Thread: EXTRA Fees for server hosting for BF3!?

Originally Posted by REMY

you think this will get passed on to the reservist in some way? Insted of $5 mo it's $5.50 or $6??

I wouldn't mind.

bingo, its reasonable. which is excatly why this thread is not running.

Originally Posted by Bunni

huh, you seem to be misunderstanding the situation, its a per slot fee + another per slot fee. If valve pulled the same bullshit, we'd be paying thousands and thousands of dollars just to host the servers.

its another way to squeeeeze money out of the community with bullshit excuses.



huh? Oh sure, if its only $16 who cares right? I mean fuck, if games started costing $76, no one would raise a fit, sure.... ya...

Come on, really? You find it acceptable to tack more fees on? EA's the only ones to have this bs ranked costs more + only certified hosts, crap (though something makes me think cod did it too, but you see how well that worked for the pc community...), they are shoving excuse after excuse down our throats. Now we got yet another fee for a half assed product, ya ima bash it and im going to bash it fucking hard. I am allowed to bash it because their bullshit excuse behind the extra fee is a load of horse shit, like if you got taxed extra to breath. Who would give a fuck if it was only another $5 tax for breathing? In the end your still getting taxed for breathing

ya and they still are rediculus. What we pay for single bf2/bf3 server is 1/4 what we pay for a dedicated box that can host 5X the traffic, yes that means the bf2/bf3 servers are damn near twice the cost in a negetable difference between the per-slot cost ratio (estimated from how much we pay for the dedicated hypernia server / total number of players all the servers it hosts can hold)?! Only for EA to take 6-18 MONTHS to release a patch? Really? You're going to defend them on this?

i miss you bunni

Originally Posted by [CoFR]SirMoo

Even Microsoft charges "per slot fees" (see: Client Access Licenses "CALs") for certain servers (including SQL, Terminal Services/Virtualization, Exchange, etc.). Some of Amazon AWS also has per slot fees. So this is not a new concept, although maybe in the game hosting industry it might be...

Also forcing ranked servers on certified hosts is there to: 1. prevent server code leakage/hacking/stats hacking etc. 2 Ensure that the variables controlled by the hosting side are compliant with the RoE.

To your numbered points Moo:

1. How has that scheme worked so far? Has it limited the hacking or stat padding/glitching in any meaningful or measurable way? It certainly doesn't appear to have.
2. Was this a problem for ranked servers in previous implementations of BF games? I know that there were many, many ranked servers in earlier versions that had settings against the RoE. While it is true that EA/DICE had no visibility or control into those settings on a per server basis, there were hundreds if not thousands of reports to EA/DICE about these servers and it always came down to a matter of enforcement and their unwillingness to actually "enforce" their own RoE (unless it was really frickin blatant). There are servers in BC2 that have settings that could be considered against EA's RoE and yet still stand. It always comes down to enforcement of those policies. Enforcement requires constant "overwatch" by EA/DICE. Something that they have seemed unwilling to do for a long, long time.

As to the licensing issue - it is within EA's right to charge more, of course. However I think it is a dick move given the costs of the server slots already. I also tend to think that most CAL licensing provisions are also bad for the same reasons. I am not a fan of supporting Microsoft's licensing model (and I really hate VMware's model now) and wouldn't hold those up as great for the customer (or even necessary for the business). They are simply another revenue stream and allows the vendor, in most cases, to at least "double-dip."