DICE explains BFBC2 server policy

By Robert Purchese Published 15 January, 2010

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.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (32) 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • iamtheoneneo #1 2 years ago

    dont really know many players that created a home server in bf2 anyway - so this isnt exactly pivotal to bc2 release.
    most will rent and be happy with it.

  • mowgli #2 2 years ago

    I predict... /o\ ... neckbeards.

  • Fubdub #3 2 years ago

    They marketed it about as much as they could without coming across as cunts. It's a fine line.

  • AbyssUK #4 2 years ago

    The dedicated server code will get leaked anyway.. pointless exercise, waste of money even trying. Pirate servers will still appear.

  • TruWari3r #5 2 years ago

    So what's the maximum players in mp on the 360? 12 vs 12? I really wonder if they can do 16 vs 16 on the 360 since it’s done with a p2p solution instead of on a server.

    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.

  • Distributor #6 2 years ago

    Not really a business critical situation if the dedicated code leaks or not, if their comments on just breaking even with renting is accurate.

  • chrisola #7 2 years ago

    back in the day (and probably still in CS:S) people always rented servers anyway didn't they? I used to rent a Jolt.co.uk one which ran Team Fortress Classic, and then joined a couple of Counter Strike clans who rented their own game & voice coms server. There were loads of server renting companies about.

    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!

  • Fubdub #8 2 years ago

    Renting server is usually the preferred way, except at local LANs.... it's not as controversial as removing dedicated servers entirely though I dare say some people would like to run their own.

  • Sorbicol #9 2 years ago

    Wonder if you could argue it's against competition law to for people to rent servers striaght from the developer and no-one else? Like Abyss says, the code will get leaked or hacked and then there'll be dedicated servers all over the place if DICE like it or not.

    At least it's not Peer to Peer though. Hope EA get that right with the new Medal of Honour too.

  • Salaminizer #10 2 years ago

    still, in BF2142 (I bet it's the same with BF2) you couldn't run your own ranked server.

    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.

  • Mooglepies #11 2 years ago

    I rent what's called a Virtual Private Server (VPS) that lets me install and run any server I like. It has, at various times, run L4D/2, CS:S, world in conflict, TF2 and various other sourcemods as well as Teamspeak, so it's kind of a blow to me and the (admittedly) fairly small gaming community I'm part of that we won't be able to run BFBC2 on it. Oh well, we'll find somwhere else to frequent I'm sure.

  • VicViper #12 2 years ago

    So DICE are recommending companies to rent from, they not making anything from this I guess? just covering costs?

    Part of me was preping for the sound of good will being flushed away maybe I thought too negative to soon.

  • Vordred #13 2 years ago

    TruWari3r "So what's the maximum players in mp on the 360? 12 vs 12? I really wonder if they can do 16 vs 16 on the 360 since it’s done with a p2p solution instead of on a server."

    the 360 is running on dedicated servers aswell, just ones hosted by Dice, much like the first BFBC and 1943 were

  • kangarootoo #14 2 years ago

    "Wonder if you could argue it's against competition law to for people to rent servers striaght from the developer and no-one else?"

    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.

  • Brainz #15 2 years ago

    am i the only one seeing that negative?

    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 :-)

  • Eraysor #16 2 years ago

    After playing MW2 a lot on PC, the matchmaking service suits me fine. I'd be more than happy to see it appear in other games. It certainly wouldn't put me off games with no dedicated servers.

    EDIT: -9? I was merely expressing an opinion.
    Edited by 1 at 15/01/10 @ 18:26

  • Shakey_Jake33 #17 2 years ago

    @Brainz - That's basically spot on really.

    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.

  • Fr3gU #18 2 years ago

    Oh, come on! With handpicked servers comes stability and reliability. And I doubt there will be 2 providers in europe alone so there will be price competition. Look at BF2142. Loads of renting possibilities. And for anyone who played ranked games in earlier installments of BF series all had to play on "authorized servers". I think we'll be quite fine. :)

    Looking forward to march 4th!!!

  • freakzilla #19 2 years ago

    Is it meant to prevent pirates setting up their own servers? If so, is it any good?

  • MattyD #20 2 years ago

    Not just pirates, but hackers as well. Holding back the server files should buy the game a few hack-free days at least *rolleyes*

  • Hunam #21 2 years ago

    I don't mind this to be honest. I've only normaly ever played on servers from the bigger renters as you can count on the quality of them.

  • TruWari3r #22 2 years ago

    @ Vordred

    "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

  • penhalion #23 2 years ago

    Are people really that much into a game that they spend money renting a dedicated server?

  • hiddenranbir #24 2 years ago

    Yup they sure are.

    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.

  • Crovax20 #25 2 years ago

    The problem with this is, that our clan has quality servers that are easily on par with the ones you have to rent or probably even better. Since we want ranking to work, we couldn't really host bf2 either because while you could host a server on your own it would not be ranked. Meaning pretty much empty.

    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.

  • Nephirion #26 2 years ago

    I really hope that BFBC2 does well especially after IW sold out to corporate greed.

  • DrHouse #27 2 years ago

    I think people yelling at DICE about BFBC2 dedicated servers policy, are not very familar with Battlefield games :)
    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.

  • DwarfyP #28 2 years ago

    DICE isn't renting the servers directly so there are no costs to cover.
    They are being hosted by outside companies like those that host BF2 and BF2142 servers.

  • Rockeh #29 2 years ago

    guessing the authorised hosting companies will be paying some royalties to dice (hence the "This does not earn DICE a profit," comment) - as with (most?) previous games the dedi server files were free to download/use

  • Crovax20 #30 2 years ago

    @ drhouse

    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.

  • b1e1nito #31 1 year ago

    It seems no one here realy knows why they have done this. they say for game integrity. Meaning thier will be no mods ,plugins,or custome made maps. I rent and run a day of defeat source server and BFBC2 and the real diferance other then game grafics and sush is i know that i will never beable to make a custome map or add new gun skins that someone made , and that the only way this ever will happen is if EA desides to sell them to us. like BFBC2 Vietnom dont know what it cost but if we were simly able to make custome maps we would never haveto play for this and we would have pacific cost wars bagdad wars and any place someone would make a map for thus cost ing EA money so yes they will make monye by stopping peole from use their Brains to make it better and in stead making us pay
    Edited by 2 at 03/10/10 @ 22:09

  • mysticx2600 #32 1 year ago

    Unfortunately we have to say dice suck for this. As people have said being forced to use their "authorised" hosters is just abusing the players who want their own server, I find the services very overpriced.

    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.