So we're letting you pay for servers while paying for a subscription after paying for a game :wanker:: http://www.destructoid.com/ea-kills-free-battlefield-3-servers-pushes-paid-ones-227296.phtml Does anyone want to take a guess why I never buy EA games? Correct, it's because they mistreat sharks.
wtf?!?! Hopefully it won't affect the PC version (which I don't think it would since there's already a lot of hosted servers out there already). Now, the issue is that most likely many console gamers would rather just put away their console copy of BF3 from now on seeing as there would be a lot less console gamers interested in hosting servers unlike the PC gaming community. deltatux
After reading that article, the fault is mostly with console gamers themselves. Seeing most players are fine with paid servers and leaving free ones, the ideal business decision is to scrap the rarely used ones. Though in order for EA to appear less d!cky, they should've left two or three free ones alive.
I don't see an issue, unless they do it with the PC servers, as the console players are welcoming the idea to pay.
You don't need to pay to play on these servers, just to rent them for your own purposes. This doesn't really affect the average player at all.
I'm not seeing how this is...a bad thing? The article is crap, it makes it out as if it's a requirement to rent a server, when it's not If the game is popular, then people will rent out servers, keep them populated, and everything will be just dandy, if it's not popular, there will be very few rented servers, and the game will ultimately die, this is how it's always been, how is this any different?
Well think about it, they gotta save all their server space for Origin. You wouldn't want to login in to Origin and suddenly find that you have been punted off for no reason what so eve.... oh wait that still happens!
Do you guys even read what you post or do you just see the letters EA and start spouting **** like a rabid dog? You don't have to pay any sort of subscription you don't have to rent a server, console gamers wanted the same server system as pc e.g paid custom server hosted by players and that's now what they have. This won't effect pc as this is already how it is on pc. There is currently over 100,000 players playing on consoles and there is no lack of servers.
Yeah, I'm not even sure they CAN read honestly, it boggles the mind how they can hold the opinions they do and simultaneously be able to post anything looking like a language. They've essentially given console owners dedicated servers where they can tweak their own settings. This was based on what their community asked for. One of you explain what the **** is wrong with that? This is how all PC games are structured, and you tards are complaining?
...... Unless I've got serious Alzheimers it said that almost all their free servers are shut down so they pretty much have no option but to pay if they want online play. Who's the tard again?
No, they have to pay if they want to run their own server. Which, coincidentally enough, is something PC players have always had to do. There was basically just no demand for EA's vanilla servers anymore so of course they got rid of them, why waste money on something that people aren't using?
Renting your own server so others can play on it is nothing new. Even if you have your own physical server it costs extra money to have a permanent IP address and website to go with it if you wanted. Clans do this all the time and even rent servers in Counter Strike:Source even though they could host their own.
The article certainly didn't make it sound like that, they made it sound as if EA just yanked the free servers at the first opportunity they got which I would believe given EA's history even if everyone in the world told me EA did not do that. No demand for free servers, seriously? We're talking about people who stinge out on the very hardware they use, they're willing to deal with sub HD resolutions, sub 30 frame rates and crippled controls to save money yet you're telling me those same people would pay $30 a month to rent servers?
Console players tend to have more money than common sense, and jump on the opportunity to be "the cool guy" with their own BF3 server customized to their liking. And by "no demand for free servers" I mean there were most likely very few people playing on them.
Well you tell me. You jump on articles at the drop of a hat. Now listen, I know destructoid is a reputable, unquestionable news source, so you can't be blamed there, but come on, really. The community wanted private servers, they got them, on consoles no less (has that ever been done before?). Now, EA sees less demand for their servers, so they decommission some. It's win-win for everyone.
lol, yet another article filled with people who are either too lazy, or stupid to read, even the article itself states this was a community requested feature, the author just decided to put his own little spin on it. People will always look for things to complain about though, not happy unless they are unhappy, it's the modern day negative mentality, and far too many people in the gaming world suffer from it.
Had I know this was another EA flame thread.....I wouldn't have read it..... If you hate EA, great....keep it to yourself. EA is no different from any other company in existance. The goal of EVERY public company is to keep shareholders happy. Period. Doesn't matter what the name of the company is, that is their sole goal. It isn't to try and please every potential customer or whining gamer.....
While I agree it's a bit of dick move by EA, in all honesty it's not a big deal. On all the other Battlefield games I played, or any similar online multiplayer type game for that matter, I don't think I ever played on an EA/official server. Granted, if you can only rent/purchase servers from EA then it's a bitch, money-grab move. The good servers are never the official servers in games like this.
