a tall order.

/rage

Well that's the risk you knowingly took when getting a dual gpu card. I made sure I got a good single gpu card so I won't have to deal with the downfalls of dual gpu.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

So I'm forced to play with DX9 to get playability...

*sigh*

Am I being unreasonable in asking the game to perform like it should before release? I mean, I'm not an expert, but making sure the highest-end Nvidia card can actually play the game with DX10 on without horrible stutter/fps doesn't seem like a tall order.

/rage

There's going to be a patch in less than a week. Stop whining.

 

[Scionix]

There's going to be a patch in less than a week. Stop whining.

Seeing as the last performance patch did absolutely nothing, I'm not exactly feeling encouraged. Anyway, I don't think expecting the game to perform on high end hardware at RELEASE is whining. I can understand problems in the beta, but I'm getting empire total war vibes here.

Also, I love the actual game and still am going to play it, I'm just irritated at the performance problems.

Also, I've never, EVER had ANY problems with SLI rigs under performing before (I had an 8800gt SLI rig for a year and a half before the GTX 295), or had any problems with my GTX 295 in any other games, so I'm not buying this whole "oh well you have SLI some games are going to perform like crap should've bought a single GPU card" attitude.

 

[Zargon]

So I'm forced to play with DX9 to get playability...

*sigh*

Am I being unreasonable in asking the game to perform like it should before release? I mean, I'm not an expert, but making sure the highest-end Nvidia card can actually play the game with DX10 on without horrible stutter/fps doesn't seem like a tall order.

/rage

some games dont work EVER for dual gpu............just hope its not one of those


i loved it so far, and felt dirty playing mw2 this weekend to fill the gap

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Seeing as the last performance patch did absolutely nothing, I'm not exactly feeling encouraged. Anyway, I don't think expecting the game to perform on high end hardware at RELEASE is whining. I can understand problems in the beta, but I'm getting empire total war vibes here.

It's not released yet, and yes, you are whining. The patch is expected on the date of release or within a day or two. Stop whining you whiney whiner.

 

[Scionix]

It's not released yet, and yes, you are whining. The patch is expected on the date of release or within a day or two. Stop whining you whiney whiner.

Okay fine, I'm whining that the first day of release will have craptastic performance, and I have to just hope that the next patch fixes it. I still don't think I'm being unreasonable.

LEAVE ME ALONE D:

 

[pontifex]

discussing this game with my friend and he says it looks cool, but we're not sure he can run it.

He's got a AMD Athlon 64 3400 @ 2.4 Ghz, 2 GB RAM, 7800 GS 256MB. He can run MW2 ok, but not sure BC2 will work. Any ideas?

 

[minmaster]

lol godlessastronomer telling someone to stop whining...LOL
oh the douchebaggery!

 

[zerocool84]

discussing this game with my friend and he says it looks cool, but we're not sure he can run it.

He's got a AMD Athlon 64 3400 @ 2.4 Ghz, 2 GB RAM, 7800 GS 256MB. He can run MW2 ok, but not sure BC2 will work. Any ideas?

Sure he can run it but not on any high settings.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

He's got a AMD Athlon 64 3400 @ 2.4 Ghz, 2 GB RAM, 7800 GS 256MB. He can run MW2 ok, but not sure BC2 will work. Any ideas?

Not a chance. It will run horribly.

 

[bob4432]

We've only played the BETA so its hard to tell, I don't think the BETA was the best to judge what type of CPU/GPU combo it will take to run this game. I see no reason you can't run it on a Dual-Core CPU. I know a friend of mine ran the BETA with a dual-core E6600 and 4850 and didn't say anything about graphics lag but I also don't know what settings he was running on.

also, seems a bit more optimization - running a 3.0GHz e2160, 4GB of ram, xp and a 512MB 4850 and run @1920x1200 on medium and the gameplay actually feels probably in the upper 20s, low 30s at the min. very playable w/ this setup which i thought would be extremely tight even if i lowered the resolution. still wavering on this one, will probably still wait till after pc demo...probably end up stepping up to a quad (q8200-q9550) over upping the gpu atm.

hope this helps

 

[leeland]

Not a chance. It will run horribly.

I had a E6600 with a 800 GTS 640 and 4 gb's of RAM and it was barely pulling 30 frames per second on low...

 

[lsquare]

Sorry, was AFK, thx for stepping up w/that link tangent1138.

lsquare: Yes, EA was doing that, as was/is Ubisoft, Activision, Atari, and 2K Games (to name a few). EA decided not to do that for its more recent games like Sims 3, Mass Effect 2, and Dragon Age. BFBC2 is a bit of a hybrid approach, incorporating three styles of DRM that, IMO, provide the greatest level of consumer choice that we've yet seen.

1) Install the game and don't allow it to phone home (it should give you the option upon installation). You have to have the disc in to play every time you launch the game, but it will never phone home to EA, which means there's no "activation" of any kind. The game itself is still transferable (unlike if you buy it on Steam). Note: we're just talking about installation here, not about playing multiplayer.
Or:
2) Install the game and let it phone home to do its "activation" thing, and there is a complement of 10 activations provided by EA. Now you don't need the disc in the drive when you launch the game. Activations are refundable if you can uninstall the game while online; a hard drive crash or something similar will prevent that; EA says they'll "refill" the complement of 10 if you call and ask. The game is still technically transferable, though there's a caveat emptor side to it since the activations may be used up.
Now for multiplayer:
3) Install & register your game to your unique EA Account for access to the multiplayer Master Server. This action will render the disc you bought completely non-transferable (assuming it works like it did with BF2142), which (to me) would be a deal-breaker on a single-player-only game, but with persistent multiplayer like this where content is provided & stats are tracked server-side (like WoW, etc.) I can understand it.

So basically, as I understand it from the description in the linked blog post, you have to choose to do either 1) or 2) when you install the game, which determines whether there are activations being deducted/counted/refunded (but no disc-in-drive requirement) or not (but does have a disc-in-drive requirement). 3) will happen if/when you register for multiplayer but, I believe, has no bearing on the prior choice & effects of 1) or 2).

Did UbiSoft and those other companies offer refundable activiations? IIRC, for some of the previous games, if you activate it too much then that's it, you'll have to buy a new game. I would never support a company with a policy like that. With BF:BC2, I don't think I'll ever be able to stop the activations as long as I'm the only one using the CD-Key. Obviously I'm not looking to pirate or share the game, but it's nice to know that I'll always be able to play the game and not worry about being locked out permanately.