DICE explains BFBC2 server policy
Claims renting doesn't result in profits.
DICE has told Eurogamer there is "no profit" made from forcing Battlefield: Bad Company 2 players to rent dedicated servers instead of building their own.
Producer Gordon Van Dyke said files the community needs to build dedicated servers are being withheld in order to "protect the game's integrity on PC".
"This does not earn DICE a profit," BFBC2 Van Dyke told us. "But we will see where the game goes and support it post launch."
Right now the only way to host a private dedicated server is by renting from one of DICE's authorised hosts. These, Van Dyke added, have already been picked in "all major regions of the world".
This is a first for the Battlefield series, as Battlefield 2 and Battlefield 2142 both supported community members building and hosting their own dedicated servers.
DICE had made much of Battlefield: Bad Company 2's dedicated server support after Infinity Ward decided to go peer-to-peer with Modern Warfare 2 on PC.
Battlefield: Bad Company 2 goes into PC beta testing later this month, starting 28th January and ending 25th February.
The full game's out on 5th March.
You may also like...
-
Dead Island: Ryder White Review
-
Hirai: Sony could be facing "serious trouble"
-
THQ reveals plans for 1.4m unsold uDraw tablets
-
BioWare suggests keeping Mass Effect 3 saves
-
Lumines Vita Preview: History Repeating
-
Dirt Showdown Preview: The Ghost of Destruction Derby
-
Skyrim PC Creation Kit release date announced
-
Mass Effect 3 Preview: The Good Shepard?
-
Cannon Fodder 3 is… well…
-
Redundancies confirmed at EA Canada
-
Final Fantasy 13-2 Review
-
Aliens: Colonial Marines trailer shows gameplay glimpses
-
App of the Day: Bag It!
-
The Witcher 2 Xbox 360 enhancements trailer
-
Eurogamer.net Podcast #98: Resident Evil and the Circle Pad Pro
-
US lawmaker proposes 1% tax on violent video games
-
SoulCalibur 5 Review
-
Sony on Vita sales: "we do not think we have any problems"
-
Official Uncharted: Golden Abyss Vita case announced
-
Namco Bandai enters SoulCalibur 5 DLC debate
-
Atari "dream team" reforms to make games for "the new arcade", iOS
-
The Last of Us: first in-game screenshots, new gameplay details
-
Valve teases secret Team Fortress 2 project
-
Mass Effect 3 Facebook app rewards Xbox 360 players
-
DoDonPachi: Blissful Death iOS release date announced









Comments (32) 1 year ago
Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
most will rent and be happy with it.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I have no problem with this proposed solution, as long as they “release” this restriction after a year(s), seeing as EA has a tendency to shutdown servers once the majority of gamers has moved on to the next installment.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
I wonder when good old Counterstrike will make it back to consoles? A proper version of the CS:S would be the game to dethrone MW2's multiplayer crown!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
At least it's not Peer to Peer though. Hope EA get that right with the new Medal of Honour too.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
and I'm sure renting a 32/48/64-player server is (usually, unless you have a super awesome fantastic connection) better than running your own.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Part of me was preping for the sound of good will being flushed away maybe I thought too negative to soon.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
the 360 is running on dedicated servers aswell, just ones hosted by Dice, much like the first BFBC and 1943 were
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Very unlikely. Its simply a company selling a service for use with their own product. Its no different from 360 owners only being able to play online via XBLive or PS3 users on PSN.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
its not about the lack of being able to host "home" servers anymore. its about EA/DICE forcing you to chose one of their "authorized" partners around the world. that means you wont be able to pick your serverhost of choice anymore but have to rely on one of EA/DICEs official partners.
and guess what: these partners will let YOU pay THEIR exclusiveness.
take 4netplayers (in germany) as an example. 4netplayers is/was EAs authorized (exclusive) partner when it came to BF2 ranked servers in germany. these servers are about double the price as the "normal" unranked servers. thats a big pile of poo.
so now you wont even be able to rent a unranked server as the whole dedicated server thingy goes only in the hands of those authorized partners ... no more competition on the national server markets ...
when DICE claims they wont make any money with that dedicated-server-policy it might not even be a lie. EA on the other hand will probably make money with it. is there anyone that believes that those authorized partners do not pay any kind of fee for their exclusiveness??? come on !!!
the majority of (PC) players probably couldnt care less because they wont rent a server but for those who wanted to its a mild slap in the face.
P.S. i preorderd the limited edition for on PC and still looking forward to it
Comment below viewing threshold Show
EDIT: -9? I was merely expressing an opinion.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Behind the rhetoric about 'integrity' is the simple reality that the sitution is a regression from the experience that people are used to on the PC, and it's rather rich for DICE to be firing shots in IW's direction. If people don't see how this could be a regression, I'd say taking away the player's freedom of control over their online game experience (free choice of servers, abillity to create servers that suit your needs etc.), a freedom that has been a staple part of PC online gaming since the beginning, then selling that experience back to the player at a cost (yet still ensuring DICE et al. maintain control)... is a regression in my eyes.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Looking forward to march 4th!!!
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
"the 360 is running on dedicated servers aswell, just ones hosted by Dice, much like the first BFBC and 1943 were "
Good to hear, thanks
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Classic clan -server sort of deal. CS and TF2 being big examples. CS even being a free game that people would be willing to rent for.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
We had really hoped that this time around EA/DICE would have decided to be a little bit more lenient, but it seems they are becoming more strict. Its a shame really, because this probably means that if we want our own server, we have to pay for our normal servers that host L4D, L4D2, TF2, Killing Floor etc and then also rent another server from a 3rd party to get ranked bf servers. We already have the capacity to run Battlefield ourselves, and this protecting their software thing is just a garbage excuse. Just like Rock Band price hike for EU was because of so called special costs that added over 100 euro's to the price.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
First, for FFA or public servers, no problem for anyone; there will be public servers where you can play for free.
Regarding clans wanting to have their dedicated server, it is the same story than on BF2 and BF2142. Nothing is changing, no problem.
For nearly 5 years (Battlefield 2), DICE works with "trusted partners" for ranked server hosting. Those partners guarantee to secure the code and the ranked system, to avoid cheating and exploits (especially guys artificially increasing their stats/rank).
Plus, those partners must provide a certain service quality in terms of hardware (CPU, memory) and bandwidth. So yes, ranked servers are bit more expensive. But the quality is good.
It means that if you have a clan, you can run your server as public if you want, or turn it private if you want to host a game for a competition. Regular service, isn't it?
So, I think yelling at DICE is useless.
Even if you would have been able to run your "own" server, you would have rent it, because home hardware and bandwidth do not allow to host such big game.
Renting a cheap server would mean: several dedicated servers on a single machine by the hoster = crappy performances.
So, to me there is no problem with DICE policy on BFBC2 dedicated servers.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
They are being hosted by outside companies like those that host BF2 and BF2142 servers.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
We can easily host battlefield on our server hardware. I am even pretty sure our server hardware is better than what these official server renters will use. You can see our hardware right here http://ww w.specialattack.net/content/ser... . DICE might not make a profit on it, but you can be assured the ones who have the rights to rent out bf servers do make profits and even increase the price because only they can offer hosting.
Comment below viewing threshold Show
Comment below viewing threshold Show
If you want to make posts sounding very clever dont claim home users cant make servers due to hardware/bandwidth reasons it makes u sound rather stupid and clueless. I'm not running anything insane and my bandwidth would allow servers for 300+players though I wont claim my hardware would, but that could be upgraded "if" I wanted. Reasoning for DICE's decision with this is silly.