[quote name='matto1233']Thanks. Does that mean that rush was the main focus of the games multiplayer again? I wanna see conquest like it was in BF2, not just thrown in due to demand like in BC2.[/QUOTE]
While I don't have an answer to your question... I couldn't agree with you more about Conquest. I use to play Conquest a ton in BF2:MC, and then out of BFBC 1 & 2 I would say I only put in a total of 1 day of playtime.
[quote name='Superstar']lol @ the people who complain about the beta not being perfect and things are broken. It's a BETA not a DEMO.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Superstar']If it was a demo of their current build you'd have reason to complain. If it's a beta (which is is) then you log all these findings and send them to the development team. That is the purpose of a beta.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Ziv']This may be a "beta" version of the game, but it's way too late for this to be an actual beta test. The games releases in 4 weeks, which means it's shipping to stores in about three weeks. Add about a week for manufacturing. So that leaves two weeks to have people play, implement changes and retest. Not buying it. They just had to put a "beta" out to keep the people happy who bought Medal of Honor.[/QUOTE]
I think the main problem I am having with this whole "Beta" discussion is that much like most people I consider this far from a beta due to various reasons.
1) We are playing a game that is set to be released in less than 30 days, which by most studios, this game would be going gold this week or very early next week. But DICE has a history of sending games 1-2 weeks prior to release.
2) Yes this is an old build of the game. It has been reported that this is a build from this past June. Why the

are you just now putting something from June out for testing? Some of the stuff is more than likely fixed right now, but what's to say that there isn't anything new that is messed up now? Especially when people who play the beta are going to see this broken ass shit from June and think your final product is going to be like that.
3) EA and Dice have continually

ed up releases... Every time a new game comes out, there is always something with matchmaking (and before anyone says anything, I am not by any means saying that Activision, IW, and Treyarch are better).
4) Yea the game looks pretty, but if it is unplayable what good does it do... Sure you can polish a rusty old Pinto, but it's still a Pinto. I wish EA and Dice would realize that graphics alone don't make a game, there actually has to be some context and playability to it.
I find it funny that EA continues to talk shit and take shots at Activision and COD, but refuses to actually acknowledge what they do right to actually attempt to take some of their share of the market.
[quote name='Superstar']Developers could take the notes from Beta tests and implement them in patches once the game releases.[/QUOTE]
That is what most do, but the problem with that is that by the time you get that patch out, you might already be a week or two after release due to the time it takes to go through Microsoft authorization. At that point, you may have already lost out on sales either from word of mouth of the game being broken or you may have lost out on sales due to some people trading the game in and others buying it used.