DICE nearly as bad as IW ?? :(

SeantheMan

When I heard DICE were doing Battlefield BC2 and announced they would support dedi servers in light of the IW crap (MW2), I was delighted.

But now they've gone and put their own twist on it....dissappointed to say the least. Forcing us to RENT from them, instead of being able to create your own (providing you have a dedi box).

I wonder if the case will now be the same for the release of MOH, which DICE are doing the multiplayer for

DICE has told Eurogamer there is "no profit" made from forcing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 players to rent dedicated servers instead of building their own.

Producer Gordon Van Dyke said files the community needs to build dedicated servers are being withheld in order to "protect the game's integrity on PC".

"This does not earn DICE a profit," BFBC2 Van Dyke told us. "But we will see where the game goes and support it post launch."

Right now the only way to host a private dedicated server is by renting from one of DICE's authorised hosts. These, Van Dyke added, have already been picked in "all major regions of the world".

This is a first for the Battlefield series, as Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 both supported community members building and hosting their own dedicated servers.

DICE had made much of Battlefield: Bad Company 2's dedicated server support after Infinity Ward decided to go peer-to-peer with Modern Warfare 2 on PC.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 goes into PC beta testing later this month, starting 28th January and ending 25th February.

The full game's out on 5th March

Source : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dice-not-profiting-on-bfc2-server-rental

Burgo

No console for PC version of Bad Company 2

By James Cottee - Fri Jan 15, 2010 12:27pm


DICE developer Johan Anderson has shaken the world of Battlefield fandom to its very core by posting two simple words to his Twitter:

"No console"

With these words Mr. Anderson confirmed that there would be no developer console in Battlefield: Bad Company 2, thus ensuring that PC gamers will have drastically fewer options for game tweaking and customisation than they are accustomed to.

This news sparked a thread full of colourful comments at the official Battlefield forums, and a clarification from Mr. Anderson:

"We have not removed a console from BC2. The simple reason is that BC1 and BC2 never have had an in-game console. Which also means that the game won't be possible to hack in this regard."

source : http://twitter.com/repi/status/7759212810

Atlas_IRL

SeantheMan wrote: »

When I heard DICE were doing Battlefield BC2 and announced they would support dedi servers in light of the IW crap (MW2), I was delighted.

But now they've gone and put their own twist on it....dissappointed to say the least. Forcing us to RENT from them, instead of being able to create your own (providing you have a dedi box).

I wonder if the case will now be the same for the release of MOH, which DICE are doing the multiplayer for





Source : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dice-not-profiting-on-bfc2-server-rental

Still better news than that shower of

*****

over at IW. Cant wait for this game. Can regular players get in on the beta testing??

Burgo wrote: »

source : http://twitter.com/repi/status/7759212810

never really tweaked BF with the console so i dont mind this.

Cant wait for this, BF2 is still the king imo hopefully this will be similiar.

Atlas_IRL

Beta details will be announced here http://www.battlefieldbadcompany2.com/#/home

L31mr0d

"protect the game's integrity on PC".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usMzaKHQamM

robby^5

PC gamers will find anything to piss and moan about, there's still going to be public and private servers so all that's changed is people wont be running crappy servers any more. This move provides for a certain level of quality for all servers across the board. I think it's entirely understandable for a game studio to want to ensure they have a smooth and standardised multi-player experience.

humanji

SeantheMan wrote: »

When I heard DICE were doing Battlefield BC2 and announced they would support dedi servers in light of the IW crap (MW2), I was delighted.

But now they've gone and put their own twist on it....dissappointed to say the least. Forcing us to RENT from them, instead of being able to create your own (providing you have a dedi box).

I wonder if the case will now be the same for the release of MOH, which DICE are doing the multiplayer for





Source : http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dice-not-profiting-on-bfc2-server-rental

I say it'll take all of 10 minutes to crack the game and have personal servers.

SeantheMan

robby^5 wrote: »

PC gamers will find anything to piss and moan about, there's still going to be public and private servers so all that's changed is people wont be running crappy servers any more. This move provides for a certain level of quality for all servers across the board. I think it's entirely understandable for a game studio to want to ensure they have a smooth and standardised multi-player experience.

This "level of quality" you talk about was never an issue in previous games. Due to there being a server browser which displayed Ping/Max Players/Map etc, people knew what they were getting into before joining a server.

It wasn't the case where I was automatically assigned to a server like MW2, or some fella running a Local game.

And no, its not just anything we will piss and moan about.

What about people in the circumstance such as myself, a paying member of a clan. We own our own dedicated box, and can therefore run as many instances (up to a point) of any game we like.

We had intended on creating 2 BF:BC2 servers upon release, but cannot do so now.
Well, unless we were to rent from DICE.
But given we pay in the area of £60-80 a month for a server I don't feel inclined to pay to rent from another company.

They were there for BF1942, BF:V, BF2, BF2142.

Is this going to be the future ? where developers align themselves with Game server providers and grant sole rights to them for their games ?

gizmo

SeantheMan wrote: »

This "level of quality" you talk about was never an issue in previous games. Due to there being a server browser which displayed Ping/Max Players/Map etc, people knew what they were getting into before joining a server.

And by previous games you mean Bad Company 1? The game that wasn't even on the PC? I think you're referring to regular Battlefield in which case you should be waiting for Battlefield 3 which is currently in development (big time) over there.

SeantheMan wrote: »

We had intended on creating 2 BF:BC2 servers upon release, but cannot do so now.
Well, unless we were to rent from DICE.
But given we pay in the area of £60-80 a month for a server I don't feel inclined to pay to rent from another company.

And by DICE you mean the companies in each country/region whom they decide to partner with in order to offer those boxes? If you're hardcore enough to be clanned up and own a dedi box then you're hardcore enough to move to a different company should the need arise.

SeantheMan

gizmo wrote: »

And by previous games you mean Bad Company 1? The game that wasn't even on the PC? I think you're referring to regular Battlefield in which case you should be waiting for Battlefield 3 which is currently in development (big time) over there..

Obviously Im not referring to BC1 as it was an xbox360 game.
I mentioned the previous Battlefield games in my post.
I was referring to any version of Battlefield, which came out on the PC, made by DICE. It would not have been difficult for them. They can already provide dedi servers, all they have to do is to release the server files publicly.

gizmo wrote: »

And by DICE you mean the companies in each country/region whom they decide to partner with in order to offer those boxes? If you're hardcore enough to be clanned up and own a dedi box then you're hardcore enough to move to a different company should the need arise

Owning a dedi box is quite a financial commitment, and I dont think is wise to move to a different company just because 1 game will not release its server files. Also, there has been no mention that they will release the server files to the companys who will be renting the specific BC2 servers.
So there could still be the possibility whereby you rent a whole box, from the company who rents the BC2 servers, but are not given access to the files.

I dont think its just this game that people should be worried about, but the implications it could have on all future games. DICE are making the multiplayer for the new Medal of Honor, can we expect the same situation with that, or with BF3 ?

SeantheMan

humanji wrote: »

I say it'll take all of 10 minutes to crack the game and have personal servers.

Fingers crossed

PogMoThoin

Modding tools and the public release of dedicated server files prolong the life of a game, people are still playing BF2 on their own servers 5 years later. By not having them, DICE have full control and can kill a game when they feel like it, just like EA have done on their sports games, some of which were only a year old (and are still available for sale).

Kinetic^

robby^5 wrote: »

PC gamers will find anything to piss and moan about.

Please read below.

SeantheMan wrote: »

Owning a dedi box is quite a financial commitment, and I dont think is wise to move to a different company just because 1 game will not release its server files.

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Modding tools and the public release of dedicated server files prolong the life of a game, people are still playing BF2 on their own servers 5 years later. By not having them, DICE have full control and can kill a game when they feel like it, just like EA have done on their sports games, some of which were only a year old (and are still available for sale).

Online PC gaming is being crippled by this behaviour from developers. You can be sure that there won't be any of these servers located in Ireland which is a joke.

thebman

People are missing the point. Read their license or wait for them to be released for the companies allowed to provide dedicated servers.

They won't profit from it initially but you can be sure these companies will have to renew their dedicated servers license each year and when the next version of the game comes out they will stop providing licenses to sell dedicated servers for the older version of the game.

Its in effect an EA move to be in control of dedicated servers but worse they want gamers to pay for the privilege of this lock in :-/

gizmo

SeantheMan wrote: »

Obviously Im not referring to BC1 as it was an xbox360 game.
I mentioned the previous Battlefield games in my post.
I was referring to any version of Battlefield, which came out on the PC, made by DICE. It would not have been difficult for them. They can already provide dedi servers, all they have to do is to release the server files publicly.

True, however they have outlined their reasoning for this and it is perfectly understandable. Look at MW2 for instance, while the game was cracked within a few days of launch, MP support is still incredibly flakey with only outdated versions of the game seemingly being playable on some servers. This move can thus been seen as a success in a business sense. I obviously sympathise with clan folk and LAN organisers given the difficulties this move brings however I feel even more sympathies for the developers who were seeing their games being pirated to hell with people playing online for long periods despite this constant assertion to the contrary.

SeantheMan wrote: »

Owning a dedi box is quite a financial commitment, and I dont think is wise to move to a different company just because 1 game will not release its server files. Also, there has been no mention that they will release the server files to the companys who will be renting the specific BC2 servers.
So there could still be the possibility whereby you rent a whole box, from the company who rents the BC2 servers, but are not given access to the files.

Couldn't agree more, I owned one myself for quite some time. The point is however, when I saw a better deal elsewhere, financially or technically speaking, I had no problem moving. Yes it's a pain but if you want the best setup then it's a necessary evil.

Regarding the releasing of the server files to the owners/renters of the box, well that's a little bit more complex. They're hardly going to not release the files to the public and then just hand them out to companys so renters can get them via those channels. How they approach this issue I don't know unfortunately.

SeantheMan wrote: »

I dont think its just this game that people should be worried about, but the implications it could have on all future games. DICE are making the multiplayer for the new Medal of Honor, can we expect the same situation with that, or with BF3 ?

More than likely, yes. At the end of the day the publishers/developers are attempting to protect their properties and I can fully understand that. What we're seeing now is a shift in the MP paradigm and a lot of people are understandably upset with the direction being taken. That being said, I can see a scenario in the future where both the companies and the players will be happy. Unfortunately I have a feeling there's going to be a lot of moaning between now and then.

Oh and on a side note, with regards BF2 - weren't all ranked servers run via authorised sellers? And wasn't the general opinion that no one liked to play on non-ranked servers? So outside of the LAN party difficulties, what has really changed here?

Jazzy

super fukin duper. soon gaming on the pc will be just like xbox live. cant bloody wait

Jim

Pros for EA/DICE

- Gives them greater control over their product
- Prevents piracy which means more profit
- Makes controlling of DLC / Extra content better so more profit

Cons for EA/DICE

- Pisses the community off which may result in slightly reduced sales (or perhaps not)


Pros for Players

- ?

Cons for Players

- Cannot guarantee location or settings of server you are renting. Especially bad if, as Kinetic said, there are no vendors located in Ireland. No Irish servers and slightly higher pings (remains to be seen)
- Will more than likely have to contact the vendor if you wish to change anything on your server which I imagine will come with a waiting period (remains to be seen)
- No modding community. Or at least a very strict and controlled community.
- Possibility that one day EA may decide to stop providing servers for the game, so the game dies when EA says it does.
- Difficultly for clans or groups who have already invested in a server of their own for games

This is how I see it. If anyone has anything further please add.

Personally I believe this is a bad thing. Regarding the modding community, if they aren't going to release the server files I don't see how the game will be modifiable. This means no Counter Strike, no Day of Defeat, No Desert Combat etc.

Regarding servers and clans, what if a clan isn't "hardcore" but just wants to play for fun. So they get a server a run a bunch of games on it. Now they have to spend extra money on a vendored server they don't have full control over. I imagine the majority of them will want to keep their original server so they can run other games when they want, Teamspeak, website etc. Extra cost and extra burden on them.

While I agree the best thing is for a company to have greater control over its product and prevent piracy etc its a shame that they have to harm the community in order to do so. But money is king I suppose.

When EA decide to pull the plug on the game is very important as well. I still play 1942 and BF:V quite a lot. Would I still be able to play it now if this system was in place on those games?

Regarding BF2 ranked servers they weren't given out via authorised resellers. Iirc you applied to EA to run a dedicated server and they either approved or denied you based on server specs and some other stuffs. TiG had a dedicated server in Dublin and at least one Irish clan had one I think. If there are no vendors in Ireland then Irish clans are going to be pretty screwed. Server choice in a match was very important with one game usually played "home" and one "away" to decrease the possibility of ping advantage. Not possible now.

Cuddlesworth

I wonder if DICE are looking at how MW2 is being ripped apart on all formats and wondering if its such a good idea to piss off the community at large.

Kiith

I'm mostly pissed about how developers seem to be looking for ways to kill the modding community. Its one of the main attractions of pc gaming, but no, they arent making a profit from it, so why should we be allowed to do it.

Jim wrote: »

Pros for EA/DICE
- Prevents piracy which means more profit

If this takes more then a day to crack and play on illegal servers, i'll personally pay for a dedicated server in Ireland for us all to play on.

And i know thats part of the problem.

Sucks to be us i guess

gizmo

Jim wrote: »

Pros for Players
- No chance of ****ty home servers popping up where lag is a major problem

Jim wrote: »

Cons for Players

- Cannot guarantee location or settings of server you are renting. Especially bad if, as Kinetic said, there are no vendors located in Ireland. No Irish servers and slightly higher pings (remains to be seen)

The former is incorrect as you will be going through the GSPs themselves, not DICE to rent, therefore you'll know exactly where your server is.

Nothing has been confirmed regarding server-side settings yet either.

Jim wrote: »

- Will more than likely have to contact the vendor if you wish to change anything on your server which I imagine will come with a waiting period (remains to be seen)

While I know you've labeled this "remains to be seen" it may be better to hold off the potential rabbling until we know the real story.

Jim wrote: »

- No modding community. Or at least a very strict and controlled community.

Unfortunately true.

Jim wrote: »

- Possibility that one day EA may decide to stop providing servers for the game, so the game dies when EA says it does.

I'd be quite surprised if they didn't release the server files at this stage. They're not stupid tbh, they know the old BF are played and will be eager to keep some form of community going.

Jim wrote: »

- Difficultly for clans or groups who have already invested in a server of their own for games

True, however as I said above, if they're serious about this kind of stuff it shouldn't be that big a deal. Sure it's an inconvenience and possibly a pain in the arse if they're in the middle of current contracts but it's still not a deal breaker imo.

Ta for the info regarding the ranked servers by the way, the only difference I can see now is the pain in having to go through a specific GSP and the possibility that none will be available in Ireland.

Jazzy

'microtransactions'

thats the word that will suck good games and original ideas down the sh1t hole. if music got real bad real fast, so too can games

Jim

gizmo wrote: »

The former is incorrect as you will be going through the GSPs themselves, not DICE to rent, therefore you'll know exactly where your server is.

I wasn't saying people wont know where the servers are, but the locations they will be will surely be limited, thus limiting further how good your connection can be.

****ty home servers? Never ever been a problem. If you find them, then don't play on them.

robby^5

Kinetic^ wrote: »

Please read below.

I'll consider it, thanks.

gizmo wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, I owned one myself for quite some time. The point is however, when I saw a better deal elsewhere, financially or technically speaking, I had no problem moving. Yes it's a pain but if you want the best setup then it's a necessary evil.

See this? This makes sense.

People who want to play this game who currently rent will just have to put up with the initial hassle of moving providers if they really want to run their own server, but I admit it can be an inconvenience for some but a minor one all the same. I was part of a cod4 clan and we moved providers a few times, twice for a cheaper deal and once due to sponsorship and it wasn't the end of the world just a little disruption to our regular games.

As for people who own a dedicated box, well it must have a use as it is? Well then keep doing what you're doing, ignore the Bad Company franchise and wait for BF3. BFBC2 has nothing to live up to on PC, it's a console franchise. We should be happy DICE have given us something to play with and didn't just stick with the money-making option of developing for 360 only because that's where they'll be making their shed loads of cash so that they can keep expanding and keep producing so many games.

If BF3 comes along with the same server set-up, well then adapt or die.

Landa2

Coming in a little late on this but, on the whole leasing of servers from DICE and not running your ovn dedi's. I think its pretty safe to say that this wont be anything like the cost of renting a whole new server. You will be renting an instance of the game on a server that you will probably have little to no access to. How DICE will go about this is anyones guess, but you wont be renting a server in the physical sense.

That is my assumption,

hooradiation

Kiith wrote: »

I'm mostly pissed about how developers seem to be looking for ways to kill the modding community. Its one of the main attractions of pc gaming, but no, they arent making a profit from it, so why should we be allowed to do it.

It's a fair question, why should you?

SeantheMan

Most mods don't become financial successes, and are usually not intended to be made for profit.
Its for a love of the game and to make improvements and adjustments that the modder and the community see neccessary and fun to improve and lengthen the enjoyment and lifespan of a game

IF the mod becomes so successful, that it becomes a viable option to market it, then it should be allowed and applauded.

1. It shows a great product has been made
2. The original IP has already been payed for..so the company is getting its money anyways
3. It increases the logetivity and diversity of the game, making it a more attractive buy, which is good for the original creators as the original game has to be bought first.
4. It brings new talent to light that can hopefully go on an make better games

Look at Counter Strike, and Garrys Mod, or Red Orchestra.


I think they are reasons enough for people to be allowed to profit. The time and effort which were put into these deserve reward.

hooradiation

SeantheMan wrote: »

Most mods don't become financial successes, and are usually not intended to be made for profit.
Its for a love of the game and to make improvements and adjustments that the modder and the community see neccessary and fun to improve and lengthen the enjoyment and lifespan of a game

IF the mod becomes so successful, that it becomes a viable option to market it, then it should be allowed and applauded.

1. It shows a great product has been made
2. The original IP has already been payed for..so the company is getting its money anyways
3. It increases the logetivity and diversity of the game, making it a more attractive buy, which is good for the original creators as the original game has to be bought first.
4. It brings new talent to light that can hopefully go on an make better games

Look at Counter Strike, and Garrys Mod, or Red Orchestra.


I think they are reasons enough for people to be allowed to profit. The time and effort which were put into these deserve reward.

Let me be clearer, what obligation does any company have to allow it's game to be modded?

I'm not disagreeing that above might hold true in a very small percentage of cases, but I'm wondering why some people feel they are automatically entitled to these things?

BeansBeans

Maybe because its generally been an accepted practice.

Also isnt the whole open source why the platform thrived in the first place?

Yarnhall

Meh, they can do what they want with BC2, they better not **** up BF3.

Chorcai

This whole thing stems from a point/rank system, which in turn created all this mess. Remove the rank-up/point based system of unlocking guns etc.