BFV dedicated servers

Comments

  • BetaFief
    655 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    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.

    pretty sure BF4's servers are already "outsourced".. isn't that the point of server-rentals?
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    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.

    You're grasping bruh.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    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.

    You're grasping bruh.

    Not totally.

    Three things are still unanswered (and may never be unless you work for DICE). How much margin they are still making on sales and server rentals? After overheads, is it truly profit? And do they have a contractual agreement with I3D on how long they have to support BF4?

  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    Not totally.

    Three things are still unanswered (and may never be unless you work for DICE). How much margin they are still making on sales and server rentals? After overheads, is it truly profit? And do they have a contractual agreement with I3D on how long they have to support BF4?

    What do you mean contractual agreement with i3D?
    If you mean i3D is managing EA's stats/connection backend, then as long as EA keeps BF4's service alive then they pay management fees. That's just common sense.

    Game Servers are 3rd party ... lifetime of rentals. As long as an RSP/GSP rents BF3/BF4/BFH servers they pay license fees per slot per month.

    As long as EA/DICE maintain service on the title GSP's will rent and the server browser will stay up along with stats.

    Whether or not there's profit or not is a moot factor with your main driving point.

    If EA doesn't want RSP because it will force players to migrate to the next title then wouldn't it be more prudent to sunset sales and services for past games sooner? Say versus continuing to sell said titles that offer rsp and some sense of longevity.
  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V 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?

    The only gameplay benefit I can think of, is to avoid overwhelming new players. Even then, a new player doesn't need 30+ hours to grow familiar with the features of the game... even if they've never played a multiplayer shooter, it won't take them that long to grasp features such as attachments, perks, or weapons.

    Another benefit outside of gameplay is to create a "sense of progression"... and when it comes to that, I'd argue that cosmetic unlocks are good enough for players that enjoy progression. If you want to have progression in the game, go for it... but it shouldn't hinder gameplay, in a genre that revolves around the gameplay...

    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.

    My issue with that, is that balancing 3 categories would be much harder to do. If there are just two categories - Official and Unranked, then those can be translated to Official and Community. I'd think of it similarly to CS:GO, or Black Ops 3. You have the matchmaking system that simply throws you onto an official server, and you have a "Community Servers" option, which brings you to a list of unranked servers. Keep that stuff front and center, instead of hiding it behind the filters. Ideally, you'd have "Official Servers" right beside it, to immediately show new players all the servers available. Nothing hidden away in filters.

    When it comes to map rotation... I would be in favour of, if the number of maps in the map rotation are less than 5 maps, then it would become unranked (assuming the game launches with 9 or more maps). My logic there, being to keep progression tied to the more controlled "Battlefield" experience. If you enjoy meat grinder maps, that's fine... but imo, those should be treated like "Sniper only", or "Knife only" servers.

    The only thing I'm on the fence about, is whether or not certain stats should still be tracked on unranked servers. Such as "kills", "deaths", "SPM", etc. Stats that aren't inherently tied to progression. I'd definitely want those to be tracked, even if they threw them into a separate "Community Servers" category.
  • MacaqueX
    674 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Even playing only one mode more like TDM on ranked servers will make your stats totally different and un-comparable with player playing other mode mode more like Conquest, so why have unranked servers at all. Top of leader boards are always full of cheaters it doesn't have any sense.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The only gameplay benefit I can think of, is to avoid overwhelming new players. Even then, a new player doesn't need 30+ hours to grow familiar with the features of the game... even if they've never played a multiplayer shooter, it won't take them that long to grasp features such as attachments, perks, or weapons.

    Another benefit outside of gameplay is to create a "sense of progression"... and when it comes to that, I'd argue that cosmetic unlocks are good enough for players that enjoy progression. If you want to have progression in the game, go for it... but it shouldn't hinder gameplay, in a genre that revolves around the gameplay...

    Aren't new players overwhelmed with stock/base weapons, attachments, gadgets etc versus those that have unlocked items?
    My issue with that, is that balancing 3 categories would be much harder to do. If there are just two categories - Official and Unranked, then those can be translated to Official and Community. I'd think of it similarly to CS:GO, or Black Ops 3. You have the matchmaking system that simply throws you onto an official server, and you have a "Community Servers" option beside a "Official Servers" option, which brings you to a list of unranked servers. Keep that stuff front and center, instead of hiding it behind the filters.

    If someone modifies the number of maps in the map rotaion, to be less than... let's say 5 maps, then it would become unranked (assuming the game launches with 9 or more maps). My logic there, being to keep progression tied to more consistent "Battlefield" experiences. If you enjoy meat grinder maps, that's fine... but imo, those should be treated like "Sniper only", or "Knife only" servers.

    The only thing I'm on the fence about, is whether or not certain stats should still be tracked on unranked servers. Such as "kills", "deaths", "SPM", etc. Stats that aren't inherently tied to progression. I'd definitely want those to be tracked, even if they threw them into a separate "Community Servers" category.

    Already have it in BFBC2, BF3, BF4 and somewhat in BF1. Official server cannot kick or ban. Wanting that ability you're pushed to ranked.

    If you limit the server types to simply official and unranked then you might as well not have RSP. "Ranked" allows for a lot of control but without changing the core settings that define the game. If you want to change those settings, then go unranked.

  • A_Cool_Gorilla
    1374 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    The only gameplay benefit I can think of, is to avoid overwhelming new players. Even then, a new player doesn't need 30+ hours to grow familiar with the features of the game... even if they've never played a multiplayer shooter, it won't take them that long to grasp features such as attachments, perks, or weapons.

    Another benefit outside of gameplay is to create a "sense of progression"... and when it comes to that, I'd argue that cosmetic unlocks are good enough for players that enjoy progression. If you want to have progression in the game, go for it... but it shouldn't hinder gameplay, in a genre that revolves around the gameplay...

    Aren't new players overwhelmed with stock/base weapons, attachments, gadgets etc versus those that have unlocked items?

    Yeah, I'd sure say so. Personally, I think campaign does a good enough job to ease a player into the content, so I don't think it could possibly outweigh the issue you just brought up here.

    I'd say the only relevant thing is to create that "sense of progression", particularly with short reward schedules... which I actually agree with despite hating progression. If I had my way to attempt to please everyone, I would add a prestige system to weapons. Everything's unlocked by default, but if you want those sweet, sweet cosmetic unlocks... you gotta jump through those hoops. I honestly don't see any downside to that... at that point, progression would be achieving it's only purpose in this genre - being an extension of the experience, instead of interfering with it.
    My issue with that, is that balancing 3 categories would be much harder to do. If there are just two categories - Official and Unranked, then those can be translated to Official and Community. I'd think of it similarly to CS:GO, or Black Ops 3. You have the matchmaking system that simply throws you onto an official server, and you have a "Community Servers" option beside a "Official Servers" option, which brings you to a list of unranked servers. Keep that stuff front and center, instead of hiding it behind the filters.

    If someone modifies the number of maps in the map rotaion, to be less than... let's say 5 maps, then it would become unranked (assuming the game launches with 9 or more maps). My logic there, being to keep progression tied to more consistent "Battlefield" experiences. If you enjoy meat grinder maps, that's fine... but imo, those should be treated like "Sniper only", or "Knife only" servers.

    The only thing I'm on the fence about, is whether or not certain stats should still be tracked on unranked servers. Such as "kills", "deaths", "SPM", etc. Stats that aren't inherently tied to progression. I'd definitely want those to be tracked, even if they threw them into a separate "Community Servers" category.

    Already have it in BFBC2, BF3, BF4 and somewhat in BF1. Official server cannot kick or ban. Wanting that ability you're pushed to ranked.

    If you limit the server types to simply official and unranked then you might as well not have RSP. "Ranked" allows for a lot of control but without changing the core settings that define the game. If you want to change those settings, then go unranked.

    How do you balance Official, Ranked, and Unranked so that none of them are hidden behind filters? Unranked as it currently stands, may as well not even be a thing. I'd say it serves no purpose outside of clan matches, since it's hidden away. Although, if your argument is to have "Official" and "Ranked" to become "Official" and "Community" in my example, then fair enough... I don't have any argument outside of "I don't think progression should be a thing in 'Knife only', or a variant of" type of servers. With how many players enjoy progression, I don't think an argument like that could stand very long... especially if the progression was cosmetic only / optional, like I suggested above.
  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote:
    Not totally.

    Three things are still unanswered (and may never be unless you work for DICE). How much margin they are still making on sales and server rentals? After overheads, is it truly profit? And do they have a contractual agreement with I3D on how long they have to support BF4?

    What do you mean contractual agreement with i3D?
    If you mean i3D is managing EA's stats/connection backend, then as long as EA keeps BF4's service alive then they pay management fees. That's just common sense.

    Game Servers are 3rd party ... lifetime of rentals. As long as an RSP/GSP rents BF3/BF4/BFH servers they pay license fees per slot per month.

    As long as EA/DICE maintain service on the title GSP's will rent and the server browser will stay up along with stats.

    Whether or not there's profit or not is a moot factor with your main driving point.

    If EA doesn't want RSP because it will force players to migrate to the next title then wouldn't it be more prudent to sunset sales and services for past games sooner? Say versus continuing to sell said titles that offer rsp and some sense of longevity.

    Well since I3D hosts BF4 servers EA can have a contractual agreement that states they must keep BF4 available till X. Or they can have implied lifecycle guidelines as "we will continue to provide support for x years after launch"

    Microsoft for example provides 7-10 lifecycle support. My company provides support on our products up to 7 years after end of life is announced on hardware and up to two versions for software.

    But again who knows. EA ditched 50 games in 2014 just because it cost more than it was worth to hold them on. Maybe they truly keep them running until they really become a burden....without the financial numbers all of us are just speculating.
  • olT3lo
    189 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    I don't even know why I keep coming back to this thread. I find is extremely unlikely that EA will EVER do anything I approve of again. I didn't play BF4 (because of the netcode), didn't play BF1 (no 3rd party servers), Played the Battlefront 1 beta and that was it (no 3rd party servers), didn't touch Battlefront 2 with a 10 foot pole (whole bunch of reasons but even if it was a great game, no 3rd party servers is a no buy for me) and I'm not going to get this game because I already know there won't be 3rd party servers. It's all just a waste of time but why do I do it?

    Probably because Bad Company 2 still ranks as one of my all time favorite games. I have over 1000 hours into Battlefield 3 and I'd really like to see them go back to the way things were as far as servers are concerned. But since Bad Company 2 I've learned what kind of company is behind these changes and I realize, they will NOT leave money on the table and they see 3rd party servers as a blight to their business model. Yet, on the strength of 3000 Battlefield hours played, here I post again, asking myself 'why?'.
  • Mystriall
    497 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    We never loose hope, i am still waiting for didicated server files to come my way.
  • CrashCA
    1201 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Well since I3D hosts BF4 servers EA can have a contractual agreement that states they must keep BF4 available till X. Or they can have implied lifecycle guidelines as "we will continue to provide support for x years after launch"

    Microsoft for example provides 7-10 lifecycle support. My company provides support on our products up to 7 years after end of life is announced on hardware and up to two versions for software.

    But again who knows. EA ditched 50 games in 2014 just because it cost more than it was worth to hold them on. Maybe they truly keep them running until they really become a burden....without the financial numbers all of us are just speculating.

    I3D does not host BF4 servers, 3rd party rented servers only. Without them, there would be no BF4 servers.


  • VBALL_MVP
    6177 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 2018
    CrashCA wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Well since I3D hosts BF4 servers EA can have a contractual agreement that states they must keep BF4 available till X. Or they can have implied lifecycle guidelines as "we will continue to provide support for x years after launch"

    Microsoft for example provides 7-10 lifecycle support. My company provides support on our products up to 7 years after end of life is announced on hardware and up to two versions for software.

    But again who knows. EA ditched 50 games in 2014 just because it cost more than it was worth to hold them on. Maybe they truly keep them running until they really become a burden....without the financial numbers all of us are just speculating.

    I3D does not host BF4 servers, 3rd party rented servers only. Without them, there would be no BF4 servers.


    I3D was the DICE's official Battlefield server provider for BF4. They made news when they lost that "title" when EA decided to host their own servers for BF1. My point is that since they are a "offical server provider" (I wasn't referring to that they provide all the DICE offical serves) that they probably have a contract with DICE. Within this contract is a guarantee that they will get support and the right to host these servers for a set number of years....hence why it may not be easy to sunset titles.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »
    CrashCA wrote: »
    VBALL_MVP wrote: »

    Well since I3D hosts BF4 servers EA can have a contractual agreement that states they must keep BF4 available till X. Or they can have implied lifecycle guidelines as "we will continue to provide support for x years after launch"

    Microsoft for example provides 7-10 lifecycle support. My company provides support on our products up to 7 years after end of life is announced on hardware and up to two versions for software.

    But again who knows. EA ditched 50 games in 2014 just because it cost more than it was worth to hold them on. Maybe they truly keep them running until they really become a burden....without the financial numbers all of us are just speculating.

    I3D does not host BF4 servers, 3rd party rented servers only. Without them, there would be no BF4 servers.


    I3D was the DICE's official Battlefield server provider for BF4. They made news when they lost that "title" when EA decided to host their own servers for BF1. My point is that since they are a "offical server provider" (I wasn't referring to that they provide all the DICE offical serves) that they probably have a contract with DICE. Within this contract is a guarantee that they will get support and the right to host these servers for a set number of years....hence why it may not be easy to sunset titles.

    i3D was one of MANY official contracted GSP/RSP's for BF4 rentals.

    NFOServers, GameServers, MultiPlay, Fragnet, 4NetPlayers, Nitrado, GPortal .... just to name a few.

    i3D did end up managing BF1's servers though.
  • MigueTK
    679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    The only gameplay benefit I can think of, is to avoid overwhelming new players. Even then, a new player doesn't need 30+ hours to grow familiar with the features of the game... even if they've never played a multiplayer shooter, it won't take them that long to grasp features such as attachments, perks, or weapons.

    Another benefit outside of gameplay is to create a "sense of progression"... and when it comes to that, I'd argue that cosmetic unlocks are good enough for players that enjoy progression. If you want to have progression in the game, go for it... but it shouldn't hinder gameplay, in a genre that revolves around the gameplay...

    Aren't new players overwhelmed with stock/base weapons, attachments, gadgets etc versus those that have unlocked items?

    Yeah, I'd sure say so. Personally, I think campaign does a good enough job to ease a player into the content, so I don't think it could possibly outweigh the issue you just brought up here.

    I'd say the only relevant thing is to create that "sense of progression", particularly with short reward schedules... which I actually agree with despite hating progression. If I had my way to attempt to please everyone, I would add a prestige system to weapons. Everything's unlocked by default, but if you want those sweet, sweet cosmetic unlocks... you gotta jump through those hoops. I honestly don't see any downside to that... at that point, progression would be achieving it's only purpose in this genre - being an extension of the experience, instead of interfering with it.
    My issue with that, is that balancing 3 categories would be much harder to do. If there are just two categories - Official and Unranked, then those can be translated to Official and Community. I'd think of it similarly to CS:GO, or Black Ops 3. You have the matchmaking system that simply throws you onto an official server, and you have a "Community Servers" option beside a "Official Servers" option, which brings you to a list of unranked servers. Keep that stuff front and center, instead of hiding it behind the filters.

    If someone modifies the number of maps in the map rotaion, to be less than... let's say 5 maps, then it would become unranked (assuming the game launches with 9 or more maps). My logic there, being to keep progression tied to more consistent "Battlefield" experiences. If you enjoy meat grinder maps, that's fine... but imo, those should be treated like "Sniper only", or "Knife only" servers.

    The only thing I'm on the fence about, is whether or not certain stats should still be tracked on unranked servers. Such as "kills", "deaths", "SPM", etc. Stats that aren't inherently tied to progression. I'd definitely want those to be tracked, even if they threw them into a separate "Community Servers" category.

    Already have it in BFBC2, BF3, BF4 and somewhat in BF1. Official server cannot kick or ban. Wanting that ability you're pushed to ranked.

    If you limit the server types to simply official and unranked then you might as well not have RSP. "Ranked" allows for a lot of control but without changing the core settings that define the game. If you want to change those settings, then go unranked.

    How do you balance Official, Ranked, and Unranked so that none of them are hidden behind filters? Unranked as it currently stands, may as well not even be a thing. I'd say it serves no purpose outside of clan matches, since it's hidden away. Although, if your argument is to have "Official" and "Ranked" to become "Official" and "Community" in my example, then fair enough... I don't have any argument outside of "I don't think progression should be a thing in 'Knife only', or a variant of" type of servers. With how many players enjoy progression, I don't think an argument like that could stand very long... especially if the progression was cosmetic only / optional, like I suggested above.

    all weapons unlocked, weapon/class progression to unlock skins sounds like a good idea.


    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.
    • Official -> No admin, pure dice settings, progression and stats
    • Ranked -> Admin, Dice settings, progression and stats, additional features (mix mode, vote map, vote mode)..... Not changing any of the predefined settings.
    • Unranked -> Admin, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.
    • Private -> Admin, password locked, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.

    Also you could force browser filter setting to be applied to matchmaking.

    I don't see anything complicated with this.

    By changing settings do you mean like damage modifiers, vehicle spawn delays? Because I would almost agree with your idea of a ranked server except keeping vanilla DICE settings.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    edited September 2018
    MigueTK wrote:
    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.
    • Official -> No admin, pure dice settings, progression and stats
    • Ranked -> Admin, Dice settings, progression and stats, additional features (mix mode, vote map, vote mode)..... Not changing any of the predefined settings.
    • Unranked -> Admin, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.
    • Private -> Admin, password locked, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.

    Also you could force browser filter setting to be applied to matchmaking.

    I don't see anything complicated with this.

    By changing settings do you mean like damage modifiers, vehicle spawn delays? Because I would almost agree with your idea of a ranked server except keeping vanilla DICE settings.

    Yes, Any change to settings (ticket counts, spawn timers, FF, weapon restrictions etc) ........anything other than map rotation and modes would result in unranked.

    The only difference between Official and Ranked is Ranked server can Admin (kick/ban), set server messages, turn on map/mode vote, etc.
  • MigueTK
    679 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    MigueTK wrote:
    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.
    • Official -> No admin, pure dice settings, progression and stats
    • Ranked -> Admin, Dice settings, progression and stats, additional features (mix mode, vote map, vote mode)..... Not changing any of the predefined settings.
    • Unranked -> Admin, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.
    • Private -> Admin, password locked, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.

    Also you could force browser filter setting to be applied to matchmaking.

    I don't see anything complicated with this.

    By changing settings do you mean like damage modifiers, vehicle spawn delays? Because I would almost agree with your idea of a ranked server except keeping vanilla DICE settings.

    Yes, Any change to settings (ticket counts, spawn timers, FF, weapon restrictions etc) ........anything other than map rotation and modes would result in unranked.

    The only difference between Official and Ranked is Ranked server can Admin (kick/ban), set server messages, turn on map/mode vote, etc.

    Got it, I disagree with you then. I guess you're worried about boosting but I don't see it as a problem, I main TDM.
  • Rev0verDrive
    6760 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    MigueTK wrote: »
    MigueTK wrote:
    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.
    • Official -> No admin, pure dice settings, progression and stats
    • Ranked -> Admin, Dice settings, progression and stats, additional features (mix mode, vote map, vote mode)..... Not changing any of the predefined settings.
    • Unranked -> Admin, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.
    • Private -> Admin, password locked, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.

    Also you could force browser filter setting to be applied to matchmaking.

    I don't see anything complicated with this.

    By changing settings do you mean like damage modifiers, vehicle spawn delays? Because I would almost agree with your idea of a ranked server except keeping vanilla DICE settings.

    Yes, Any change to settings (ticket counts, spawn timers, FF, weapon restrictions etc) ........anything other than map rotation and modes would result in unranked.

    The only difference between Official and Ranked is Ranked server can Admin (kick/ban), set server messages, turn on map/mode vote, etc.

    Got it, I disagree with you then. I guess you're worried about boosting but I don't see it as a problem, I main TDM.

    I simply believe if you're changing the settings of a game mode then your bypassing/altering the intended/designed gameplay. Thus stats/progression shouldn't be tracked.

    I main BF4 TDM.
  • Reverend-1313
    178 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    MigueTK wrote: »
    MigueTK wrote:
    Every server browser has filters. You cannot avoid them. The default filters would be Official and Ranked checked. There game settings would be absolutely the same. The only difference is Ranked will have admins a few additional features.
    • Official -> No admin, pure dice settings, progression and stats
    • Ranked -> Admin, Dice settings, progression and stats, additional features (mix mode, vote map, vote mode)..... Not changing any of the predefined settings.
    • Unranked -> Admin, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.
    • Private -> Admin, password locked, no progression or stats, all features/settings available to change.

    Also you could force browser filter setting to be applied to matchmaking.

    I don't see anything complicated with this.

    By changing settings do you mean like damage modifiers, vehicle spawn delays? Because I would almost agree with your idea of a ranked server except keeping vanilla DICE settings.

    Yes, Any change to settings (ticket counts, spawn timers, FF, weapon restrictions etc) ........anything other than map rotation and modes would result in unranked.

    The only difference between Official and Ranked is Ranked server can Admin (kick/ban), set server messages, turn on map/mode vote, etc.

    Got it, I disagree with you then. I guess you're worried about boosting but I don't see it as a problem, I main TDM.

    I simply believe if you're changing the settings of a game mode then your bypassing/altering the intended/designed gameplay. Thus stats/progression shouldn't be tracked.

    I main BF4 TDM.

    I'd be down with that as long as they got the hardcore preset right. Never played BF1 beyond beta because of the server and anticheat issues but i heard hardcore was a disaster for that reason.
Sign In or Register to comment.