any of your gear or persistence?Am I the only person who is seeing the problem here?
Bard wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 13:47:Bad Company 2 is far more comparable to an MMO in terms of how much is being tracked and how much inherently depends on a running master server, than something like Counter-Strike or any number of old FPSs that have been released over the years.
What SHOULDN'T be required are:
*having to connect to a server online to retrieve a server list when you already know the IP address of where you want to play
*being UNABLE to play multi at all if their servers are down.
You should be able to direct connect to a server of your choice via IP - even if your unlocks are unavailable - when the EA servers are down.
The approach was nothing more than 'lets make it hard for the pirates' without thinking 'how's this going to screw our customers'
There's NO excuse and it's the last time EA sees a dime of my money - not because of the downtime - but because of the POLICIES that will ensure that the same sort of crap happens in future.
You don't have much experience with Gamespy then because historically its reliability is head-and-shoulders above what EA and Ubisoft are offering now.
Zardoz5 wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 12:07:EA can't pull the plug on the Gamespy-run games. Gamespy would have to do it, and to my knowledge it has never done that for any game except for one which the publisher didn't pay for the contract at the release of the game.
Why do you say that they can't pull online support for a game if they used GameSpy tech for it? I recall the ToS in all other BF games stating they can pull the plug after giving 30 days of notice.
Verno wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 12:47:You don't have much experience with Gamespy then because historically its reliability is head-and-shoulders above what EA and Ubisoft are offering now. Plus Gamespy's system is more robust and segregated with the authentication and master list servers separate. And, it is a fail-open system which means that if authentication fails, users can still get a list of servers and connect and play on the game servers. So, online play doesn't come to a standstill because a user can't login or their CD key can be validated.
Based on my experience with previous Battlefield titles and other Gamespy enabled games like Borderlands, Gamespy doesn't really know what it's doing either to be blunt.
xXBatmanXx wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 13:18:
you're kidding right? i smell a shill in here somewhere. and it's a blast!
Don't they go down for maint every Tuesday?
elefunk wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 10:58:Darks wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 10:25:Except for, you know, the teensy little unimportant fact that the required internet connection actually has a reason in Bad Company 2,
Believe it or not, this is no better that Ubis bullshit DRM. This is why I am so against this kind of service from any publisher. Fricking relying on their login server just to play the game. I feel like I’m a little kid being told what to do with my own toys.
you're kidding right? i smell a shill in here somewhere. and it's a blast!
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 10:19:
Gamespy has been in the business of running a gaming server infrastructure for 15 years for a reason. It knows what it is doing because that is its core business. But, EA wanted to save some money and be able to pull the plug on the game at some point, so it is hosting the servers for this game in-house. That is the problem. EA doesn't know what the hell it is doing because it doesn't have the experience at doing this.
EA screwed up big time by not opening the PC Beta to the public and testing their new server infrastructure with a realistic load before releasing the game.
I've Got The News Blues wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 10:19:Verno wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 08:57:That's just it. EA doesn't have that experience running a master server infrastructure for the Battlefield series or any popular FPS game because it has always farmed that out to Gamespy in the past. EA has only run the master servers for Medal of Honor Pacific and Airborne, and it has already pulled the plug on Pacific because unlike the other Medal of Honor games, no one played it. If EA wasn't such a cheap bastard and a control freak, it would have hired Gamespy to perform these functions for this game too.
They've only had 10 years of Battlefield games to figure it out.
Gamespy has been in the business of running a gaming server infrastructure for 15 years for a reason. It knows what it is doing because that is its core business. But, EA wanted to save some money and be able to pull the plug on the game at some point, so it is hosting the servers for this game in-house. That is the problem. EA doesn't know what the hell it is doing because it doesn't have the experience at doing this.
Darks wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 10:25:Except for, you know, the teensy little unimportant fact that the required internet connection actually has a reason in Bad Company 2, and you can still play the single-player campaign without an internet connection just fine.
Believe it or not, this is no better that Ubis bullshit DRM. This is why I am so against this kind of service from any publisher. Fricking relying on their login server just to play the game. I feel like I’m a little kid being told what to do with my own toys.
xXBatmanXx wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 03:45:
?
Played all day and all night - maybe 1 hr total downtime?
WoW has more downtime than that....having a blast.
Played my first few Team Deathmatch games - that is a blast!
Anway. night. have fun.
Verno wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 08:57:That's just it. EA doesn't have that experience running a master server infrastructure for the Battlefield series or any popular FPS game because it has always farmed that out to Gamespy in the past. EA has only run the master servers for Medal of Honor Pacific and Airborne, and it has already pulled the plug on Pacific because unlike the other Medal of Honor games, no one played it. If EA wasn't such a cheap bastard and a control freak, it would have hired Gamespy to perform these functions for this game too.
They've only had 10 years of Battlefield games to figure it out.
TheVocalMinority wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 06:35:
Sorry but there is no technical reason for EA to control the game servers like this.
Surf wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 04:07:
I dunno, game hasn't been out a week and i am losing interest already.
elefunk wrote on Mar 11, 2010, 03:37:
The 32-man privately-rented public server I regularly play on has been running without fail for the last week, and the admin has full control over it just as he always has been able to do.