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.

but you still have to be connected to play single player for some games.

you are buying frisbees nowadays. and in the future (digital distribution) you are buying bits.

brave new gaming world

I last tried a week ago and coulnd't find an official server on the PS3, alot of people put EA or DICE in their server title anyway, just to be trolls I swear.

At any rate BF3 went downhill fairly fast after launch and got boring pretty quick too for me. Lot's of things to abuse and balancing issues; Bad Company 2 had problems 2 but at least I could get into a game, without being sperated from my friends, with VOIP that is FUNCTIONAL and enjoy the game.

Rather than the typical BF3 experience: invite squad, join, disbanded, sent to different servers, give up, end up browsing servers for 10 minutes to find one with a low enough player count that we can all join on the same team, then the voip doesnt work anyway.

Instead now it's exactly the same but after you find a match you get kicked by some entitled little shit that's mad at you for being a better shot than him.

Oh well, Modern Warfare 3 is currently satisfying my lust for online violence quite well; since it's faster to just dive into and play and being a trainee teacher on placement I don't have time to cut through the rubbish to find a decent game with the basic game rules on.

I have yet to play on an official server thus far. I don't see why this is such a big, hairy deal seeing as in my opinion the community servers are far better than official servers.

And why are people crying over EA asking people to pay for a server, I mean clan owners are going to be spending tons of money on the servers anyways, how does that mean you are spending the money? Every community server is basically already paying to host their servers anyways, so why is EA suddenly this big evil guy because they are doing the same....Oh that's right because it's EA an they are apparently the devil or something...

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?

I wouldn't say they tacked it on, really. Battlefield has always been focused more on the multiplayer. It started as multiplayer with bot match if you don't want to go online. They recently started with campaigns though, starting with Bad Company. With Battlefield 3, they didn't really bother with the story, and just focused on online, and I have to say, while I'm not a person who actually enjoys most online multiplayer, I really, really like the BF3 online.

if there are thousands of player owned servers, why does anyone care when EA shuts theirs off?

does everyone seriously want 10,000 empty servers on the list?

As long as it's possible to find a server to play on, what's the big deal? It's not like EA shut down their own servers and said "oh sorry, if you want to play you have to rent your own servers."

My point isn't really in defense of EA, but if there are more than enough player-run servers, why would anyone care when EA shuts down theirs?

>.>

after a few minutes of pondering this.

I've decided.

I'm ok with this. well, the IDEA of this.

the problem is naturally EA, and them not doing it right, but that's pretty much the norm with them

(I'm also OK with this cause it effects a game i will never play, and at worst a genera i will never play >:D)

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.370181-Battlefield-3-No-EA-Servers#14343265

Move along people, nothing to see here.

Walter Byers:

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?

It's true of BF3, no matter what version. That was announced from the beginning, actually, and there was a lot of muttering from server communities about it. That's the only sucky thing going on here, and it's still really old news. I mean, who plays on the official servers in a game with dedicated servers anyway? They're soulless and lack any semblance of a community. Community servers are just better.

Walter Byers:

Owyn_Merrilin:
They're soulless and lack any semblance of a community. Community servers are just better.

This is exactly what entered my mind when I read this thread. I'm wondering if there's a legitimate complaint here or just EA bashing because its EA.

The latter.

Definitely the latter.

Hmm i kinda understand why people are upset about this though at the same time think people are getting more worked up about this than they should just because its EA we're talking about.

Playing on the 360, I am actually having no problem with the player run servers, hell I'm, even enjoying them more because of extended amount of time. While I can understand that not everyone enjoys these longer matches I have seen a good amount of regular length matches. And the servers seem to be stable, so yeah I'm not having a problem with the player run servers as far as gameplay goes. I've also always been under the impression that player run/dedicated servers were more preferable to official servers (remember the whole MW2 no dedicated servers issue).

Now I don't see why people are complaining about how once the players stop supporting servers the game is dead. This is true but chances are that the player run servers would out last the official BF3 servers regardless of whether or not EA dropped support for official servers now or 2 years from now. So this whole argument kinda seems irrelevant IMO.

Now I do agree that this is pretty much a shameless cash grab and I understand why a lot people would take issue with it. By pulling its support for official servers less than a year after its release, EA is forcing the players to pay to support the game much sooner than they should have to. People paid good money to be able to play this game online and EA pulling its support in less than a year kinda makes it feel like they're not holding up their end of the deal. Now if there actually was a severe shortage of players and the only ones left were the dedicated fans of BF3 then this could be justifiable. However, given the amount of player run servers I see online I think its safe to assume that this is not the case and that there are plenty of players on BF3 to justify official support.

Now question manly for PC gamers. Isn't this whole rent a server thing pretty much the same as dedicated servers. Whenever, a game like say Battlefield 2 is run solely by dedicated servers aren't those servers being paid for by the players? If not then I apologize for my mistake.

Zetatrain:

Now question manly for PC gamers. Isn't this whole rent a server thing pretty much the same as dedicated servers. Whenever, a game like say Battlefield 2 is run solely by dedicated servers aren't those servers being paid for by the players? If not then I apologize for my mistake.

The answer is yes, aside from a few official servers that are usually set up for the first few months after launch, but only really exist so people will be able to hop in as soon as they buy the game. As soon as the community gets established, they tend to come down. There is one major difference, though. Usually games come with a program that allows you to use any internet connected computer you have as a dedicated server, which means the cost involved in keeping servers up for most older games boils down to an internet connection. For BF3, EA makes everyone rent the servers from a central location. That's occasionally been given as an option in the past, but it's the first time I've ever heard of it being required.

By the way, no kidding about community servers outlasting official ones. Do you know there's still thriving community servers for Battlefield 1942 out there? For that matter, there's still active servers for Quake, as in the original.

And they have the gall to still put an online pass in this game when the community is the one bearing the brunt of the cost for the servers.

Fucking asshats.

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 1942 came out ten years ago. Obviously they won't support something that long. But BF3 came out last year, and they're already cutting servers. That doesn't bode well.

Ralen-Sharr:
if there are thousands of player owned servers, why does anyone care when EA shuts theirs off?

does everyone seriously want 10,000 empty servers on the list?

As long as it's possible to find a server to play on, what's the big deal? It's not like EA shut down their own servers and said "oh sorry, if you want to play you have to rent your own servers."

My point isn't really in defense of EA, but if there are more than enough player-run servers, why would anyone care when EA shuts down theirs?

Because EA puts online passes in their games. Online passes which should be keeping these servers operational.

If they're not making enough from them to keep 'em operational, they should stop using the damn things. If they make enough for EA to keep using the things, then the servers shouldn't be going down after only one damn year.

That's my problem with this, at least.

I have to ask: Does this mean that if I decide to pick up a PS3 copy, I'll have to wade through loads of unbalanced modded servers like in TF2?

Soviet Heavy:

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 1942 came out ten years ago. Obviously they won't support something that long. But BF3 came out last year, and they're already cutting servers. That doesn't bode well.

Seems like those online passes are doing jack shit for them. Guess that means they can just stop using them, since they apparently don't make enough to keep servers going for a year. Which is something plenty of other games seem to be doing just fine, and with no online pass, but whatever.

Ninjamedic:
I have to ask: Does this mean that if I decide to pick up a PS3 copy, I'll have to wade through loads of unbalanced modded servers like in TF2?

There won't be mods, but server owners can set the rules, gamemodes, game settings, and all that jazz. So kind of, yeah.

Irridium:

Ninjamedic:
I have to ask: Does this mean that if I decide to pick up a PS3 copy, I'll have to wade through loads of unbalanced modded servers like in TF2?

There won't be mods, but server owners can set the rules, gamemodes, game settings, and all that jazz. So kind of, yeah.

Would you know to what extent the rules/game settings cover?

Ninjamedic:

Irridium:

Ninjamedic:
I have to ask: Does this mean that if I decide to pick up a PS3 copy, I'll have to wade through loads of unbalanced modded servers like in TF2?

There won't be mods, but server owners can set the rules, gamemodes, game settings, and all that jazz. So kind of, yeah.

Would you know to what extent the rules/game settings cover?

If I had to guess, things like ticket numbers, game time would probably be it. Wouldn't be surprised if some servers have "honor rules" like "no using weapon X" or "no using tactic y" and crap like that. But it's just conjecture, I don't know what settings you can play with.

Here's a list of the stuff PC users can set. Not sure if it's the same on consoles though.

Irridium:

Ninjamedic:

Irridium:

There won't be mods, but server owners can set the rules, gamemodes, game settings, and all that jazz. So kind of, yeah.

Would you know to what extent the rules/game settings cover?

If I had to guess, things like ticket numbers, game time would probably be it. Wouldn't be surprised if some servers have "honor rules" like "no using weapon X" or "no using tactic y" and crap like that. But it's just conjecture, I don't know what settings you can play with.

Here's a list of the stuff PC users can set. Not sure if it's the same on consoles though.

How will this effect the co-op?

Ninjamedic:

Irridium:

Ninjamedic:

Would you know to what extent the rules/game settings cover?

If I had to guess, things like ticket numbers, game time would probably be it. Wouldn't be surprised if some servers have "honor rules" like "no using weapon X" or "no using tactic y" and crap like that. But it's just conjecture, I don't know what settings you can play with.

Here's a list of the stuff PC users can set. Not sure if it's the same on consoles though.

How will this effect the co-op?

No idea, never played co-op. I thought it used peer-to-peer connections instead of dedicated servers.

Why should anyone care about this? There's hundreds of player servers, EA was just wasting time with their servers.

Irridium:

No idea, never played co-op. I thought it used peer-to-peer connections instead of dedicated servers.

Thanks for the info. I'm thinking of getting this along with a few friends and I'm afraid that the dominance of player-admins will make group play impossible.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Who cares?

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

Except, y'know, it costs $60 for a 3-month server pass to keep your server up, and there are hardly any official servers to join. Without EA/Dice's servers, players are basically being forced to buy these passes to play multiplayer. Especially since half the player-run servers that are up use rulesets massively different from the rules used on the official servers.

Xorph:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:
Who cares?

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

Except, y'know, it costs $60 for a 3-month server pass to keep your server up, and there are hardly any official servers to join. Without EA/Dice's servers, players are basically being forced to buy these passes to play multiplayer. Especially since half the player-run servers that are up use rulesets massively different from the rules used on the official servers.

Well, thats the downside to dedicated servers. Cant have everything.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Well, thats the downside to dedicated servers. Cant have everything.

When you have Online Passes, you should have.

Ninjamedic:

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

Well, thats the downside to dedicated servers. Cant have everything.

When you have Online Passes, you should have.

No. When you have an online pass, you should be able to access online as it is advertised, which you can.

SmashLovesTitanQuest:

No. When you have an online pass, you should be able to access online as it is advertised, which you can.

You have me there, I'm just still cynical about the chances of keeping a group of 4 friends in a squad now.

Called it!

Hero in a half shell:
Just wait until EA starts to fool about with the default server list they have currently running (leaving popular maps out of rotation, spamming one map into 90% of their servers loadorders, etc.) to make people have to resort to paying for their own server to actually get decent map rotations. They did it with Battlefield play4free, I wouldn't put it past them to try it here as well.

It's just one more way to wring every last cent they possibly can out of their customers.

Owyn_Merrilin:

Zetatrain:

Now question manly for PC gamers. Isn't this whole rent a server thing pretty much the same as dedicated servers. Whenever, a game like say Battlefield 2 is run solely by dedicated servers aren't those servers being paid for by the players? If not then I apologize for my mistake.

The answer is yes, aside from a few official servers that are usually set up for the first few months after launch, but only really exist so people will be able to hop in as soon as they buy the game. As soon as the community gets established, they tend to come down. There is one major difference, though. Usually games come with a program that allows you to use any internet connected computer you have as a dedicated server, which means the cost involved in keeping servers up for most older games boils down to an internet connection. For BF3, EA makes everyone rent the servers from a central location. That's occasionally been given as an option in the past, but it's the first time I've ever heard of it being required.

By the way, no kidding about community servers outlasting official ones. Do you know there's still thriving community servers for Battlefield 1942 out there? For that matter, there's still active servers for Quake, as in the original.

Hmm interesting, but doesn't this mean that running a BF3 server costs significantly more than say a server for any other game? Also, when you say that the only cost people pay to keep the servers running for older games (Quake, Battlefield 1942, etc.)are you referring to the costs that those people are already paying to the providers of their internet (Comcast, AT&T, etc.).

Has anyone even looked up how much EA supposedly gets for server rental?

If it works the same as PC, you don't rent from EA, you rent from a server hosting service that's not owned by EA. I assume that EA gets a bit from that, but I'm not even sure about that.

Zetatrain:

Owyn_Merrilin:

Zetatrain:

Now question manly for PC gamers. Isn't this whole rent a server thing pretty much the same as dedicated servers. Whenever, a game like say Battlefield 2 is run solely by dedicated servers aren't those servers being paid for by the players? If not then I apologize for my mistake.

The answer is yes, aside from a few official servers that are usually set up for the first few months after launch, but only really exist so people will be able to hop in as soon as they buy the game. As soon as the community gets established, they tend to come down. There is one major difference, though. Usually games come with a program that allows you to use any internet connected computer you have as a dedicated server, which means the cost involved in keeping servers up for most older games boils down to an internet connection. For BF3, EA makes everyone rent the servers from a central location. That's occasionally been given as an option in the past, but it's the first time I've ever heard of it being required.

By the way, no kidding about community servers outlasting official ones. Do you know there's still thriving community servers for Battlefield 1942 out there? For that matter, there's still active servers for Quake, as in the original.

Hmm interesting, but doesn't this mean that running a BF3 server costs significantly more than say a server for any other game? Also, when you say that the only cost people pay to keep the servers running for older games (Quake, Battlefield 1942, etc.)are you referring to the costs that those people are already paying to the providers of their internet (Comcast, AT&T, etc.).

That's a yes on both counts. I may be mistaken about BF3 being the first ever to require you to rent an official server, though; it seems like BF2 may have had similar requirements, at least for ranked servers, and there's still some going strong on that, too. Also, there are a few companies out there that people can rent servers from for various games. It guarantees a good internet connection and a server capable of running the game, so in the (not uncommon) situation where someone is using one of those services, I'd imagine a BF3 server costs the community something in the same ballpark.