Top Questions Regarding the Battlefield 1 Rental Server Program

PBS-powerbits01

SteadyFlow wrote: »

The ever eternal struggle between profits and doing what's right !

All these publishers are the same - u should hear what COD players say about Activision !

tell us

-S-Lumi_Tte

Got a full refund - will think about maybe buying a standard edition with my 15% discount coupon if there are servers in South Africa. Thanks for being so open and honest EA

RevFX-Himsa

So for example as of currently with the servers getting DDOSed. What is going to happen when the servers get DDOSed and since all of the servers are hosted by EA a lot of them will go down..... So what DDOS protection will we have and what compensation will we get when the DDOS cannot be stopped.

Axlerod1

apparently none.

iT_Terkoz

Well it seems there is a second update to the server rental options. There is too much there to read right now. I'll set aside a day or two during the week to catch up on it.

-Q-DoePa

Terkoz wrote: »

Well it seems there is a second update to the server rental options. There is too much there to read right now. I'll set aside a day or two during the week to catch up on it.

Yip - they will have to slow the flow of information down big time - we cannot keep up!

-Q-DoePa

I think i will rent a server just so that i can enable and disable fog. Always wanted to predict the weather - this is going to be SO much fun!

Spiderco4

Will RSP be available in South Africa? @Braddock512.

S1ngular1ty

Spiderco4 wrote: »

Will RSP be available in South Africa? @Braddock512.

You can only rent from EA and they haven't said if they will have servers in South Africa.

StangV2_0

@Braddock512 please pass this onto the Authorities.

Here is a thought..

If EA are really serious about using their own servers, and it appears they are.. why not allow the community to choose?

Allow 3rd party servers AND their own servers. At least let the players get a feel for which they prefer. This would also give us a solid idea (and EA) as to what the benefits are of each.

I feel its a big risk to just jump from one option to another overnight.

EA claim to have gone this route in an attempt to offer a better multiplayer experience yet this is not happening. Players are getting annoyed with the high ping while the non high ping players are not enjoying their servers being filled up with laggers. And many are simply not buying the game because they have no guarantee of local servers.

Allow us to choose. Let us have a choice between an EA server and 3rd party. Come the next BF title we would all know which is the better route.

Pahkiller

StangV2_0 wrote: »

@Braddock512 please pass this onto the Authorities.

Here is a thought..

If EA are really serious about using their own servers, and it appears they are.. why not allow the community to choose?

Allow 3rd party servers AND their own servers. At least let the players get a feel for which they prefer. This would also give us a solid idea (and EA) as to what the benefits are of each.

I feel its a big risk to just jump from one option to another overnight.

EA claim to have gone this route in an attempt to offer a better multiplayer experience yet this is not happening. Players are getting annoyed with the high ping while the non high ping players are not enjoying their servers being filled up with laggers. And many are simply not buying the game because they have no guarantee of local servers.

Allow us to choose. Let us have a choice between an EA server and 3rd party. Come the next BF title we would all know which is the better route.

Oh well EA servers have been down all day today..... not surprised though

kL-SnAjP

i am sure that in "rent your EA server" EULA gonna be something like "we have 24hours to solve your ticket"

MagmaDawg

Rev0verDrive wrote: »

dwysywd wrote: »

ElStryfe wrote: »

An old saying comes to mind about DICE and server rentals.. If it ain't broke, why fix it? The rental system we had since 1942 worked just fine. Why re-invent the wheel to further profits? EA already makes a good chunk of the money from RSPs. So, why change a system that is proven to work for countless years.

To make even more money!

Servers cost 66% less than traditional GSP. I don't understand the crying.

---
Will we get 100% traditional features and control for that lower price + equally fast and responsive support as 3rd party hosting companies? I bet most would still pay a higher price while retaining the freedom, features and controls/settings that you currently have/had with past BF titles.

.

I fully understand the crying.

kL-SnAjP

so at this point the discussion about bringing clasical GSP back is underway. The catch is that if they allow em in those regions missing cloud services, they would have to allow em everywhere else aswell. But who would rent a server from EA than? And they have already gazilion servers from MS, i3D booked and preordered......

imho: from a bussiness pov, its much more logical to just refund every1 from the regions above

-Q-DoePa

kL-SnAjP wrote: »

imho: from a bussiness pov, its much more logical to just refund every1 from the regions above

100%. Apart from logical thing to do, that would be the ethical thing to do.

If they are not going to offer servers in South Africa, they should man-up and say so and offer us the option of a refund. I am sure our 150-200+ms pings are driving the low "pingers" nuts as well. Would be a pity to walk away from BF1, but such is life. They should not have then offered the game for sale in South Africa without a disclaimer, to begin with ...

RevFX-Himsa

MagmaDawg wrote: »

Rev0verDrive wrote: »

dwysywd wrote: »

ElStryfe wrote: »

An old saying comes to mind about DICE and server rentals.. If it ain't broke, why fix it? The rental system we had since 1942 worked just fine. Why re-invent the wheel to further profits? EA already makes a good chunk of the money from RSPs. So, why change a system that is proven to work for countless years.

To make even more money!

Servers cost 66% less than traditional GSP. I don't understand the crying.

---
Will we get 100% traditional features and control for that lower price + equally fast and responsive support as 3rd party hosting companies? I bet most would still pay a higher price while retaining the freedom, features and controls/settings that you currently have/had with past BF titles.

.

I fully understand the crying.

@Rev0verDrive Explain to me how wanting 3 servers- a 20 man Dom a 20 man Rush and a 20 man TDM should equal $120.00 per month compared to NFO @ around $90.00 for top quality. NFO Also has a less that 2 minute response time on their support.

dfk_7677

RevFX-Himsa wrote: »

@Rev0verDrive Explain to me how wanting 3 servers- a 20 man Dom a 20 man Rush and a 20 man TDM should equal $120.00 per month compared to NFO @ around $90.00 for top quality. NFO Also has a less that 2 minute response time on their support.

Unless they introduce a price per slot or fixed price per server + price per slot, it is totally unacceptable. There were many 10-12 slots servers for competitive 5v5 matches, is it logical for them to pay for a 64slot server?

SF_Poketz79

kL-SnAjP wrote: »

i am sure that in "rent your EA server" EULA gonna be something like "we have 24hours to solve your ticket"

To 'respond' to your ticket. Not solve

Rev0verDrive

RevFX-Himsa wrote: »

MagmaDawg wrote: »

Rev0verDrive wrote: »

dwysywd wrote: »

ElStryfe wrote: »

An old saying comes to mind about DICE and server rentals.. If it ain't broke, why fix it? The rental system we had since 1942 worked just fine. Why re-invent the wheel to further profits? EA already makes a good chunk of the money from RSPs. So, why change a system that is proven to work for countless years.

To make even more money!

Servers cost 66% less than traditional GSP. I don't understand the crying.

---
Will we get 100% traditional features and control for that lower price + equally fast and responsive support as 3rd party hosting companies? I bet most would still pay a higher price while retaining the freedom, features and controls/settings that you currently have/had with past BF titles.

.

I fully understand the crying.

@Rev0verDrive Explain to me how wanting 3 servers- a 20 man Dom a 20 man Rush and a 20 man TDM should equal $120.00 per month compared to NFO @ around $90.00 for top quality. NFO Also has a less that 2 minute response time on their support.

Well considering at NFO a 20 man server is $48.38 x 3 = $145.14 ... Redo your math based on 60Hz instead of 30Hz.

DirtyLittleGoat

dwysywd wrote: »

Rev0verDrive wrote: »

dwysywd wrote: »

ElStryfe wrote: »

An old saying comes to mind about DICE and server rentals.. If it ain't broke, why fix it? The rental system we had since 1942 worked just fine. Why re-invent the wheel to further profits? EA already makes a good chunk of the money from RSPs. So, why change a system that is proven to work for countless years.

To make even more money!

Servers cost 66% less than traditional GSP. I don't understand the crying.

66% less and still making money.

How's the customer service? How's the server stability? All questions to be answered upon release. Our experience with EA support would argue it will be less than stellar, but we'll soon know. Cheaper prices doesn't always equal a great product.

That 66% less figure does not even include the 3rd party services admins subscribe to and use, it also does not include the time involved configuring and populating a server for people to play on. I own at least two accounts I use to seed a server, all purchased at extra cost, they have DLC/premium. I pay for metabans, pbscreens and a procon layer on top of the server rental costs AND gaming clans donate or pay for 3rd party anti-cheat membership, like pbbans et al. I doubt, but remain open to, the idea that EA will be able to come close to the quality of servers currently run by admins in games like BFBC2, BF3, BF4, and Hardline.

@Braddock512 is in the awful position of being caught between a rock and a hardplace, between us and the EA marketing team. I suspect we will see a glorious 'infographic' detailing the server rental initiative before it is given to @Braddock512 to share with us.