[bf1942] BF2 Server?
packtloss at gmail.com
Fri Nov 26 21:48:08 EST 2004
Lame. So we basically cut the server population in half? So what's
EA's angle on this? Why do we suspect the reason is to not launch with
decent server support? More money for their server rental business?
Incentive from Microsoft? Release date is too near, and they are
desperate for andreas' help to prevent the utter failure of bfv
happening again? Sheer collective stupidity?
On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:41:41 -0600, Michael Ressen
<netadmin at michiganburbs.com> wrote:
> Johan Stålnacke wrote:
> >Don't know what you really meant, but if you use ASE you can
> >find dedicated windows OR Linux servers, so it's easy to see how
> >many dedicated linux server there is out there.
> >At the moment there is 3158 Linux servers and
> >5199 Windows servers running BF42 right now.
> >991 Linux and 2362 Windows BFV servers.
> >(Then I don't know if ASE shows the right numbers...)
> There is a difference between sheer numbers of servers, and the numbers
> of servers hosted on commercial-class hosting services. Any kid can
> fire up a BF server and say "look at me I have a server", but what
> really matters is quality places for people to rent or play on. The
> more availablity of upper-tier, reliable providers, the better apt the
> gamers are to find a place to play on.
> For example, a few friends and I ran out and bought StarWars Battlefront
> when it was released, and I'd had talked to Pandemic about dedicated
> servers - they said "don't worry, we'll have flavors for everyone".
> Now, they released a borked windows client acting like a server, no
> linux version, and no word on when. Stability was horrid, it crashed
> repeatedly, has been patched twice so far, and we gave up playing the
> game because we couldn't even find a stable server to play on for more
> than 15 minutes at a time, and I will not put windows on any of my own
> systems. Plus, the costs GSP's were charging were at 100.00 and up for
> a private server we had to file 2-3 tickets per night just to keep running.
> If BF:2 follows down the current path, this could be where it's headed
> as well. There's enough community support to put some assistance and
> help into doing it correctly, and we all want to see BF:2 do well, but
> when things like this are made public it turns us off the the notion of
> hosting due to the lack of viable options for us.
> Now I don't even rent servers, I host public ones. For me it's not a
> matter of revenue, but there is a clear difference between revenue
> streams hosting Windows vs Linux. I don't have to remind anyone here
> which one is more favorable to any of us, but I certainly am not going
> to pay $995.00 for a license fee to host a public box - my bandwidth
> costs are enough as it is. Therefore, I surely won't promote any game
> I can't run.
More information about the Bf1942