Official battlefield servers vanishing - another EA money grab

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So now that players have the chance to rent servers it appears EA may be trying to make some cash by allowing these player bought servers to almost entirely hold up the online component. Do you think thats fair after paying full price for a game, a game that includes an online pass which is meant to help fund the official server costs? Another under handed tactic from the penny pinchers at EA who see you as a walking, talking refilling money sack or a sound business plan? Does this surprise you or are you so outraged you will never buy another EA title again?

Full article here,

http://www.1up.com/news/battlefield-3-official-servers-gone

This is absolutely pathetic. Great job EA.

If you really want BF3 to compete with CoD, actually let it compete instead of abandoning it.

Yah, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!
I bet you're butthurt they're not hosting servers for Battlefield 1942 anymore, too.
The player-owned Battlefield servers has always been the best, with the (imo) exception of TV2; they're pretty cool too.
Seriously, there's literally a thousand other servers to play on.

They should have made no official servers to begin with and just let the private run servers rule the whole thing.

Cheaper and then they wouldn't get whined at for doing this.

Tayh:
Yah, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!
I bet you're butthurt they're not hosting servers for Battlefield 1942 anymore, too.
The player-owned Battlefield servers has always been the best, with the (imo) exception of TV2; they're pretty cool too.
Seriously, there's literally a thousand other servers to play on.

I think part of the issue is that down the line, when the player servers are gone. There is no more support from the developer and no means of playing multiplayer. Now the game is completely useless, unless you are playing it for singleplayer.
Of course, I don't own BF3 but I am very much against not being able to make your own servers in these games to play with friends without having to buy a server.
It means once the support for those games are gone, the game itself is now totally useless. Whereas older games that had support for that, can still have servers created on the fly.

"EA fucks over it's customers, everyone is surprised".

Oh wait, you gave money to EA? Yeah, you deserve whatever happens to you.

Yeah... this is as bad idea as it gets.

Not to say much, but why rely almost entirely on player-owned servers not even a year after launch? BF3 was released on October 25, 2011; it's May 11, 2012 & already they're relying on player-run servers to hold the game up. And bear in mind, this was their killer app to Modern Warfare 3, their .50 cal of death against the softly armored MW3, their F-35 lighting airstrike from Lucifer on Infinity Ward & Activision. So either:

-EA's bad business decisions caught up with them & they're scrambling to get whatever paper they can or:
-People realized there are games other than BF3, ditched it & now EA's relying almost exclusively on people's dedication to come back for more... assuming these people don't just up & leave

It really smacks of bad idea. Especially because of how many people play BF3 on consoles, although the article didn't say anything about the PC version, so maybe the PC version's official servers are still active. And the article should've mentioned the number of servers on 360 as well.

But still, 1.49... to rent a server for one day, versus a full $60 to rent a server for 90 days. This sounds like something Nexon would do if they abandoned all forms of common sense, even in moneymaking. And it's not like EA added something with bots that still could've made offline a viable option, or a single-player that felt like Battlefield, not a poorly-designed Call of Duty with extremely restrictive design.

That must suck. I like having official dedicated servers, since the player-run ones either stick to one map/mode or have inconstant population.

And I'd expect them from a game with an online pass. But it's EA, so this sort of blatant dickery isn't really surprising.

Ah, EA. Just when you thought they couldn't get any more scummy. So much for those Online Passes eh?

It's almost inconceivable that a game that is so massively focussed on multiplayer is having the official free servers turned off so quickly. The excuse that "there's only so much space, digital and physical" for servers is just total bullshit. They made an absolute fortune on the game - a game that is 90% multiplayer - and now they're claiming that it's just too difficult for them to run the free servers? Give me a break.

But...Battlefield 3 practically just went on the market. -what- are you doing, EA? It'd be one thing if they were shutting down the 2142 servers. I wouldn't agree with that, but I could at least understand it. But this...why? Why would you -do- this to yourself?

Welcome to the world of dedicated servers.

Tayh:
Yah, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!
I bet you're butthurt they're not hosting servers for Battlefield 1942 anymore, too.
The player-owned Battlefield servers has always been the best, with the (imo) exception of TV2; they're pretty cool too.
Seriously, there's literally a thousand other servers to play on.

Pretty much this - storm in a teacup guys, get over it.

Clive Howlitzer:

It means once the support for those games are gone, the game itself is now totally useless. Whereas older games that had support for that, can still have servers created on the fly.

Which would be the case regardless of whether or not they pull the plug on their game servers. BF3 has that stupid battle log service or whatever it's called, where you have to log in to before you can actually play. If THAT server went down, then I can understand the problem.

But this is really a non-issue. Is also an old issue (there was a thread on this a few weeks ago).

TephlonPrice:
Yeah... this is as bad idea as it gets.

And the article should've mentioned the number of servers on 360 as well.

.

I just looked through sixteen pages of the full and nearly full rush and conquest servers on 360 half an hour ago and I found not a single official server . .

Who cares?

This kinda stuff is fine if you ask me. The game supports community owned dedicated servers.

I'd love to be able to hate EA for this, but the truth is that I've never played on their servers anyway. Every server I've joined has been clan or community hosted.

I know BF3 supports community servers, but it kinda brings the question of stingy practices.

Because unless they pull this shit with Medal of Honor: Warfighter (aka Generic Modern Brown Shooting Gallery Affair) even earlier, this really wouldn't be that much of a problem... unless the community servers mysteriously vanish.

Welcome to the world of a bunch of assholes who do not know how to read. I mean jesus fucking christ did nobody actually read the fucking articles.

Hell this whole thing was explained weeks ago when some other ignorant fool complained about it.

Breaking news, EA is a dick.

In other news water is wet, paper is thin and everyone will buy into the bullshit EA is selling because humanity is stupid.

"were going to tack multiplayer onto a game...then were going to shut down servers"

so in a way they give us harvey dent...but after a few months he turns into two-face...bad analogy?

As someone who's never played a multiplayer shooter that wasn't 100% community supported I don't understand the problem. What am I missing? Do you have to pay EA to setup a sever or something?

Tayh:
Yah, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!
I bet you're butthurt they're not hosting servers for Battlefield 1942 anymore, too.
The player-owned Battlefield servers has always been the best, with the (imo) exception of TV2; they're pretty cool too.
Seriously, there's literally a thousand other servers to play on.

Except Battlefield 1942 didn't have an online pass and isn't less than a year old.

Vault101:
"were going to tack multiplayer onto a game...then were going to shut down servers"

so in a way they give us harvey dent...but after a few months he turns into two-face...bad analogy?

>tack on multiplayer

>Battlefield game

>mfw

Tayh:

I bet you're butthurt they're not hosting servers for Battlefield 1942 anymore

Now that you mention it, if they were still hosting old '42 servers, I'd still be playing the hell out of that game.

Not sure if the lack of official EA servers for '42 10 years after release is something I can justifiably get angry about though...

Oh look, another EA thread.

Seriously, guys, let's give it a rest and talk about something else. This whole thing has gotten so old I can see mold.

A friend of mine has BF3 on the 360. He used to play it a lot but now he hardly touches it because it's damn near impossible to find an offical server. Most of the servers offical servers are full with huge queues to join and it extremely hard to find them anyway since there is apparently no filtering option for server searching.

The player owned ones are apparently terrible since it is usaully extremely long games on a set amount of maps. If you want to play the normal game anymore than it's really difficult to find a decent server. There is also the fact that the people who pay for the server have admin privlieges, being Xbox live it's really easy to end up killing the admin and immediatly get kicked.

The admin can also chane the teams around as they wish so the games are completely team stacked most of the time. From what he tells me about it I am really glad that I decided not to get it.

Walter Byers:
As someone who's never played a multiplayer shooter that wasn't 100% community supported I don't understand the problem. What am I missing? Do you have to pay EA to setup a sever or something?

Yes you have to pay. Most of the official servers are now gone so you have to join a server that is rented by someone. Some guy pretty much pay's EA monthly or something to get his own server on which he has admin privlieges. Im not sure about the PC version but it sucks on the Xbox since developer supported servers are usaully pretty stable and fun to play on, which is why they have been included in every single multiplayer game on consoles.
Even worse is that they charge anyone who bought the game used extra for an "online pass". They are making people use online passes yet they won't even support the damn game anymore. I believe they still have some offical servers but for a game as popular as Battlefield there are no where near enough.

Everything I hear about BF3 makes me glad I didn't buy it.

Bad Company 2 servers disappeared a few months after release. Whatever. There are still plenty of servers propped up by clans. I would probably appreciate the game more if I hosted my own server. Mean I wish that they did host their own game but this isn't too big of an issue.

hmm it seems that the player base doesnt cover the cost of running the servers.

considering you have the release of three major games.. battlefield 3, the old republic and mass effect 3 were needed for them to go into the black again it seems like they are cutting corners as much as they can. if they start offering staff share options then its the end if EA

Walter Byers:
As someone who's never played a multiplayer shooter that wasn't 100% community supported I don't understand the problem. What am I missing? Do you have to pay EA to setup a sever or something?

Yes you have to pay a fee to 'rent' the server. It's $1.49/day and $59.99/90 days, the same price for the whole game.

EA are realizing how successful the indie and micro-transaction markets have been and are trying to capitalize on them.

I haven't bought an EA game new in a long while and, don't plan to start now. It's great that they keep on giving me more and, more reasons to not support them.

I like Battlefield 3, I never played as much as Bad Company 2....but its still a pretty amazing game. Didn't they add that thing where you can buy all the unlocks for like, 40 bucks? I'm sure they made plenty of cash off that, so I don't know why they would shut down their servers.

Problem is, games like Tribes have shown me how much I hate slow movement in shooters.....so.....

Yea, everyone just play Tribes.

ThePS1Fan:
Yes you have to pay a fee to 'rent' the server. It's $1.49/day and $59.99/90 days, the same price for the whole game.

EA are realizing how successful the indie and micro-transaction markets have been and are trying to capitalize on them.

It's been awhile since I've played an online shooter. Quake 3 or Unreal Tournament was probably the last time. If I recall correctly those games had a dedicated server application you could download and run for no cost at all. BF3 really doesn't give players that option? At all? Or just not on consoles?

Clive Howlitzer:

Tayh:
Yah, this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE!
I bet you're butthurt they're not hosting servers for Battlefield 1942 anymore, too.
The player-owned Battlefield servers has always been the best, with the (imo) exception of TV2; they're pretty cool too.
Seriously, there's literally a thousand other servers to play on.

I think part of the issue is that down the line, when the player servers are gone. There is no more support from the developer and no means of playing multiplayer. Now the game is completely useless, unless you are playing it for singleplayer.
Of course, I don't own BF3 but I am very much against not being able to make your own servers in these games to play with friends without having to buy a server.
It means once the support for those games are gone, the game itself is now totally useless. Whereas older games that had support for that, can still have servers created on the fly.

By that time that happens they will probably give out the software to run a server on your computer. If they have not done so already.

OT: I don't think I've ever played on an official dev/pub server for a game ever unless that was the only option. So this isn't a big deal for me.

I went back on BF3 after a few weeks not playing, and I hate the play owned servers!

Don't get me wrong, I love dedicated servers, but for some reason they just seem shit on BF3.

So now we're paying to pay for stuff? Sounds like Xbox Live.

It's good to see someone else cares about this. *ahem* [rant mode active]

Congratulations EA you have managed to take a fairly popular and already increadably lucrative game AND F***ING RUINED IT.You not only have the great idea of providing the buyable unlocks, completely removing the need for you own leveling system but you manage break the game and make it almost unplayable the "rent a server" update managed to make the game in creadably unbalanced towards the screaming twelve year olds who give you a couple of bucks.In an update centered around Renting servers you manage to glitch out the shotguns, making most of them have increadible 1-hit-kill-from-across-them-map range and damage just by putting the dart shells on it. The custom servers are almost unplayably laggy at even the best of times and if i do manage to find a playable server that hasnt been customized to the point of retardation then i will most likely be kicked by the admin, who is most probably one of the aformentioned screaming 12 year olds, when i beat him. Also well done whoever authorized the update in the state it was released, in an attempt to make vehicle combat fairer they somehow thought it would be a good idea to MAKE THE VEHICLES INCREADBLY OVERPOWERED EVEN AGAINST THE ENGINEER CLASS WHICH ALWAYS RESULTS IN WHICH EVER TEAM IS AGAINST ADMIN BEING REPEATEDLY SPAWN CAMPED BY EVERY VEHICLE ON THE ENEMY TEAM. Also god help you if you fight back and manage to destroy which ever helicopter the admin is in like i did earlier today, it only resulted in me being kicked for "violation of server rules".

[/ end rant]

However that is all entirely my own opinion please feel free to disagree, i have heard plenty of people who ay they love the update.

i remember EA stating they are working on a patch to fix the overpowered shotguns, its release date is slated for july, over a month to fix this sh*t.

Edit: i rant because i used to love playing battlefield 3, im not angry at the money grabbing or that the servers are custom comunity controlled affairs, im angry because they broke the game in order to make the money when they really didnt have to do more then add in the option of rentable servers.

EA Are at it again eh?

They do love to close online features close after or before a new item in the franchise. One example would be that comes to mind "Need For Speed: Most Wanted 5-1-0 (PSP)" It seemed like they couldn't wait to drop server support for that one, Although all there games really dropped server support even when the PSP was considered current gen not during the phase out that we are in now.

But on topic...

Some people argue that player owned servers works for other online multiplayer games such as Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike: Source and Killing Floor. But what's good for some is never good for all. To me player run servers should Supplement the online servers not replace them.

I Can understand if it was say Unreal Tournament Game of the Year Edition or something but the game is not even a year old (game was released Oct. 2011) then its a very poor show even for EA the next Fifa Battlefield game is no where near release yet.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked