A little late with this one, but better late than never I suppose.

Big ol' thread at http://forum.ea.com/eaforum/posts/list/5373259.page was started back in March and discussion around here started before that.

I'm torn about it.  I wouldnt exactly call it "hostile"  not sure why the lack of dedicated servers makes them hostile.  They made a terrific game (bugs aside) and really catered to the pc crowd on it.  This is NOT a consolized POS.

But when you're going against the cash cow that is the Call of Duty franchise you need to make as much money as possible.  You know this game cost 100x more to develop than MW3.  CoD goes a CTRL+C/CTRL+V to make their games.  Its common sense that they get kickbacks from the hosting companies who host these servers.  Its ongoing revenue for them.  Which for them is a great idea.

What I would have really LOVED to see would for them to let us purchase the dedicated server files.  A 32 man server for 18 months will run you almost >$600.  I would have loved for them to give us the option to purchase the files for $200, even $300.  In the end it still costs less.

People who host their own servers are certainly in the minority.  <1% probably of the whole community.  And as a business person I can understand their reasoning.  As a gamer it upsets me.

As far as the LAN community goes though.... just one word.... ADAPT.

Quote from: krakah on November 19, 2011, 06:03:59 PM

As far as the LAN community goes though.... just one word.... ADAPT.

That's the problem, how is a LAN party supposed to adapt to a server that is on the net/cloud when the connection said cloud is not adequate to support 32 simultaneous connections let alone 64?  Honestly, that's kind of a cop-out for a LAN gamer to say that.  If all game companies go this route...the only way to adapt is to not have LANs....and that is NOT acceptable.

An internet server CAN be done at a LAN party.  It just takes some work.

Thats not to say I'm not disappointed about a lack of a dedicated LAN server.

I do agree with the idea that people should adapt and adjust to change and I have absolutely no problem with that, but when the service offered is either all or nothing and doesn't give an inch for end-user customization, that's where I have a problem.

Right now we have the option to play on servers that EA/DICE allows. Or not play at all. Their way or the highway. You can't adapt to that, you just do it or not. I could and would more than tolerate a middle-ground solution, but we're not even allowed that. That's just silly. This is why I won't pay full price for the game. Give LAN servers or put the game on sale for a weekend, otherwise I can deal with not playing it.

Besides, what about the people in that official EA thread that occasionally chime in about getting nothing but Crapty pings because of where they live in the world? Their statement can only be taken at face value, but going by their testimony, LAN servers would be like the second coming of christ for them. Why not make them happy as well?

I do agree with the idea that people should adapt and adjust to change and I have absolutely no problem with that, but when the service offered is either all or nothing and doesn't give an inch for end-user customization, that's where I have a problem.

Right now we have the option to play on servers that EA/DICE allows. Or not play at all. Their way or the highway. You can't adapt to that, you just do it or not. I could and would more than tolerate a middle-ground solution, but we're not even allowed that. That's just silly. This is why I won't pay full price for the game. Give LAN servers or put the game on sale for a weekend, otherwise I can deal with not playing it.

Besides, what about the people in that official EA thread that occasionally chime in about getting nothing but Crapty pings because of where they live in the world? Their statement can only be taken at face value, but going by their testimony, LAN servers would be like the second coming of christ for them. Why not make them happy as well?

Dont get me wrong.  I share everyones sentiments about no LAN support if for no other reason than I'm upset that I have to pay for something I have the means to do myself.  Even a few posts up, and on the EA forum thread you guys started I threw out the idea of letting us purchse the server files.  That sounds like common ground to me.

However the above sentence of yours that I highlighted really is the exact definition of "adapt".  Theres a difference between not being able to adapt and just not wanting to.  Your explanation is the latter.

The people you spoke of with the terrible pings.  How would dedicated servers help them?  They could host their own and do what?  Only play with a house full of people?  In battlefield?  How often do you get to gether with even 15-31 of your other friends to play a video game?  And if they hosted their own server and made it public then everyone else in the world would be getting just as crappy pings to them making the dedicated server useless again.

But theres a deeper issue here.  We have a game that is actively trying to take on Call of Duty.  A game that has actually set the entire gaming industry back at least 5 years.  They are the ones who initially took away our dedicated servers, and pretty much put an end to community developed mods. They're he ones who have copy and pasted code year in and year out.  I will support any game that is trying to take them on head to head.  Call of Duty's pockets are deeper than the Grand Canyon.  I tried to find an actual number of how much it cost to develop BF3. I couldnt.  But who do you think has the better cost:sales ratio?  MW3 who CTRL+V'ed their way into their last game or BF3 who designed a brand new engine that actually makes use of our high end hardware, and offers a much more in depth experience?

MW3 sold 6.5 million copies on launch day and so far has gross sales of more than 3/4 of a BILLION. 
<sarcasm> huge thanks to all of you who helped with that </sarcasm>
BF3 can only dream of brining in that amount of money.  With the kick backs from the hosting companies it will get them that much closer. 

What am I saying?  It comes down to money.  When the profit margins from the BF series get to the expected level maybe theyll give us the servers back, or at least sell it to us.  Who knows?  We can only speculate on that.  That will then determine just what kind of company they are.  Heres to hoping BC3/BF4 will give us the servers back.

In the mean time.... BF3 FTW, and middlefingeryou MW3.

Besides not having dedicated servers BF3 is in everyway better then BF2.  My personal fav is CS:S!!!!