Forums › Battlefield 3 Forum › Battlefield 3 Xbox 360 Forum › EA Switch's Off Free Servers for Battlef ...

EA Switch's Off Free Servers for Battlefield 3 [pay to host] No M26 fix ETA

Page:

This topic is now read-only on GameSpot.
To post new messages, please visit GameFAQs and log in using the same email and password that you use on GameSpot.

specialkid8

May 22, 2012 5:28 am GMT
What don't you understand about optional content?
gobuffalo30

May 22, 2012 6:50 am GMT
What don't you understand about optional content?

I don't how you come to that point, they didn't mention anything about having to buy or not buy content, just stating it as a business practice. The fact that people are paying for optional stuff just to get it is what's ruining the games in a sense. You know what else was optional content? Rent a server, and we see where that went.
specialkid8

May 22, 2012 6:58 am GMT
Where exactly did it go and why are you using that as a separate example when that is what we are talking about?
Jemas777

May 22, 2012 7:56 am GMT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Jemas777

May 22, 2012 8:39 am GMT
gobuffalo30 posted...
What don't you understand about optional content?

I don't how you come to that point, they didn't mention anything about having to buy or not buy content, just stating it as a business practice. The fact that people are paying for optional stuff just to get it is what's ruining the games in a sense. You know what else was optional content? Rent a server, and we see where that went.

I have no problem with people buying optional stuff, or upgrade kits(I don't like this, but understand it) or even servers. All these things are good for the game. Despite the pay for play argument. Whats wrong with it? Boosting? So a guy has incredible stats, so what. If he doesn't have the experience, easier to kill and I get some nice dog tags. Using it to unlock stuff? Moot, because you can buy it and still don't have the skill either way. Admins that are jerks? Don't go to that server. If players stop renting servers we will have no where to play, what will we do then? Never will happen. If players stop renting servers, the game will no longer be relevant. If there is demand by the consumers for something, someone will supply it. That's why they brought back the official DICE servers.
---
Jemas777, Just another guy...by AnyOLName.
anvilone

May 22, 2012 12:57 pm GMT
gobuffalo30 posted...
You know what else was optional content? Rent a server, and we see where that went.

I see where that went, but I like what I see. I find good servers all the time. I favorite them, and come back to them.

At this point we're just repeating ourselves.
___________________
BF3 Xbox Server: Close Quarters Training - CQ + TDM. Ranked. 200% Tickets. Hardcore mode.
gobuffalo30

May 22, 2012 1:17 pm GMT
I see where that went, but I like what I see. I find good servers all the time. I favorite them, and come back to them.

At this point we're just repeating ourselves.

You're forgetting the other side of the whole server thing. You can find good servers but you still have just as many bad servers. Also you have to take into account bad admins and the fact that DICE removed their official servers until the community went beserk. I don't hear too many people talk about how good a server was. I don't even think I have seen one thread about it.

Maybe the fact that we're repeating ourselves because people keep supporting DICE constantly rather than looking at both sides of an issue. You can keep saying what you see all the time, but it's still an issue with others. Let's look at the many instead of the one. And just for the record, I haven't had an issue with servers either but it doesn't mean it's not a problem, it's a place called reality.
specialkid8

May 22, 2012 1:49 pm GMT
It doesn't matter how many bad servers there are because there ARE good servers. There could be a million bad servers; as long as their are four or five that you like you can forever. You keep repeating yourselves because you have nothing else to say. This is all just a big circle jerk. Everyone has the same arguments and comebacks because every keeps saying the same thing to begin with.
namewitheld

May 22, 2012 1:54 pm GMT
Rent a server (with official server shutdown) actually breached your consumer rights (loss of advertised featured).

AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
specialkid8

May 22, 2012 5:44 pm GMT
namewitheld posted...
Rent a server (with official server shutdown) actually breached your consumer rights (loss of advertised featured).

AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What feature did we lose?
anvilone

May 22, 2012 5:49 pm GMT
I think he's talking about official servers...but those are back anyway.
___________________
BF3 Xbox Server: Close Quarters Training - CQ + TDM. Ranked. 200% Tickets. Hardcore mode.
sknmak

May 23, 2012 12:55 pm GMT
<p>From: Jemas777 | #185
If players stop renting servers we will have no where to play, what will we do then? Never will happen. If players stop renting servers, the game will no longer be relevant. If there is demand by the consumers for something, someone will supply it. That's why they brought back the official DICE servers.</p>
Well yeah that's the point. We shouldn't have to pay for servers. it should be free so get ready for a ton of games to try this method if it jump starts a new gimmick. Just imagine if you had to pay in order to host a game on your Xbox P2P or a server. That would be and is f****** lame. Is it too much to ask for official servers without the thought of losing them to the hugest bidder or some kid that has some MS points. DICE has stated time and time again that they will continue to rent out servers meaning that the official servers will go away as people continues to purchase them. If you want a source go find the topic about official servers or Google it for a twitter or interview. That's why we have no filter. Also all of those reasons you stated were valid. BF3 is as casual [if not more] than Call of Duty at this point. Yes admins will ban and kick....yes people will boost. Statistics mean nothing in BF3 anymore. Why should skill matter when the admin can make the game one sided in a rank match.

<p>From: namewitheld | #189
Rent a server (with official server shutdown) actually breached your consumer rights (loss of advertised featured).

AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
Only in America can the fanboys accept anything handed to them. Yes offical servers were supplied and then taken away in favor of money. Yes they have put out more server to be purchased by anyone willing to purchase them. Wonder if BF3 will get a filter.
---
Forum is now up and running.
http://gamingpyro.omgforum.net/
anvilone

May 23, 2012 3:35 pm GMT
sknmak posted...
From: anvilone | #176
Excuse my ignorance, but which console games allow players to admin their own servers and control the settings in both ranked and unranked play?

Well don't flame me for this. Also the unranked and ranked makes no difference. A host IS A HOST. I can give you three games right of the back:
Bad Company 2 [ranked]
Rainbow Six: Vegas [ranked and unranked]
Rainbow Six: Vegas 2 [ranked and unranked]

Also pretty much every other game that offers a "host" no matter if it's P2P or dedicated is 100% FREE. Online pass is one thing, but paying to host on console gaming is another. I know you know plenty of other games that allow you to change the settings of your lobby\host. Are you trying to be a smart ass or something? It can't be all ignorance. I understand that you are trying to defend EA DICE and prove a point, but what exactly is your point? Servers aren't free or some crap?

I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Hosting a game and renting a server are two totally different things.

sknmak posted...
We shouldn't have to pay for servers...Is it too much to ask for official servers without the thought of losing them to the hugest bidder or some kid that has some MS points.

Hugest bidder? How much do you think they're charging? If you want to rent a server to play on with 23 other people for a night it's $1.50. If you're over 21, that's less than the cost of the beer you drink while you play. If you're younger, it's cheaper than the 20 oz. Mountain Dew you bought before you sat down with your friends. For 24 people and several hours of entertainment you must think going out to a see a movie is CRAZY expensive. Also, "we" aren't paying for servers. As Jemas777 stated, 2% of users are paying for servers. I don't see the outrage.

Only in America can the fanboys accept anything handed to them.

You use this word so much, I wonder if you secretly are one.
___________________
BF3 Xbox Server: Close Quarters Training - CQ + TDM. Ranked. 200% Tickets. Hardcore mode.
sknmak

May 23, 2012 8:46 pm GMT
I think we're comparing apples and oranges. Hosting a game and renting a server are two totally different things.
Hmmmmm.....well your ignorance is excused [from your previous post]. Or maybe you are trying to keep it as basic as you can. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 HAS DEDICATED SERVERS that you DO NOT HAVE TO PAY FOR. You host the server invite friends and have fun playing the game at no additional cost. Now to RB6:vegas. Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 & 2 takes it a step further and allowed dedicated server. Not only for PC, but for Xbox 360\PS3 as well. This promoted competitive matches, was FREE and removed all host advantage from the game. Players were literally playing on a dedicated server. I've played in many DS over the pass few years and they have been pretty fun since they allow 16 players. Also the internet requirements were minimum.

So if you want to be vague with the term "Dedicated Server" then drop RB6: Vegas if you want.....although the game supported dedicated servers on PC and consoles. If you want to ignore the fact that you could host a dedicated server on Battlefield: Bad Company 2 then nice try. It's a 100% fact and it was free.

You use this word so much, I wonder if you secretly are one.

Keep thinking that because I'm clearly not. I've been criticizing BF since the casual updates to Bad Company 2. At least they kept the BF experience\atmosphere in that game. Not os much in BF3. I love[d] the franchise, but now I despise it. Didn't know that "Going beyond the Call" would be like this. Yes I played BF and other FPS such as Timesplitters, CoD, Perfect Dark, Halo, Goldeneye, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Biosock etc. So I'm clearly not a fanboy for one franchise. EA DICE has to make the game more casual for sales. I understand that, but this is just sad. Keep defending EA DICE if you read the beginning of the topic there were already people warning everyone about the fanboys that would defend EA's latest actions. Thanks for proving that. I can no longer defend EA DICE any longer. They were voted the worst company for a reason.
---
Forum is now up and running.
http://gamingpyro.omgforum.net/
Jemas777

May 24, 2012 4:59 am GMT
sknmak posted...
From: Jemas777 | #185
If players stop renting servers we will have no where to play, what will we do then? Never will happen. If players stop renting servers, the game will no longer be relevant. If there is demand by the consumers for something, someone will supply it. That's why they brought back the official DICE servers.
Well yeah that's the point. We shouldn't have to pay for servers. it should be free so get ready for a ton of games to try this method if it jump starts a new gimmick. Just imagine if you had to pay in order to host a game on your Xbox . That would be and is f*** lame. Is it too much to ask for official servers without the thought of losing them to the hugest bidder or some kid that has some MS points. DICE has stated time and time again that they will continue to rent out servers meaning that the official servers will go away as people continues to purchase them.

First thing, the line you quoted was sarcasm. Secondly, this is your only argument. I have seen you post it several times, twice in this thread. No one HAS to pay for servers. We even crunched the numbers, remember. For just the Xbox, less than 3% or the entire community rents a server. The other 97% plays for free. Not including the official Dice servers.

Lets say the worst senerio happens tomorrow, and all players stop renting servers. First thing that will happen, the limited number of Dice servers will be full. Players will have no where to play because there is no capacity. So Dice would have to make a decision. Start using the servers they set aside to be rented by players, alienate their customer base and say "It you want to play, rent a server." or find someone else to "Sponsor" servers Lets look at each individually:

(using player servers)This would probably be the most likely solution if something catastrophic happened. With the game being as popular as it is right now, there would be a huge out cry from the players. Failure like this would result in news coverage, magazine articles and just bad press everywhere. It would hurt sales of ANY future game produced by these companies, and any of their branches. So to minimize the damage they would probably just swap over and put a spin on it.

(It you want to play, rent a server) Let's say they took the hard line, and said this. I can honestly see this happening. But not while the game is popular. When the game starts to wain, like BC2, to save on costs. Because there isn't a big fan base anymore, I can see a pay to play option for games that have run their course. But to do this with a game in it's prime would only hurt future sales. You can't leverage short term gain against long term growth. They make more money in game sales than in renting the servers.

(Sponsor) I see this as the most likely to happen in the future. Tie in some kind of advertising to support the servers. You have a large captive audience. So coke, mountain Dew, Nike, or movie makers rent servers. When you log in, in the banner slot, you have a coke add. The screen between matches you have a coke add. The log in message says "Welcome to Coke's team death match". Tie this in with player rented servers, and it's win win for game makers. At less than $2 a day that's a advertising dream.

Lastly, I don't see official game maker servers going away. Think about it. They advertise the next great game, it has all these new features, realism, customization like never before. You're gonna love this game! But to play you need to pay for a server. Do you really think something like that would go over well? Even the Sponsorship option wouldn't work here. Who would promote a game that may not deliver? Or worse, they did get someone to sponsor it and it flopped. They would never get anyone to do it again. The cost and bad PR would be too much.
---
Jemas777, Just another guy...by AnyOLName.
sknmak

May 24, 2012 5:33 am GMT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
sknmak

May 24, 2012 5:34 am GMT
@ Jemas777

First thing, the line you quoted was sarcasm. Secondly, this is your only argument. I have seen you post it several times, twice in this thread. No one HAS to pay for servers. We even crunched the numbers, remember. For just the Xbox, less than 3% or the entire community rents a server. The other 97% plays for free. Not including the official Dice servers.

I knew you was trying to be sarcastic. I was just saying that pretty much everything you thought was funny is true.....and is happening. Someone does have to pay for servers when EA lends them out. With no official servers they are leaving the games in the hands of the paying admin. As you can see that's not always a good method. I don't care about your numbers you've came up with. My point is that SOMEONE has to pay when they shouldn't have to in the first place. So stop saying no one has to pay. If no one had to pay to host their own server,public or private, then I would agree with you. However, since SOMEONE has to pay it is what it is. Just because you aren't paying doesn't mean anything. You're just using it as an excuse. Great don't play, but I would hate to see people get charged for hosting a game in the future. Oh wait because you aren't paying for it you clearly don't care. It's just the small 3% right? Congrats for defending EA again. Keep it up they love you. By they I mean EA DICE and the fanboys here.

Lets say the worst senerio happens tomorrow, and all players stop renting servers. First thing that will happen, the limited number of Dice servers will be full. Players will have no where to play because there is no capacity. So Dice would have to make a decision. Start using the servers they set aside to be rented by players, alienate their customer base and say "It you want to play, rent a server." or find someone else to "Sponsor" servers Lets look at each individually:

First of all this never happened in BC2 or previous BF titles during the peak[s] did it? Tons and tons of players and I haven't heard of people never being able to find a server\lobby in BC2? So what makes you think that would be the case in BF3. No one is getting alienated. There are no servers set aside to be rented. Their Official Servers that people can play on until it gets rented out. So for BF3 your worst case "scenario" is basically saying that what if DICE stops supporting it's game. Well if people stopped renting servers or EA DICE removed the Rent a Server option, which will never happen thanks to gamers as yourself, then they would have to put up new servers no matter what happens. They advertise the dedicated servers all of the time. They should support the game they have released and not leave it in the hands of people willing to pay and help ruined the BF experience\gameplay. I still find it funny how the community had to complain in order to get EA DICE to support the game with official servers again. There was a huge cry.....a huge cry about official servers.
---
NEW Video Game Remakes Uploaded
http://www.youtube.com/user/sknocturnal
sknmak

May 24, 2012 5:34 am GMT
(It you want to play, rent a server) Let's say they took the hard line, and said this. I can honestly see this happening. But not while the game is popular. When the game starts to wain, like BC2, to save on costs. Because there isn't a big fan base anymore, I can see a pay to play option for games that have run their course. But to do this with a game in it's prime would only hurt future sales. You can't leverage short term gain against long term growth. They make more money in game sales than in renting the servers.

I get what you are trying to say, but there are other games that allow this for free as well. If BF3 dies aka the fanbase moves on to the next best thing, which will be sooner than you think, you are saying that people should be able to rent a server after the fact. Well here's a fact for you.....once EA gives the word the servers are going down. Once the rent a server revenue drops to the point to the point that EA is losing money and the fanbase drops EA will shut the servers down as they do with other games normally. There's no telling when this will happen, but at some point they will stop supporting the game as we all know. So all of those people buying server should plan on sticking around. Once the core fanboy fanbase is gone then what? I'm guessing EA DICE is depending on them to stick around well after the game...LMAO I'm being sarcastic....we all know EA just want's that money. How long do you think BF3 will be active? Seriously?
--------

EA really has some nerve to charge gamers to host in a game that is clearly still in development. You guys really must love the game to defend it like this. This beta was way longer than I expected [sarcasm just joking so calm down]. I feel that EA should've fixed the game first, added a filter for Rent a server\custom matches aside from the Official Servers. Well they still haven't fixed some well known issues.....Official servers dropped off the list for awhile and will again.....I don't have faith in EA DICE development team anymore. It appears that when they attempt to fix the simplest things they go overboard and mess up other things.
---
Forum is now up and running.
http://gamingpyro.omgforum.net/
---
Forum is now up and running.
http://gamingpyro.omgforum.net/
specialkid8

May 24, 2012 5:41 am GMT
sknmak posted...

Keep thinking that because I'm clearly not. I've been criticizing BF since the casual updates to Bad Company 2. At least they kept the BF experience\atmosphere in that game. Not os much in BF3. I love[d] the franchise, but now I despise it. Didn't know that "Going beyond the Call" would be like this. Yes I played BF and other FPS such as Timesplitters, CoD, Perfect Dark, Halo, Goldeneye, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, Biosock etc. So I'm clearly not a fanboy for one franchise. EA DICE has to make the game more casual for sales. I understand that, but this is just sad. Keep defending EA DICE if you read the beginning of the topic there were already people warning everyone about the fanboys that would defend EA's latest actions. Thanks for proving that. I can no longer defend EA DICE any longer. They were voted the worst company for a reason.

You are a huge BC2 fanboy. I didn't even know it was possibl to be a fanboy of one game in a series but you pulled it off. Stop denying it. You can play different games and still be a fanboy, so posting all the other games you've played doesn't mean anything. Firstly, BC2 did not have the Battlefield feeling at all. It was the beginning of EA's treachery. They added small maps, regenerating health,chopped down classes, and ******* PERKS! Does that not sound familiar? BC2 was made for the specific purpose of grabbing bandwagon jumpers. Secondly, stop talking about that patch. IT DID NOTHING. I don't know what casual stuff you seem to think it added or how a simple patch could completely change the feeling and design of a game but, well, it didn't. Stop pretending that BC2 was any different than Battlefield 3 is this regard. Please stop saying EA DICE like that's a thing. EA DICE, or DICE as his friends call, him did not casualize the game and was not voted the worst company. That is EA. Stop clumping them together or confusing them because they are not the same thing.
sknmak

May 24, 2012 7:15 am GMT
You are a huge BC2 fanboy. I didn't even know it was possibl to be a fanboy of one game in a series but you pulled it off. Stop denying it. You can play different games and still be a fanboy, so posting all the other games you've played doesn't mean anything. Firstly, BC2 did not have the Battlefield feeling at all. It was the beginning of EA's treachery. They added small maps, regenerating health,chopped down classes, and ******* PERKS! Does that not sound familiar? BC2 was made for the specific purpose of grabbing bandwagon jumpers. Secondly, stop talking about that patch. IT DID NOTHING. I don't know what casual stuff you seem to think it added or how a simple patch could completely change the feeling and design of a game but, well, it didn't. Stop pretending that BC2 was any different than Battlefield 3 is this regard. Please stop saying EA DICE like that's a thing. EA DICE, or DICE as his friends call, him did not casualize the game and was not voted the worst company. That is EA. Stop clumping them together or confusing them because they are not the same thing.
Wrong guess again. I am a huge BF fan. Loved the series up until the constant updates and money grubbing practices. As I said I played other FPS as well, but BF was it[s own game. Now BF3 feels like another game....dare I say it feels more Call of Duty'ish. I've put many hours into BC2, BC, BF2, BF 1942+1943, BF: Vietnam and I've played TON of the expansions\booster packs. I've also played all of the CoD games except MW3. BF was the clear winner among recent military FPS, but I'm sad to see the series take a casual route. I was worried about the BC spin offs, but overall they stayed more competitive than the competing games like CoD and Gow etc. Now I wish Bad Company spin off was a console game and the original BF titles stayed on the PC. There's not going back now.

Also stop saying the patch did nothing since you clearly didn't play the game on hardcore and clearly did NOT play the game prior to the patch kid. That patch is equivalent to what EA DICE has done to BF3. So stop saying things you obviously have no idea about.

Also I see you want to ignore my proof that DICE is 100% owned and is a part if EA? Everyone knows that DICE is no longer DICE......we all know that DICE is EA even if you leave the EA off of DICE......I mean damn you really must be a kid or just started playing DICE whooopps EA DICE video games.

Ok I will post the proof for you again:

EA's acquisitionIn

November 2004, Electronic Arts announced their intent to purchase all outstanding shares in Digital Illusions CE at a price of kr61 per share. The board of directors of Digital Illusions CE recommended that the company's shareholders accept the offer. Electronic Arts owned 62% of Digital Illusions CE on March 31, 2005.

On October 2, 2006, EA completed the acquisition for kr67.75 per share for 2.6 million shares, for a total of kr175.5 million. Digital Illusions CE was renamed EA Digital Illusions CE,[6] and CEO Patrick Söderlund became an EA Studio General Manager.[7] DICE Canada, which at the time was being run by DICE co-founder Fredrik Liliegren, was closed down immediately upon acquisition.[8]

EA also owns and operates major gaming studios in Tiburon in Orlando, Burnaby, Vancouver, Montreal and DICE in Sweden.

SOURCE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA_Digital_Illusions_CE#EA.27s_acquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Arts

http://kotaku.com/204605/ea-buys-dice
http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-rolls-dice-for-23-million-6159171

Just do a little google.....it will save you the embarrassment. You clearly know nothing you are talking about, I'm glad others have noticed this in this topic and other topics. You have blatant proof and still ignored it. Keep trying you humor me.
---
Forum is now up and running.
http://gamingpyro.omgforum.net/