BF1 Server Rental Review

«1
Ice0rb
3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
edited November 2016
Hi All,

I wanted to take a moment to write up a little review of sorts of the current state of RSP. I'm sure if anyone is reading this sub forum they're either A. also a customer already or B. want to know a little bit more about it before buying. Hopefully this serves as an unbiased look at what you're getting into.

Much like all of you I've been refreshing this sub forum nearly every day since it was opened in hopes of one day seeing a post that would detail who/how we could rent servers. I was hoping NFO would be listed among a few other old standby providers but as the release date came closer it became very obvious what was actually going to happen. The normal method we've all known for some time has been fully killed off and in game RSP has replaced it. This in and of itself isn't really a big deal provided that the same functionality was provided at launch however as of this typing its not. What we have at the moment is the ability to name the server, restart it (if its totally empty), set modes, set maps (up to 6 total), and change different rules.

You can set your server server to Hardcore or Fog of War however doing so will prevent you from being seen in the matchmaking pool so your server will likely not fill up if you do this. So with that you will likely not touch any rules so that you'll actually have people to play with. As far as in game admin controls go there are presently none outside of what I just detailed. Kick/Ban, player move, player balance, and a host of other features that normally would be there. I understand the desire to create an "even playing field" or trying to manage the experience so that everyone who plays gets the same experience across the board. In some cases I even like what is being billed here as nothing can ruin a game for you faster than being kicked for not following some esoteric ruleset that an admin put in place and flashed on the MOTD for half a second. It brings to mind the days of "no laming" and "bow before you duel" (Jedi Outcast days) and not following those rules would most definitely result in a ban despite the rules not being visible long enough to actually read.

But there are some very real and positive reasons for why you'd want the ability to kick, ban, and move a player. Cheating being one of the biggest reasons which you may not think is a big issue right now but I can say with some confidence it definitely is. Whether its the random hacker or just someone abusing various geometry glitches to gain an unfair advantage. (Clipping into the levels.) Or maybe its just a case of users being abusive to in game in the form of offensive chat. Now, this is an M rated game and harsh language is just going to be a thing people are going to have to be ok with. But people joining and just spouting crazy offensive and often times racist tirades for no other reason than to get a rise out of folks is just not something I like dealing with. The anonymity + the knowledge knowing that server operators can literally do nothing to stop them is creating a toxic environment.

All of this wouldn't really be that much of an issue if the cost wasn't so high. Now granted it is significantly cheaper than it would be if we were to use services like NFO and Gameservers. I paid for the maximum 180 day server rental which is currently going for $149.99. For that money you really don't get much outside of the ability to change the name of a server that may or may not fill up and you'll most likely find yourself using matchmaking anyway. All in all in its current state of RSP is such a poor value proposition and not recommendable to really anybody. I understand its very much a work in progress but then maybe they should have made RSP available as a free limited option until it was actually ready.

I sincerely hope that EA and DICE area actually reading these forums and seeing the concerns of their customers. I also hope improvements to how information is communicated to their customers are made as we shouldn't have to go digging through the developers Twitter profiles to get updates that the Community Manager should be making. Coming from a software development environment myself I understand how many hoops you have to jump through before you formally announce things to your customers but it makes everyone involved look very foolish when the developers themselves are just openly talking about it. But that's corporate for ya.

I'll close on this:

I can't recommend this program in its current state to anyone who was previously a server operator. The value proposition is just so poor and you gain very little from actually having a server compared to just running large groups and joining servers via matchmaking. And maybe that was the goal all along, who can say really. But I will continue to check this sub forum every week in hopes of seeing updates to RSP that improve it on all the points listed in this review. As a fan of DICE for many years and a person who has spent a lot of money running servers for DICE games over the years nothing would make me happier than to see this be turned around.

Comments

  • kruh-BF2142
    55 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    ✪✫✫✫✫
  • NetRngr
    567 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited November 2016
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    I understand the desire to create an "even playing field" or trying to manage the experience so that everyone who plays gets the same experience across the board. In some cases I even like what is being billed here as nothing can ruin a game for you faster than being kicked for not following some esoteric ruleset that an admin put in place and flashed on the MOTD for half a second.
    The problem with this logic is darn near every private server in BF4 was visible in the server browser when you filtered it to match your desires. Of these servers ones with weird custom rulesets had the basic rules in the server title as well as in the MOTD. Players were not generally banned outright for violating these rules they are at a minimum kicked one time prior to banning 99.9% of the times it takes multiple kicks and a message from an admin before a player was banned. Exactly how many warning does someone need before they have earned a ban? Usually these players who repeatedly flaunt the rulesets have launched into a tirade upon being kicked and not taken the time to look at what they were actually kicked for. I've been kicked many times for inadvertently breaking a rule on servers and EVERY time it was because I didn't notice something or flat out didn't take the time to read the rulesets. It's not incumbent on an admin to ensure that players read the posted rules. It is however necessary for players to ensure they do. I will simply say that it has NEVER ruined my experience. Just find a server that matches the gameplay you want. That said it is impossible to do that in BF1 as the server browser is totally and completely broken and will always list official servers over RSP servers and that is a gamebreaker.
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    But there are some very real and positive reasons for why you'd want the ability to kick, ban, and move a player. Cheating being one of the biggest reasons which you may not think is a big issue right now but I can say with some confidence it definitely is. Whether its the random hacker or just someone abusing various geometry glitches to gain an unfair advantage. (Clipping into the levels.) Or maybe its just a case of users being abusive to in game in the form of offensive chat. Now, this is an M rated game and harsh language is just going to be a thing people are going to have to be ok with. But people joining and just spouting crazy offensive and often times racist tirades for no other reason than to get a rise out of folks is just not something I like dealing with. The anonymity + the knowledge knowing that server operators can literally do nothing to stop them is creating a toxic environment.
    You are very correct in this statement but considering that none of the official servers are moderated and that DICE/EA have chosen to do away with half of the cheat protection that BF4 had cheats and hacks are rampant on their servers. Since there are no admin abilities you are stuck dealing with them and since the current cheat protection relies solely on stats and aberrations within them and no way looking for .dll injection as long as you keep the cheating to a minimum you should be good to go. I routinely see rounds where a player goes 70ish and 8 as a support. There is absolutely no way this is a 100% legal player. Its beyond obvious to the point of glaring yet nothing is done about it. THIS ruins the gaming experience of players. Not being able to deal with these types of players RUINS the gaming experiences of hundreds of players by the minute and the fact that DICE/EA could care less makes the statements about caring about a uniform play experience laughable. It seems as if DICE/EA's idea of a uniform experience is that everyone hates it and in this aspect I honestly feel they have succeeded.
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    All of this wouldn't really be that much of an issue if the cost wasn't so high. Now granted it is significantly cheaper than it would be if we were to use services like NFO and Gameservers. I paid for the maximum 180 day server rental which is currently going for $149.99. For that money you really don't get much outside of the ability to change the name of a server that may or may not fill up and you'll most likely find yourself using matchmaking anyway. All in all in its current state of RSP is such a poor value proposition and not recommendable to really anybody. I understand its very much a work in progress but then maybe they should have made RSP available as a free limited option until it was actually ready.
    Agreed which is why we have canceled both of our servers and requested a refund until they bring in at least the minimum required features.
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    I sincerely hope that EA and DICE area actually reading these forums and seeing the concerns of their customers. I also hope improvements to how information is communicated to their customers are made as we shouldn't have to go digging through the developers Twitter profiles to get updates that the Community Manager should be making. Coming from a software development environment myself I understand how many hoops you have to jump through before you formally announce things to your customers but it makes everyone involved look very foolish when the developers themselves are just openly talking about it. But that's corporate for ya.
    I don't have any issue with the communications aside from the fact that you have to go to Twitter/ Reddit to get any response from a developer/manager on these issues. These are the official forums. THIS is where communications with the player base should take place. Admins/ and Moderators should not have to go and search social media for answers to questions asked and posted on official platforms. Granted they have been much more forthcoming with information than any other developer I will say this is probably why people still actually do business with them but that tide is changing... rapidly.
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    I'll close on this:

    I can't recommend this program in its current state to anyone who was previously a server operator. The value proposition is just so poor and you gain very little from actually having a server compared to just running large groups and joining servers via matchmaking. And maybe that was the goal all along, who can say really. But I will continue to check this sub forum every week in hopes of seeing updates to RSP that improve it on all the points listed in this review. As a fan of DICE for many years and a person who has spent a lot of money running servers for DICE games over the years nothing would make me happier than to see this be turned around.

    I will say they have the opportunity to do some really great things here but from what I've seen this is a move to consolidate code bases and try and force all platforms on the same server architecture. The fact that they chose the worst one, ie the console RSP, to base it off of is disheartening. BF started its life as a PC title and it was that player base that built it into a commanding title. To now try and dumb it down to a console level is IMHO a very bad move. Do not get me wrong, I see the business side and being able to crank out stuff to push to all titles with one code base is cost and time efficient. What I do not see is the lack of forethought in this process. They would have to know that this would infuriate as significant portion of the audience. I honestly love the Battlefield franchise and enjoy BF1 the game but speaking from a clan/community standpoint I cant say I would recommend it to anyone based on what makes that community as strong as it is... the RSP. I truly hope DICE/EA get their heads wrapped around the fact that what has make BF such a strong performer is not the official servers. If this were the case there would not be people still buying BF4, which there are, and the clans that inhabit / own the custom servers would not be there continuing to push money into them.
    It honestly seems like DICE/EA are missing the boat on this one or they do not want a product that continues to generate new income years after its release. Without the controls Admins need there will be no continuing revenue stream nor will players be compelled to pick up new titles based on past performance. Honestly I will no longer pre-purchase any Battlefield titles but instead wait and see how the community reacts. I'm pretty sure this is now the general consensus among BF players and this is truly sad.
  • incapslap
    3513 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    In short, it is impossible to populate a server unless you have 50+ players on your friends list playing at the same time. So 0/10.
  • Max_Von_Knots
    7 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Maybe part of the best solution would be just to get rid of quick join for all servers.
  • Porthos1973
    65 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Maybe part of the best solution would be just to get rid of quick join for all servers.

    That or remove DICE servers from the browser completely. If they are the only one to get QM then there is no need for them in the browser.
  • TheNorthFIN
    765 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Here's another view of the current RSP: https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/5d3wmj/first_experience_with_renting_a_private_server/
    .
    I can't believe they are asking money for this.
  • Ice0rb
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited November 2016
    NetRngr wrote: »
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    I understand the desire to create an "even playing field" or trying to manage the experience so that everyone who plays gets the same experience across the board. In some cases I even like what is being billed here as nothing can ruin a game for you faster than being kicked for not following some esoteric ruleset that an admin put in place and flashed on the MOTD for half a second.
    The problem with this logic is darn near every private server in BF4 was visible in the server browser when you filtered it to match your desires. Of these servers ones with weird custom rulesets had the basic rules in the server title as well as in the MOTD. Players were not generally banned outright for violating these rules they are at a minimum kicked one time prior to banning 99.9% of the times it takes multiple kicks and a message from an admin before a player was banned. Exactly how many warning does someone need before they have earned a ban? Usually these players who repeatedly flaunt the rulesets have launched into a tirade upon being kicked and not taken the time to look at what they were actually kicked for. I've been kicked many times for inadvertently breaking a rule on servers and EVERY time it was because I didn't notice something or flat out didn't take the time to read the rulesets. It's not incumbent on an admin to ensure that players read the posted rules. It is however necessary for players to ensure they do. I will simply say that it has NEVER ruined my experience. Just find a server that matches the gameplay you want. That said it is impossible to do that in BF1 as the server browser is totally and completely broken and will always list official servers over RSP servers and that is a gamebreaker.

    I suppose to each their own in that regard.

    Personally I'm trying to maintain a fair and open mind with how they are handling RSP and I do definitely see the benefits to managing the experience so to speak.

    But without question I think we can say they aren't doing it well yet.
    Here's another view of the current RSP: https://www.reddit.com/r/battlefield_one/comments/5d3wmj/first_experience_with_renting_a_private_server/
    .
    I can't believe they are asking money for this.

    Without getting too much into "backseat developing" here I think the smarter approach would have either been to charge very little or just have it straight up be free as part of a beta program. Allow people to apply to be RSP testers and roll the program that way. I'm sure that would have created its own fair amount of drama with people being upset that they can't start building their community right now. But I think it's arguably a worse decision to release RSP in the state it's in now and actually charge such large sums of money for it. It's disingenuous to say "oh well you asked for private servers, here ya go!" and then not actually facilitate the tools to get players in those servers. I can think of a lot of things that 150 dollars can buy, but I instead gave it to DICE/EA as I wanted to provide a customized experience to my friends and my community.

    The reality is by the time they get around to announcing/releasing whatever it is they're working on for RSP most of the community I was attempting to build will have either moved on to something else or reverted back to BF4. And again, who can say, maybe that was the goal all along to just brush it under the rug and forget it.

    C'est La Vie.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    As the RSP evolves and more communities purchase servers, DICE will remove theirs. I say evolve, because the RSP is 100% new code. It's all being developed from the ground up from scratch. New features and functionality are being developed. There's a rather large list of features coming.

    Long term you need to realise that the RSP they are building now is what we'll use in future titles. So it is in their best interest to get this done correctly.
  • Ice0rb
    3 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    As the RSP evolves and more communities purchase servers, DICE will remove theirs. I say evolve, because the RSP is 100% new code. It's all being developed from the ground up from scratch. New features and functionality are being developed. There's a rather large list of features coming.

    Long term you need to realise that the RSP they are building now is what we'll use in future titles. So it is in their best interest to get this done correctly.

    RSP has been around since BF4.

    As in, the current method of renting directly from EA has been around since BF4. (Specifically consoles.) In that iteration of RSP we pretty much had everything one would need to properly admin a server. Features like kick, ban, vip lists, and multi admin support. You could also set more than 6 maps (!!) and mix/match any combination of maps modes you wanted. RSP is only a new thing to PC and while I definitely can't speak to how hard/easy it was to bring to this platform I can at least look back at what they had before and question why they weren't able to match at least THAT before releasing it on the masses.
  • AngelShadow-BHS
    11 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha Member
    listen to us EA - Dice
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    As the RSP evolves and more communities purchase servers, DICE will remove theirs. I say evolve, because the RSP is 100% new code. It's all being developed from the ground up from scratch. New features and functionality are being developed. There's a rather large list of features coming.

    Long term you need to realise that the RSP they are building now is what we'll use in future titles. So it is in their best interest to get this done correctly.

    RSP has been around since BF4.

    As in, the current method of renting directly from EA has been around since BF4. (Specifically consoles.) In that iteration of RSP we pretty much had everything one would need to properly admin a server. Features like kick, ban, vip lists, and multi admin support. You could also set more than 6 maps (!!) and mix/match any combination of maps modes you wanted. RSP is only a new thing to PC and while I definitely can't speak to how hard/easy it was to bring to this platform I can at least look back at what they had before and question why they weren't able to match at least THAT before releasing it on the masses.

    The RSP for console may have been around since BF4 or even 3. But it wasn't running on cloud instances. This is a completely new setup. I do agree there should've been a bit more features and functionality on release though. But at the same time I remember the community dropping buckets of salty tears and wanting "Servers Now". Well they/we got them in their current state. Versus waiting a bit longer for something useable.

    We will have a vastly more robust server setup in the near future. PC will get what it's use to plus more and console will be upgraded to PC standards.

    Right now EA is eating the cost for servers. It's hurting their bottom line. This is new. Every ranked title before had independent RSP's contracted to provide RSP branded official servers (aka Day Ones) and rentals. EA didn't pay for them. The community would buy up and replace those branded ones within weeks of launch. Take some solace in that the longer it takes them to get this right, the more money they are having to shell out.

  • WarCriminal_954
    636 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    wish some of us would have known. most of us who got screwed are the loyal, long-term fans that have rented servers for years. considering what we received in the past, I rushed out to purchase a server on day one. spent $149.99 for 180 days all to be disappointed massively in the end.

    I didn't pay $150 to put my name on it.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    wish some of us would have known. most of us who got screwed are the loyal, long-term fans that have rented servers for years. considering what we received in the past, I rushed out to purchase a server on day one. spent $149.99 for 180 days all to be disappointed massively in the end.

    I didn't pay $150 to put my name on it.

    Well you should've known it was going to be different. And at least waited for some renter feedback. I've been on here posting real info since May. That 1000+ post thread "Rentals and Settings" had 99.9% of the setup listed.
  • WarCriminal_954
    636 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    wish some of us would have known. most of us who got screwed are the loyal, long-term fans that have rented servers for years. considering what we received in the past, I rushed out to purchase a server on day one. spent $149.99 for 180 days all to be disappointed massively in the end.

    I didn't pay $150 to put my name on it.

    Well you should've known it was going to be different. And at least waited for some renter feedback. I've been on here posting real info since May. That 1000+ post thread "Rentals and Settings" had 99.9% of the setup listed.

    that thread was based mostly speculation. I chose to base my decision on past experience. thank you though.

  • NetRngr
    567 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Right now EA is eating the cost for servers. It's hurting their bottom line. This is new. Every ranked title before had independent RSP's contracted to provide RSP branded official servers (aka Day Ones) and rentals. EA didn't pay for them. The community would buy up and replace those branded ones within weeks of launch. Take some solace in that the longer it takes them to get this right, the more money they are having to shell out.
    EA is eating the cost of the Official servers. Every RSP server in existence has been paid for by a paying customer. They footed the bill on the hardware/cloud space but did not have to do that. Providers that hosted BF3 and BF4 servers were chomping at the bit to get the hosting business.
    EA/DICE decided that they didn't want a piece of that business they wanted it all. That's fine. Any blithering idiot can look and see why BF3 and BF4 still have active player bases years after release. It all revolves around the communities that play the game, and those communities all revolve around the hosted servers they rent.
    I find it hard to believe, since they hired a ProCon dev, that the had no idea we would want this level of control from the get go. It seems painfully honest that they did not plan on releasing an RSP till well after launch but felt pressure to do so and I find it equally hard to believe it was the player base that applied that pressure. More likely it was EA executives that saw the discontent and pressured them to release it early
    When Hardline had the first open beta the outcry as to the state of the game eventually forced EA to step back the release of the game to fix issues and while HL was not a really popular BF iteration it did result in a much better game and the population was on board with it.
    The key is communication and not releasing substandard products. BF1's launch was one of the better launches I've seen for a game. Yes there were a few bugs here and there but for the most part it was damn smooth. To release a by far substandard server rental program was a blockheaded move and to be fairly honest they should be ashamed of themselves. After that fiasco they then kill all traffic to any RSP server even if its set to DICE defaults. That well i just have no words on how crazy that is. Needless to say these last two things have driven a lot of the community away from BF1 at least for the time being.
    Look I get WHY they are doing certain things but honestly streamlining codebases, and making server architecture the same, while resource saving and time saving, will probably end up costing them more in the long run in future sales and or repeat sales when new products are released than will be made at this point. The RSP coding should have been run concurrently, com'on you KNOW they saw this coming down the pipe, in order to have the RSP in top form when the game launched or after a small delay. To have this dropped on us after a month and it be in the state it is only shows that they devoted very little resources and put in even less thought to a product that should produce far more revenue to them than game sales ever would.
  • Px-Progdogg
    442 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    As the RSP evolves and more communities purchase servers, DICE will remove theirs. I say evolve, because the RSP is 100% new code. It's all being developed from the ground up from scratch. New features and functionality are being developed. There's a rather large list of features coming.

    Long term you need to realise that the RSP they are building now is what we'll use in future titles. So it is in their best interest to get this done correctly.

    RSP has been around since BF4.

    RSP is only a new thing to PC and while I definitely can't speak to how hard/easy it was to bring to this platform I can at least look back at what they had before and question why they weren't able to match at least THAT before releasing it on the masses.

    Think you have that the wrong way around there pal. RSP has been on PC for over a decade. Consoles have always had a watered down version of RSP. I agree it should at least have what console had on release.

    I think the problem we are facing now is everything is directly built into the game UI, that likely requires (as @Rev0verDrive said) a whole new code base. It was a disappointing release I will not continue to pay for. The game is now stale without a robust and feature rich RSP system that previous BF titles have had with Procon. This may well change as they build RSP and I really hope it turns into what Ali Hasoon says it will. A better player experience than previous titles. For now, it couldn't be further away from that.
  • Tr3adst3r
    121 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member

    We will have a vastly more robust server setup in the near future. PC will get what it's use to plus more and console will be upgraded to PC standards.

    I am not seeing this happening "soon". They broke quick match to dice flavored Clan Servers. It would have taken 30 secs of testing to find that out. Releasing patches without testing is mind boggling and while I believe it was an oversight it demonstrated that the guy holding the reigns on the the roll out is clearly outta of his depth. So near future for me is a crap shoot.
  • Remiflop
    72 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited November 2016
    As the RSP evolves and more communities purchase servers, DICE will remove theirs. I say evolve, because the RSP is 100% new code. It's all being developed from the ground up from scratch. New features and functionality are being developed. There's a rather large list of features coming.

    Long term you need to realise that the RSP they are building now is what we'll use in future titles. So it is in their best interest to get this done correctly.

    At least it won't be better than anything that's been made before. DICE assured us of that with this backwards patching system - server updates requires client updates. Don't you remember the huge amount of server updates in the first 2 months of release for BF3/BF4?

    I get it that you are keeping some sort of optimism / hope. But what happens with the next patch - client might work perfectly, but maybe some more server bugs? This system is insanely time consuming and guarantees bad feedback. And server owners don't get any love, it is either keep the server or refund it. No special treatment (why not give a free week / couple days?) that a lot of us were used too from the RSPs in BF3 and BF4. It might be a luxury, but it is a damn good way on keeping customers and keeping them happy.
  • Pitbruiser
    136 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Ice0rb wrote: »
    As the RSP evolves and more communities purchase servers, DICE will remove theirs. I say evolve, because the RSP is 100% new code. It's all being developed from the ground up from scratch. New features and functionality are being developed. There's a rather large list of features coming.

    Long term you need to realise that the RSP they are building now is what we'll use in future titles. So it is in their best interest to get this done correctly.

    RSP has been around since BF4.

    RSP is only a new thing to PC and while I definitely can't speak to how hard/easy it was to bring to this platform I can at least look back at what they had before and question why they weren't able to match at least THAT before releasing it on the masses.

    Think you have that the wrong way around there pal. RSP has been on PC for over a decade. Consoles have always had a watered down version of RSP. I agree it should at least have what console had on release.

    I think the problem we are facing now is everything is directly built into the game UI, that likely requires (as @Rev0verDrive said) a whole new code base. It was a disappointing release I will not continue to pay for. The game is now stale without a robust and feature rich RSP system that previous BF titles have had with Procon. This may well change as they build RSP and I really hope it turns into what Ali Hasoon says it will. A better player experience than previous titles. For now, it couldn't be further away from that.

    +1

    I've only played multiplayer for three days and now feel BF1 is an INFERIOR product as compared to BF4.

    I bought BF1 at 30% discount and now feel I've been ripped off.

    I am boycotting RSP until DICE sorts out their mess. I urge others to do the same!
  • Rev0verDrive
    6722 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited November 2016
    I hear you guys and I understand. The RSP as it currently sits is crap from a consumer's perspective. As a developer I would never and have never released a product in that functional state.

    I really do think the initial approach was going to be 3rd party providers and at a late stage decided to go cloud based. It's the only thing that makes sense from a dev standpoint for the late rollout and such little code base, features, and functionality. It all feels so last minute. I know you can't code for an environment until that environment is known and solidified. Stability/Build of the server architecture in itself could've been the holdup. /shrug ... whoTF knows!?!?!?!

    I do know what we want in features are coming and then some. When? I haven't been able to dig that info up. But, I'm just as agitated with the "soon™" statements as everyone else.

    @NetRngr
    As for costs BC2 through BF4 were exclusively Ranked Titles (consumers cannot access server files). GSP's were contracted by EA to provide "Day One Branded Servers" and provide rentals for the consumer base. Only contracted GSP's could provide these servers. Each GSP was required by contract to host X number of servers until the consumer base rented a percentage of the set share. Once that percentage threshold was met they were allowed to retire a branded server for each new rental they acquired. Also according to some GSP's they were required to pay a license fee to EA for each slot rented. The costs were from $0.35 to $0.37 per slot (e.g. 10 slot fee up to $3.70 per month).

    EA/DICE never paid a nickel for a server under the Ranked Title format. Prior to the exclusive ranked title program EA paid for a limited number of servers for the first month or so.

    BF1942 and BF Vietnam shipped with dedicated server files as part of the retail game copy. This included a server management utility (rcon). You could host locally or rent a server and install the files yourself manually.... old school.

    kW1VF8p.jpg

    BF2 and BF2142 offered dedicated server files in a downloadable package. They also contracted with GSP's to provide "Ranked" servers. Yet anyone could download the server files and setup a localhost server or manually set one up with a rented server.

    Now every single official DICE - EA branded server in BF1 is paid for by EA. The entire cost.
This discussion has been closed.