Last night I stumbled upon an article about how Battlefield 3 for the PC will not have an in-game server browser unlike the console versions which will include a server browser. That just seems backwards if you ask me. Instead what the PC version will use is a program called Battlelog through a player's Internet browser.
Today I read an article on PCGamer.com about the new system and still I was scratching my head wondering why such a thing was needed for the PC. After reading the article I thought to myself that I may not be getting BF3 because of this seemingly complicated and unnecessary requirement to play online.
Well then I scrolled down to the comments and I must tell you, I was surprised at what I was reading. You can tell the responses to the article because the comments are in a gray box and they are primarily negative. What was surprising was the amount of replies to those comments that were positive. There were far more comments about how easy the system worked and how much better Battlelog was compared to a server browser. There were people actually positive on something EA is doing, shocker I know.
I firmly believe that the majority of people who hate EA have either forgotten or don't know why they dislike the company. Having no in-game server browser for arguably one the biggest multiplayer games to be released this year is just begging to get even more hate. But apparently Battlelog works, and it worked well for many who commented on the PCGamer article.
This reminds me of the time a few years ago when I spit venom in Activision's way when I learned Modern Warfare 2 was going to use peer-to-peer matchmaking. P2P matchmaking is the bane of any PC game and is almost certain death for its online longevity, unless you're Modern Warfare 2.
I admit, I was going to forget about BF3 all together after reading the article, but reading the many positive comments about how the new Battlelog works and that it worked well has calmed my fears and given me renewed interest in the game.