BFV dedicated servers

Comments

  • TheSacar
    1005 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member

    Or the game could just have well rounded servers.

    I say, keep community servers unranked. If players want a official meatgrinder mode - give it to them as a matchmaking option or as an event.

    To me it seems like you are just saying "I don't like that way of playing, so noone shuld be allowed to play that way!"
    .
    If "well rounded servers" is meant to mean servers that everybody likes, then there is no such thing.
    That's like saying it would be fine if everbody were forced to eat seafood, so long as the seafood is cooked well. Fact is, not everybody likes seafood.
    You didn't like the map rotations before. If I just call them "well rounded" does that mean that you are fine with them? Doubtful.
    .
    Also, what does it matter to you if commnities servers are ranked or not? Rank is basically just an expression of the time you have played Battlefield. You play long enough, no matter how inefficient you play, eventually you will hit max rank.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    TheSacar wrote: »

    Yeah, server admins would tell me that too. For whatever reason, 90% of players flocked to Noshar Canals, and so having a proper server would be tough to keep alive. Call me selfish, but if those players don't have Noshar-only servers to go to, then they have no choice but to join servers with good map rotations.

    That really is incredibly selfish. Because you could not find a server with the map rotation you wanted, you now want to basically force everyone to play like you want to. The reason the map rotations existed like they did is that people liked them. Now you basically want everybody to feel like you did back then and be unable to play the map rotations they want.
    You do realize that a) these people paid good money to host their server and it was just fair that they could set it up like they liked and b) nothing ever stopped you from renting a server and setting it up like you wanted.
    A good RSP strategy would make everybody happy. Those who want to play on community servers can do so and if EA has enough official servers, you might find one with your favorite rotation.

    Or the game could just have well rounded servers.

    I say, keep community servers unranked. If players want a official meatgrinder mode - give it to them as a matchmaking option or as an event.

    If you force every player to play 5 games in a row of maps and modes he don't enjoy he will find another game to play.

    Exactly. That applies to any player, which makes it difficult to know what the best solution would even be.

    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.
  • PvtJohnTowle
    1021 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    A tweet from @dan_mitre ...
    ""In a couple of weeks (give or take) you'll get a close look at Maps and Multiplayer features. Community Tools like RSP, Platoons, Squad comms, etc. are things we need to get into more - we're discussing how to do so and at what level we can detail them out."




    Yeah, "SOON™"

    Like Platoons still in Beta after 2 years.

    He didn’t say soon he said in a couple of weeks. What is so hard to understand about that?
  • Reverend-1313
    178 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    CrashCA wrote: »
    A tweet from @dan_mitre ...
    ""In a couple of weeks (give or take) you'll get a close look at Maps and Multiplayer features. Community Tools like RSP, Platoons, Squad comms, etc. are things we need to get into more - we're discussing how to do so and at what level we can detail them out."




    Yeah, "SOON™"

    Like Platoons still in Beta after 2 years.

    He didn’t say soon he said in a couple of weeks. What is so hard to understand about that?

    Please see the last 1-2 years of history around this situation. Those posts can be found stickied in the RSP forums and i believe mentioned numerous times in this thread as well. If you are going to call someone out try and educate yourself about the situation. If you believe anything EA/Dice says at this point.... as the saying goes "i've got a bridge to sell you".
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.

    You can if the game is what those players want.

    If BF1 had rentals at release, and robust config/admin, and they were easily found in the browser there would've been more conversion.

    Admins don't need procon, but they do need the essentials.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.

    You can if the game is what those players want.

    If BF1 had rentals at release, and robust config/admin, and they were easily found in the browser there would've been more conversion.

    Admins don't need procon, but they do need the essentials.

    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which begs the question - why did Dice feel the need to pull the plug on their servers?
  • Ferdinand_J_Foch
    3410 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    This is a fair point, but it kind of sucks when you want to play a map in a BF game, years after it's release, and no one wants to play it. I seriously can't find any servers running just Dragon Rising CQ only. I'm having trouble finding matches with Gulf of Oman ... I haven't played that map in years, not for a lack of trying. I don't know how I'll unlock the M60E4 on my PC account.

    When BF4 was about to come out and I logged back into BF3 (after finishing some exams), I was turned off by the fact that the only server choices I had were Operation Metro 24/7 CQ 300% tickets server, or a Nosehair Canals 24/7 TDM server.

    However, EA and DICE can't be blamed for this ... and neither can we blame the RSP. It is the community at large that enjoys maps like this (even though this franchise is supposed to be about combined arms warfare on large maps), so we all have to deal with it. The only way to escape it is to rent a server ourselves ... though, this isn't a viable option in my region.

    Still, without an RSP, these games could very easily be killed off. It doesn't matter if a game is good if the servers are permanently down. Even with my problems in BF4, I still find a somewhat decent server once in a while ... that is, if I can find a server without my game crashing, which seems to happen quite a bit, even after all of these years.
  • MacaqueX
    674 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    This is a fair point, but it kind of sucks when you want to play a map in a BF game, years after it's release, and no one wants to play it. I seriously can't find any servers running just Dragon Rising CQ only. I'm having trouble finding matches with Gulf of Oman ... I haven't played that map in years, not for a lack of trying. I don't know how I'll unlock the M60E4 on my PC account.

    When BF4 was about to come out and I logged back into BF3 (after finishing some exams), I was turned off by the fact that the only server choices I had were Operation Metro 24/7 CQ 300% tickets server, or a Nosehair Canals 24/7 TDM server.

    However, EA and DICE can't be blamed for this ... and neither can we blame the RSP. It is the community at large that enjoys maps like this (even though this franchise is supposed to be about combined arms warfare on large maps), so we all have to deal with it. The only way to escape it is to rent a server ourselves ... though, this isn't a viable option in my region.

    Still, without an RSP, these games could very easily be killed off. It doesn't matter if a game is good if the servers are permanently down. Even with my problems in BF4, I still find a somewhat decent server once in a while ... that is, if I can find a server without my game crashing, which seems to happen quite a bit, even after all of these years.

    Maybe EA could run few servers in every region, that is not that expensive with all maps/mods in the mix, and let community run popular servers.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    This sounds like the sort of "brilliant business BS" that define corporate raiders and executives who basically run companies into the ground...
    (basically the old "piracy is legit hurting our multi-million-dollar Media-related business"-gag that's been claimed and debunked in most studies; usually being brought out as to pin whatever problem/losses/shortfall on the consumers and users rather than on the company itself)

    I mean the only AAA-gaming company that's been really "consistent" along these strategic lines over the last 3-5 years has been EA; Activision and Ubisoft have been incredibly inconsistent about it, varying game-by-game... P2P in "For Honor", "Fairfight+Rental-Servers" in "R6:S", whatever Farcry 5's Arcade-mode uses;

    I mean Call of Duty: Black ops 3 was released like a year before BF1 was. (2015, BF1 was 2016), some time post-launch it managed to get dedicated servers and Steam Workshop Support, which isn't the case for the CoD-games released since then. (Disclaimer: never cared much for CoD, but learning this made me slightly less abusive towards that series..

    Anyway If EA executives are truly that concerned about "old games" and "lost sales"; I'd love to see them actually go through with their threats of cutting off/making obsolete "Used Games" on consoles. If they're too scared of potential backlash perhaps that's a sign that perhaps we should be a little less "accepting".
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    Using your mentality they should just sunset services and be done with it.

    FYI, EA makes roughly $0.35 per slot /month on BF3/BF4 servers. Ever since they went ranked they've charged the GSP/RSP a license fee.
    Which begs the question - why did Dice feel the need to pull the plug on their servers?

    They've always done this. Once the community provides the needed coverage they pull their servers. Did it in BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2 etc.

    Most companies do this if the community fills the gap. I don't know of a single company that didn't / doesn't. The only time you'll find an official server is if there's a special event. After the event they shut it down.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    Using your mentality they should just sunset services and be done with it.

    FYI, EA makes roughly $0.35 per slot /month on BF3/BF4 servers. Ever since they went ranked they've charged the GSP/RSP a license fee.
    Which begs the question - why did Dice feel the need to pull the plug on their servers?

    They've always done this. Once the community provides the needed coverage they pull their servers. Did it in BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2 etc.

    Most companies do this if the community fills the gap. I don't know of a single company that didn't / doesn't. The only time you'll find an official server is if there's a special event. After the event they shut it down.

    There lies the problem. Use a progression system, rely on community to host servers -> community creates a plethora of meat grinder servers.

    I'm over simplifying things, but I'm confident that's a factor for why these servers exist. My stance is, community servers should be unranked only. Still easily accessible, but progression shouldn't be a factor.

    The positive aspect there, is that a competitive scene would benefit from that. Join a server with a "promod" ruleset (for lack of better words), and every white listed weapon is already unlocked (assuming procon, or other server customization options exist).
    Post edited by A_Cool_Gorilla on
  • Axlerod1
    1383 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    I agree to a point on your post. A server with admins will always be supieror to a server without them.

    As far as rentable servers not being ranked, go ask the guys who played bf2142 how that worked out.
    IF they change the server rules for things like unlimited ammo and bolts only or pistol and knives, yeah make those unranked. If the admins are running a server with the vanilla rule set then it should be ranked.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2018
    There lies the problem. Use a progression system, rely on community to host servers -> community creates a plethora of meat grinder servers.

    I'm over simplifying things, but I'm confident that's a factor for why these servers exist. My stance is, community servers should be unranked only. Still easily accessible, but progression shouldn't be a factor.

    The positive aspect there, is that a competitive scene would benefit from that. Join a server with a "promod" ruleset (for lack of better words), and every white listed weapon is already unlocked.

    The whole unlocking system introduced in BF2 always baffled me. What's the real purpose for it? Players grind out a class to unlock everything, which initially grants some variety in what you run into. Yet after a few months you end up running into the same go to weps/set ups. Why not just have everything unlocked from the start?

    If we don't lock stuff, then we can't have assignments. Nobody is going to do assignments if they don't getting anything worthwhile for doing them.

    Which leads to WTF are their assignments anyway? ... "To keep players engaged."
    The game isn't enough? ..... "Nope, not really."


    Personally I think the RSP system should auto toggle rank/unranked based on settings. Sort of like they did with the previous titles, but a bit more strict. For example if you change any settings beyond default (Dice Presets) the server goes unranked. So changing the spawn timers, ticket counts, game timer, damage etc would result in unranked.

    Official (progression and stats recording)
    Only offers map selection/rotation, mode selection. Changing any other config value would change the server type to either ranked or unranked.

    Ranked (progression and stats recording)
    Offers map selection/rotation, mode selection (mix mode etc) admin kick/ban, map vote, mode vote, server messages. Changing any other config value would change the server type to unranked.

    Unranked (No progression or stats recording)
    Offers full customization of settings. All weapons unlocked, weapon/vehicle whitelisting, Faction only weapons/vehicle options, damage %, spawn timers (wave or set time), Spawn penalties, FF on/off, ticket counts, game time ....etc.

    Any setting change that isn't inline with the games preset configs results in a unranked server type.
    e.g. Hardcore preset -> FF off = unranked

  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    Using your mentality they should just sunset services and be done with it.

    FYI, EA makes roughly $0.35 per slot /month on BF3/BF4 servers. Ever since they went ranked they've charged the GSP/RSP a license fee.
    Which begs the question - why did Dice feel the need to pull the plug on their servers?

    They've always done this. Once the community provides the needed coverage they pull their servers. Did it in BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2 etc.

    Most companies do this if the community fills the gap. I don't know of a single company that didn't / doesn't. The only time you'll find an official server is if there's a special event. After the event they shut it down.

    They should sunset it and move on, or sell it to someone else to host like they did with BC2.

    Sure they make $.35 per slot, but what are the overhead costs? And still that money doesn't compare to the money that is needed to support the new titles, every person that chooses to continue to play on old platforms instead of buying the new game is a loss in terms of profit....that profit compounds for every person that doesn't switch, not just cost of the game, but potential loss in higher margin aftermarket like skins.

    You can't keep developing new stuff and increasing the amount of complexity and labor if you are not getting the margins to pay to keep the lights on.
    BetaFief wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    This sounds like the sort of "brilliant business BS" that define corporate raiders and executives who basically run companies into the ground...
    (basically the old "piracy is legit hurting our multi-million-dollar Media-related business"-gag that's been claimed and debunked in most studies; usually being brought out as to pin whatever problem/losses/shortfall on the consumers and users rather than on the company itself)

    I mean the only AAA-gaming company that's been really "consistent" along these strategic lines over the last 3-5 years has been EA; Activision and Ubisoft have been incredibly inconsistent about it, varying game-by-game... P2P in "For Honor", "Fairfight+Rental-Servers" in "R6:S", whatever Farcry 5's Arcade-mode uses;

    I mean Call of Duty: Black ops 3 was released like a year before BF1 was. (2015, BF1 was 2016), some time post-launch it managed to get dedicated servers and Steam Workshop Support, which isn't the case for the CoD-games released since then. (Disclaimer: never cared much for CoD, but learning this made me slightly less abusive towards that series..

    Anyway If EA executives are truly that concerned about "old games" and "lost sales"; I'd love to see them actually go through with their threats of cutting off/making obsolete "Used Games" on consoles. If they're too scared of potential backlash perhaps that's a sign that perhaps we should be a little less "accepting".

    It's really not corporate BS. It's getting your investment back and making a profit on top of it. Games are not free, they cost money to make, support, host, etc. From the employees salary and benefits, to the building rentals, and to the equipment being used. The money spent at shows and marketing commercials. This all needs to be recuperated on initial sales...on top of this they need to make a profit.... and that is why initial sales are the most important cause that is when you get the highest margin.

    With micro transactions for some games being millions a week, that is the other potential that DICE wants to capture, right now if people continue to play the old instead of the new the chance of getting them to invest in a micro transaction is exactly 0%. Not a good way to get profit to help generate more content and more cosmetics.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    Using your mentality they should just sunset services and be done with it.

    FYI, EA makes roughly $0.35 per slot /month on BF3/BF4 servers. Ever since they went ranked they've charged the GSP/RSP a license fee.
    Which begs the question - why did Dice feel the need to pull the plug on their servers?

    They've always done this. Once the community provides the needed coverage they pull their servers. Did it in BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2 etc.

    Most companies do this if the community fills the gap. I don't know of a single company that didn't / doesn't. The only time you'll find an official server is if there's a special event. After the event they shut it down.

    They should sunset it and move on, or sell it to someone else to host like they did with BC2.

    Sure they make $.35 per slot, but what are the overhead costs? And still that money doesn't compare to the money that is needed to support the new titles, every person that chooses to continue to play on old platforms instead of buying the new game is a loss in terms of profit....that profit compounds for every person that doesn't switch, not just cost of the game, but potential loss in higher margin aftermarket like skins.

    You can't keep developing new stuff and increasing the amount of complexity and labor if you are not getting the margins to pay to keep the lights on.
    BetaFief wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    This sounds like the sort of "brilliant business BS" that define corporate raiders and executives who basically run companies into the ground...
    (basically the old "piracy is legit hurting our multi-million-dollar Media-related business"-gag that's been claimed and debunked in most studies; usually being brought out as to pin whatever problem/losses/shortfall on the consumers and users rather than on the company itself)

    I mean the only AAA-gaming company that's been really "consistent" along these strategic lines over the last 3-5 years has been EA; Activision and Ubisoft have been incredibly inconsistent about it, varying game-by-game... P2P in "For Honor", "Fairfight+Rental-Servers" in "R6:S", whatever Farcry 5's Arcade-mode uses;

    I mean Call of Duty: Black ops 3 was released like a year before BF1 was. (2015, BF1 was 2016), some time post-launch it managed to get dedicated servers and Steam Workshop Support, which isn't the case for the CoD-games released since then. (Disclaimer: never cared much for CoD, but learning this made me slightly less abusive towards that series..

    Anyway If EA executives are truly that concerned about "old games" and "lost sales"; I'd love to see them actually go through with their threats of cutting off/making obsolete "Used Games" on consoles. If they're too scared of potential backlash perhaps that's a sign that perhaps we should be a little less "accepting".

    It's really not corporate BS. It's getting your investment back and making a profit on top of it. Games are not free, they cost money to make, support, host, etc. From the employees salary and benefits, to the building rentals, and to the equipment being used. The money spent at shows and marketing commercials. This all needs to be recuperated on initial sales...on top of this they need to make a profit.... and that is why initial sales are the most important cause that is when you get the highest margin.

    With micro transactions for some games being millions a week, that is the other potential that DICE wants to capture, right now if people continue to play the old instead of the new the chance of getting them to invest in a micro transaction is exactly 0%. Not a good way to get profit to help generate more content and more cosmetics.

    EA and Dice are still profiting on BF4. They're still selling it on Origin and elsewhere. BF1 is still selling. All DLC for free encourages people to purchase the base game for $20 if they don't already have it.

    If they want people to stop playing their older games then maybe they should stop selling and marketing them. If the profit margins aren't so good you'd think that would be their first recourse.

    You don't sell a product you want to eliminate usage on. Novel friggin idea huh.

    p.s. Hardline is still available for purchase as well.
  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    Using your mentality they should just sunset services and be done with it.

    FYI, EA makes roughly $0.35 per slot /month on BF3/BF4 servers. Ever since they went ranked they've charged the GSP/RSP a license fee.
    Which begs the question - why did Dice feel the need to pull the plug on their servers?

    They've always done this. Once the community provides the needed coverage they pull their servers. Did it in BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2 etc.

    Most companies do this if the community fills the gap. I don't know of a single company that didn't / doesn't. The only time you'll find an official server is if there's a special event. After the event they shut it down.

    They should sunset it and move on, or sell it to someone else to host like they did with BC2.

    Sure they make $.35 per slot, but what are the overhead costs? And still that money doesn't compare to the money that is needed to support the new titles, every person that chooses to continue to play on old platforms instead of buying the new game is a loss in terms of profit....that profit compounds for every person that doesn't switch, not just cost of the game, but potential loss in higher margin aftermarket like skins.

    You can't keep developing new stuff and increasing the amount of complexity and labor if you are not getting the margins to pay to keep the lights on.
    BetaFief wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    This sounds like the sort of "brilliant business BS" that define corporate raiders and executives who basically run companies into the ground...
    (basically the old "piracy is legit hurting our multi-million-dollar Media-related business"-gag that's been claimed and debunked in most studies; usually being brought out as to pin whatever problem/losses/shortfall on the consumers and users rather than on the company itself)

    I mean the only AAA-gaming company that's been really "consistent" along these strategic lines over the last 3-5 years has been EA; Activision and Ubisoft have been incredibly inconsistent about it, varying game-by-game... P2P in "For Honor", "Fairfight+Rental-Servers" in "R6:S", whatever Farcry 5's Arcade-mode uses;

    I mean Call of Duty: Black ops 3 was released like a year before BF1 was. (2015, BF1 was 2016), some time post-launch it managed to get dedicated servers and Steam Workshop Support, which isn't the case for the CoD-games released since then. (Disclaimer: never cared much for CoD, but learning this made me slightly less abusive towards that series..

    Anyway If EA executives are truly that concerned about "old games" and "lost sales"; I'd love to see them actually go through with their threats of cutting off/making obsolete "Used Games" on consoles. If they're too scared of potential backlash perhaps that's a sign that perhaps we should be a little less "accepting".

    It's really not corporate BS. It's getting your investment back and making a profit on top of it. Games are not free, they cost money to make, support, host, etc. From the employees salary and benefits, to the building rentals, and to the equipment being used. The money spent at shows and marketing commercials. This all needs to be recuperated on initial sales...on top of this they need to make a profit.... and that is why initial sales are the most important cause that is when you get the highest margin.

    With micro transactions for some games being millions a week, that is the other potential that DICE wants to capture, right now if people continue to play the old instead of the new the chance of getting them to invest in a micro transaction is exactly 0%. Not a good way to get profit to help generate more content and more cosmetics.

    I think it's corporate BS through and through, they made their money back on BF3, that was a few years ago... If Ea is unable to attract an audience of the people who still play BF3 it merely says that EA isn't making something that's actually worth buying (to them at least).

    I mean TF2 and CS:GO sort of destroy this/and related ideas even further. Both games are successful and have made valve a ton of money, both games are also relatively open compared to any battlefield game released this decade. Steam's workshop (for TF2 and CS:GO anyway) essentially allow for cosmetics/assets to be created and sold (Valve getting a cut of course) in a manner that doesn't require hiring salaried employees... essentially valve has (in addition to the obvious revenue from it's Steam-Empire, has been able to coast pretty steadily along with CS:GO and Team Fortress 2)

    The actual issue is EA doesn't understand the PC gaming market and thinks/until-recently-thought being "Gametap 2.0" is something to aspire to.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    Using your mentality they should just sunset services and be done with it.

    FYI, EA makes roughly $0.35 per slot /month on BF3/BF4 servers. Ever since they went ranked they've charged the GSP/RSP a license fee.
    Which begs the question - why did Dice feel the need to pull the plug on their servers?

    They've always done this. Once the community provides the needed coverage they pull their servers. Did it in BF1942, BF Vietnam, BF2 etc.

    Most companies do this if the community fills the gap. I don't know of a single company that didn't / doesn't. The only time you'll find an official server is if there's a special event. After the event they shut it down.

    They should sunset it and move on, or sell it to someone else to host like they did with BC2.

    Sure they make $.35 per slot, but what are the overhead costs? And still that money doesn't compare to the money that is needed to support the new titles, every person that chooses to continue to play on old platforms instead of buying the new game is a loss in terms of profit....that profit compounds for every person that doesn't switch, not just cost of the game, but potential loss in higher margin aftermarket like skins.

    You can't keep developing new stuff and increasing the amount of complexity and labor if you are not getting the margins to pay to keep the lights on.
    BetaFief wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    I quit BF3 when TDM servers became all about 24/7 Noshar Canals. I want RSP to stay away, but of course that's not the best choice to please everyone.

    If all BF3 TDM servers were Noshahr Canals, that would indicate that EA/DICE didn't have any TDM servers. Which also means without the community renting servers there wouldn't be any TDM servers.

    Now go look at BF4 servers. They're all rentals. There aren't any EA/DICE servers anymore, nor has there been for years.

    Which is a good reason why companies don't want to have rentals anymore.....can't get them off of old platforms and go to the new.
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    But manufactures need to make profits, and playing old games doesn't net the profits like buying new copies do.

    This sounds like the sort of "brilliant business BS" that define corporate raiders and executives who basically run companies into the ground...
    (basically the old "piracy is legit hurting our multi-million-dollar Media-related business"-gag that's been claimed and debunked in most studies; usually being brought out as to pin whatever problem/losses/shortfall on the consumers and users rather than on the company itself)

    I mean the only AAA-gaming company that's been really "consistent" along these strategic lines over the last 3-5 years has been EA; Activision and Ubisoft have been incredibly inconsistent about it, varying game-by-game... P2P in "For Honor", "Fairfight+Rental-Servers" in "R6:S", whatever Farcry 5's Arcade-mode uses;

    I mean Call of Duty: Black ops 3 was released like a year before BF1 was. (2015, BF1 was 2016), some time post-launch it managed to get dedicated servers and Steam Workshop Support, which isn't the case for the CoD-games released since then. (Disclaimer: never cared much for CoD, but learning this made me slightly less abusive towards that series..

    Anyway If EA executives are truly that concerned about "old games" and "lost sales"; I'd love to see them actually go through with their threats of cutting off/making obsolete "Used Games" on consoles. If they're too scared of potential backlash perhaps that's a sign that perhaps we should be a little less "accepting".

    It's really not corporate BS. It's getting your investment back and making a profit on top of it. Games are not free, they cost money to make, support, host, etc. From the employees salary and benefits, to the building rentals, and to the equipment being used. The money spent at shows and marketing commercials. This all needs to be recuperated on initial sales...on top of this they need to make a profit.... and that is why initial sales are the most important cause that is when you get the highest margin.

    With micro transactions for some games being millions a week, that is the other potential that DICE wants to capture, right now if people continue to play the old instead of the new the chance of getting them to invest in a micro transaction is exactly 0%. Not a good way to get profit to help generate more content and more cosmetics.

    EA and Dice are still profiting on BF4. They're still selling it on Origin and elsewhere. BF1 is still selling. All DLC for free encourages people to purchase the base game for $20 if they don't already have it.

    If they want people to stop playing their older games then maybe they should stop selling and marketing them. If the profit margins aren't so good you'd think that would be their first recourse.

    You don't sell a product you want to eliminate usage on. Novel friggin idea huh.

    p.s. Hardline is still available for purchase as well.

    Well we don't have facts to state how profitable it is....it by well a chance to hang onto customers who wouldn't buy BF1....but in the end it being still profitable can be debated.....I'll argue to was a calculated cost to keep players from switching to another nonEA title. Just because they still sell it doesnt mean it's making a profit after overheads.

    Not uncommon for companies to do that (visual concepts vs EA) but it doesnt last long....pretty confident once BFV is out EA will either sunset or outsource the servers for BF4.
Sign In or Register to comment.