I understand the differences between a beta and a demo...
... but thanks.
My larger point was that, imo, EA hasn't been doing a very good job on the PC side, and haven't been doing very good for a while now. Again, imo, BF2 sucked (cone of fire... wtf was with that?
); this "feature", EA decided, was good enough to include in 2142. If that crap happens to make it into BC I will not be happy.
They lucked out with 1942 and put out a great game. With Vietnam, gameplay was not as good, but at least they didn't gimp the weapons. BF2 = cone of fire; weapons delays; jump delays and all sorts of unnecessary features included to appease pubbers and nubs who complained they were getting owned by "bunny hoppers"... and I hated them all. I realize it's a vehicle centric game, but by gimping infantry as dramatically as they did, they made it overly vehicle reliant.
After BF2, they dropped the ball on the PC altogether, and admittedly, it's BF3 that they're putting their efforts into as far as making a great PC game; with BC, they're not. All they're doing is trying to cash in on IW's fail...
Not that that's a bad thing, but again, at the end of the day, BC is still a console port. Yeah sure, they're going to, hopefully, include some basic features that MW2 didn't, and they're going to have dedi's, but because I still play the original, they're going to have to do a really good job... and to be honest, I just don't think that's where their heart is with this game. I'll buy it and play it, but I just won't go into it with high hopes. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised?