But the advantages for DICE in not giving the files to public use is clear: 1. they can control which GSP hosts a server 2. no server-side hacks to bypass serial checks for the clients (win for EA/DICE *and* fair to the paying players) 3. harder to build hacks/cheats which were developed by studying the client-server packets in depth (win for DICE *and* the fair-players).
Players don't care about the advantages to DICE or EA. They care about the advantages to players. When publishers control the servers, that gives players less control. If EA wants to shut down a server, they can. Want to host a server with mods? Too bad. Not providing players with the dedicated server app is a slap in the face to one of PC gaming's biggest strengths: flexibility.
I see BFBC2 more of a financial step to fund a BF3 development where the modding community should be supported!
I keep seeing references to BF3, as if it will be completely different from everything DICE has made since BF2. Logic dictates that it will be more of the same. Designed for consoles, no lean, no prone, no public dedicated servers, no mods, etc. That is, if BF3 is even being developed. Based on what they're doing with BF:BC2 multiplayer, it looks like they are trying to turn it into BF3.
Remember the "MW2 we want dedicated servers" steam group? Even if you argue here this picture told me that there is still a 50/50 chance that you will buy the game.
Except for the minor fact that Steam does not consist of 50% Bluesnews readers.This comment was edited on Jan 9, 2010, 06:22.