It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Psyringe: Could somebody enlighten me as to how exactly this game ius tied to the Origin client?

I see that I need to install the client in order to download the game. Can I uninstall the client afterwards? Do I need Origin to install, or to play, the game?
It launches Origin when you play.
avatar
langurmonkey: I can give you the answer in around 15 to 20 minutes.
avatar
Psyringe: That would be great. :)


avatar
Elmofongo: AND I SUNK A BATTLESHIP!!! WHY THEY DON'T HAVE IT IN THE LATER GAMES!!!!
avatar
Psyringe: Because you sunk it. Duh.

(sorry, couldn't resist. ;) )
1 hour and 35 minutes before Battlefield 1942 is finished installing. I totally did not expect it to be this slow, sorry.
Post edited November 06, 2012 by langurmonkey
avatar
Klem: Ha ha, then you're the one saying they are a company with a purpose of making money. Do you have any idea how the business world work ?
Honestly i think that you are the one who doesn't know how business work. What you are saying is that EA is wrong for buying a few independent companies that were on sale. Every company in the world does the same thing. It's actually one of the most common business practices, but according to you, EA can't do it. I wonder why.

avatar
Klem: Oh yeah, everyone is nice, they respect all the laws, they don't use cheap tricks and throw low blows, no, they're always behaving like nice little executives, paying their taxes, waiting for a company to be on sale to look at it. They never try to disturb the funding process of smaller competitors, that would be so unfair... They're all a nice club of gentlemen, playing cricket on Saturday.
You either didn't understand or didn't read my post properly. What i said is that companies are made with a single purpose: to make money, and as such, they can't be judged as being "good" or "evil". You can assign these adjectives to human actions, but a company is not a person, a company is a legal fiction created to optimize economical results.

What i'm saying is that EA is just acting like a company, that's all. Like i said, buying companies is a very common practice in the business world. This is neither imoral nor ilegal, unless that means creating a monopoly, which is clearly not the case, there are plenty of gaming companies out there.

Also, i'm not talking about whether companies follow the laws or not, that subject is beyond the scope of my arguments. But if you insist on it, then please, tell me, which laws did EA break, exactly? And how exactly is EA trying to disturb smaller competition? You know, there are plenty of very talented indie studios out there that EA could buy in a heartbeat.

avatar
Klem: Again... simply because a company is here to run a business, and that for running a business you (often) need to make a profit, doesn't mean you are free to do whatever you want. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the "perfect" economical liberalism is a total joke and a lie.
Again, you missed the point. I didn't say that liberalism was perfect, i actually think that it has many flaws. But i just can't see what harm EA is doing that would need external regulation. WHat i'm trying to say and you can't understand is that EA is a company, and companies buy other companies, and if the economical results are not good enough, they will be shut down. I just can't see how this is related to liberalism's flaws or whatever.

avatar
Klem: they bought these companies to retain the IPs and decide when a sequel should be made, to make sure no other product disturb their publishing schedule (protip: releasing at the wrong time always killed the commercial viability of a game).
If you want to make accusations, you have to prove it. I'm sorry, but i will not buy your theories without proof. Actually, you will never convince anyone that way. If the companies they bought were making money, why would they close them? It makes no sense.



avatar
Klem: Oh my, you've got to be sh* me !
EA cares so much about their old games, they shut down the masterservers of their games after a single year, they no longer provide very basic support (such as... hosting the god damn patches installers) after 2-3 years, let most of their IP rot on the shelves (Dungeon Keeper anyone ? in 12 years, all they did was licensing to an unknown chinese F2P mmorpg who closed a few months after launch). They really love their old games, sure.
Try searching for these old games on the official EA website and have a good laugh : the only thing you'll get about them are legal notices about their IP rights. Is this what they call "lawyer love" ?
I agree with you about shutting servers for some games down. That is a dick move by EA. It's impossible to keep servers up forever, since these cost money, but they could certainly keep the servers up a little longer than a few years.

About the fact that the games are not on EA's website, i really can't see what's the problem with that. EA is a massive and old company, they have made/published hundreds of games already. I can't blame them for not storing information on every game they have ever released on their main website. There are other sites that have a database (such as mobygames). Now tell me which big company from the 90s still holds a database about all their games ever produced.

avatar
Klem: Just because they own a boatload of old IPs, because of to their aggressive IP acquisition strategy (shutting down studios after studios), thus have all the good old stuff, doesn't make them a better company. Sure it's an excellent partner for GoG, and GoG wizards-monks managed to seal a publishing deal, big kudos to them, but it doesn't make EA as a whole any better.
And why buying smaller companies makes them evil?

The fact that EA releases their classics here at least show that they care about their old games at some extent. We certainly know companies that don't give a fuck about old games (Lucasarts, Capcom, Konami).
Post edited November 06, 2012 by Neobr10
avatar
Psyringe: Could somebody enlighten me as to how exactly this game ius tied to the Origin client?

I see that I need to install the client in order to download the game. Can I uninstall the client afterwards? Do I need Origin to install, or to play, the game?
You need Origin installed to play the game. Look below for a pic of the message that appears after you try to run Battlefield 1942 after uninstalling Origin.
Attachments:
origin.jpg (341 Kb)
Post edited November 06, 2012 by langurmonkey
avatar
langurmonkey: You need Origin installed to play the game. Look below for a pic of the message that appears after you try to run Battlefield 1942 after uninstalling Origin.
Thanks. Not what I hoped for, but it does answer the question I had. Thanks for investing the time and effort to test it, and post the result here! :)
avatar
langurmonkey: You need Origin installed to play the game. Look below for a pic of the message that appears after you try to run Battlefield 1942 after uninstalling Origin.
avatar
Psyringe: Thanks. Not what I hoped for, but it does answer the question I had. Thanks for investing the time and effort to test it, and post the result here! :)
No problem.
avatar
morciu: |: I don't want widescreen, all I want is a nice 1154x864 like I do with all my games. I have one of those big heavy old 17" monitors
avatar
IronStar: If you look better, you will see that there is way yo set custom resolution also described there.
Battlefield 1942 does not have native widescreen support. To use custom resolutions, navigate to Battlefield 1942\Mods\bf1942\Settings\Profiles\Custom and open the file Video.con in Wordpad. The following line is the one we are interested in:
game.setGameDisplayMode 1440 900 32 60
The first number is the width and the second is the height. Change these values to the resolution you want. In this example, the game would run at a resolution of 1440x900.
avatar
IronStar:
Well I tried and it didn't do anything :(. Thanks for the help anyway.
avatar
Klem: Oh, the "invisible hand" of the market, how practical ! Whenever a company should be held responsible for its actions, pull the "the market did it ! not me !" card from your magic hat and tadaaa ! You're free to go !
You're twisting my arguments. I have never said anything about liberalism nor defended it, don't make up stuff, you'll never convince others that way. What i said was that you're blaming EA for the way the market works. Like i have already said, you're mad at EA just because they bought a few smaller companies and closed them after some time. What i said is that this is how the market works, companies buy smaller oners, studios close everyday. There's usually nothing imoral/ilegal with it, and in EA's case, i doubt there is anything wrong with buying the mentioned companies.

avatar
Klem: you forgot that EA is big enough to greatly influence how its sector work, and that other publishers aren't acting like them (and are still making tons of money). Perhaps you believe that, like you, they don't have the choice. Like it or not, EA can and did made choices.
That's exatly what i said. EA can make choices, but these choices are made considering the situation of the market. Let me give you an example. Let's say there are 2 games (X and Y) in pre-production phase and EA has to decide which one will be developed. How do you think the decision will be made? Based on which game that they consider to be the best for gamers like you and me? No, they'll make a rational decision based on which one will sell more according to the market's condition. If X is a 4X strategy game and Y is a FPS, it's obvious that they'll choose to fund game Y because it has higher chances of selling more due to the demand for shooters in the market.

avatar
Klem: You perfectly saw it when Activision-Blizzard took the lead with CoD and WoW, EA started seducing gamers and start being all nice with devs like DICE, and thousands of players believe EA "turned good" (ha !). And now these idiots are all butthurt at BF3 and ME3, "omg EA lied to me". EA perfectly has the power to decide what kind of interest and strategy they will pursue, and so far they haven't stopped abusing their power to bully their sector.
You have yet to explain me how EA is abusing their power. Buying other companies is a matter of getting stronger in the market, not "abusing" it.


avatar
Klem: So you're saying that not a SINGLE studio closure was decided for other reasons than poor sales ? Then how do you explain Popcap ? Bejeweled, Zuma, Peggle, Plants vs Zombies, not selling ?
Hey, hold on, let's get facts straight here. EA didn't close PopCap. They closed one of it's divisions.

avatar
Klem: You seem to see the business world as a fairy tale, with simple physical laws, without any human intervention - your universe could be run by robots (or just AIs). How would you explain Vivendi trying to sell its shares in Activision then ?
Again you're twisting my arguments. I have never said that the market doesn't need regulation. It does. However, intervention should be made only when necessary, when one company is really abusing their power to violate people's rights, make a monopoly or break the laws, which are not the case with EA. Like i have said many times already, buying other companies is a common practice in business. There's nothing morally or legally wrong with it, like it or not.

avatar
Klem: Because these decisions are made by businessmen, in a market, by people who are supposed to know their job, they are all morally and ethically right ?
=> A businessman can't be wrong (in terms of morality and ethics) ?
=> A market can't be unfairly biased and controlled by a group of bigger companies ?
=> People who know their job can't use that knowledge to abuse their dominant position ?

You're taking economical liberalism to such an extreme, businessmen and companies should be free of *any* constraint set up by society, simply because it is their sector of activity, they shouldn't be judged and criticized.
No, i'm not. I didn't even touch the subject of liberalism. EA did nothing beyond common business practices. You are going WAY over the top just because EA closed a few studios. They can be criticized, when there are valid reasons to do so, and this is not the case. EA didn't do anything harmful to the market or society. EA simply acted like a company, because (surprise) EA IS actually a company. Companies buy other companies, this is a way of gaining strength in the market. There's usually nothing harmful with it.

avatar
Klem: => a businessmen doesn't -have to- be amoral to run a business. There is millions of companies throughout the world, they aren't all completely amoral entities.
Now please, tell me, how is EA being amoral or imoral? Unless you are suggesting that EA is amoral for running their own business and buying your beloved gaming companies.
avatar
Klem: => "the market" isn't an excuse to abuses, simply because running a business is hard doesn't mean that everything is allowed, the very concept of a market is having everyone fighting with the same rules, if there is no rules, there is no market, just a business anarchy.
Yeah, i agree, but how does this apply to EA? Which rule did EA break? How did EA abuse the market?


avatar
Klem: It is baffling that nowadays so many people believe that companies are living in a rules-free world, that not only we shouldn't interfere with them, but we shouldn't even criticize them, because they probably "know their stuff" better than we do.
It's baffling how over the top you are going with EA just because of the fact that it uses common business practices to achieve better positions in the market.

The way you're saying it looks like EA is like Enron or Monsanto. These 2 did abuse their power, brake the laws and take decisions harmful to the market and the society. EA doesn't even come close. When EA bought Westwood, Origin, Bullfrog, and then closed them a few year later, it was just a business move well within the borders of morality and legality.
But...But...EA is EVAL and stuff! They closed studios down! Of course, those studios had to choose to sell to them in the first place...but we need to magically absolve them of all guilt and totally blame EA because we LIKED those studios and stuff! And...uhhh...EA and the sucking! And...stuff! Yeah, stuff! Totally.
avatar
Crassmaster: But...But...EA is EVAL and stuff! They closed studios down! Of course, those studios had to choose to sell to them in the first place...but we need to magically absolve them of all guilt and totally blame EA because we LIKED those studios and stuff! And...uhhh...EA and the sucking! And...stuff! Yeah, stuff! Totally.
EA were also responsible for the GFC ;)