[bf1942] How could DICE agree to this??

Neal Clayton xayd at vae-victus.org
Tue Feb 22 22:46:27 EST 2005

Why worry about what people will be willing to live with?

I'd be willing to live with...

1) A bug free *nix server
2) An improved engine that doesn't suffer horribly from lag caused by 
3) demos
4) an SDK, perhaps even open scripting language similar to UCC
5) automatic downloads of maps/mods from servers in-game on the fly, 
with the ability to redirect the client
6) a fully functional remote administration tool shipped with the game, 
for free

I can get all of these from any game based on the Quake or UT engines.

If the best EA can do with their time when the game in question is so 
far behind even 1999 functionality is to try and corner server rental by 
passing out game imbalance to noobs who play on their pub servers, then 
who cares?

We can talk about what we can and can't live when when a Battlefield 
game provides even equivalent functionality in comparison to the 
competition.  Until they do provide such basic and expected 
functionality, no changes that benefit EA at the expense of the rest of 
us is at all acceptable.

Last time I checked we are buying the game and hosting the game with our 
money, our servers, and our bandwidth.

Dunno about you but I don't owe EA any favors, so I'm not looking to 
debate how many bad changes benefitting EA that I can live with.

Dave Snodgrass wrote:

> James Gurney wrote:
>> Well there goes the idea of rational debate. I don't agree with your 
>> idea, so I'm "whining". Alrighty then. If you can't talk rationally 
>> about this, I won't be replying to any further mails from you on this 
>> subject.
> fine. s/whining/being defeatist and pessimistic/ - Its not that im 
> upset that you dont agree with me - like i said, im just throwing 
> options out there (not necessarily good ones) that maybe some people 
> would be willing to live with, in hopes that they may understand that 
> EA might not be doing this exclusively for fiscal reasons. Im sure you 
> understand how hard it would be to track and legitimaize every public 
> server on the internet - and with this in mind, realize there are a 
> number of dorks out there who would spend all day trying to figure out 
> how to spoof data to EA. If you could make a system of punishment 
> severe enough to catch the spoofers (ie. server must have legit 
> key/hash issued from ea or dice), people wont bother, and EA might see 
> this as a viable alternative.
>> I do have a better suggestion: The game should not be crippled in the 
>> first place. That's the only acceptable solutions 
>> If you start allowing companies to control how you use the software 
>> that you *paid for*, it will only get worse as time goes on. What's 
>> next? You need to have a credit card registered just to play on your 
>> own machine? How about you need to be thumbprint authenticated to 
>> make sure you're not letting someone else borrow your copy of the 
>> game? Your rights as a consumer are being slowly eroded, and if you 
>> sit back and let it happen, you'll only have yourself to blame when 
>> it reaches the point of craziness.
> You arent buying software. You are licensing its use. However, i do 
> agree. This problem is trivial to solve - hell valve does it.
>> I applaud your desire to resolve this issue, but I don't think your 
>> idea is going about it the right way.
> I'd rather have something than nothing. Im sure this is a security 
> issue, that they just cant solve before launch. If we could even have 
> the option of a way of authenticating and legitimizing a server, id 
> not be happy about provinding a CC or cdkey or something...
> The more i think about it though - Why cant ea/dice have a server 
> admin web page. People who want to register a ranking server enter 
> their cdkey, and the ip of the server. (The form would obviously allow 
> registering of a number of servers) but like those bf1942 stats sites, 
> arent recognized until there has been X amount of uptime with a 
> minimum of Y users over Z timeframe. Once these criteria have been 
> met, the rank stat collection server then bases an encryption key 
> based on your cdkey that you entered in your cfg file (or hash thats 
> made from your key on the afforementioned webpage), as well as that EA 
> web page - This encryption key (dice can hold the private master hash) 
> then allows stats packets to be authorized and parsed - While making 
> it much harder for hackers to send faked data...
>> James
>> On 2/16/2005 10:12 AM, Dave Snodgrass wrote:
>>> hahaha ok!
>>> Random company? This is EA. Are you suggesting EA has had poor 
>>> credit card history? you do note i did say 'cd-key' as an 
>>> alternative. Maybe you can suggest something instead of whining?
>>> James Gurney wrote:
>>>> On 2/16/2005 9:52 AM, Dave Snodgrass wrote:
>>>>> You didnt read my suggestion. It wasnt for all of those 100 
>>>>> players - It was for the 1 server owner. He/she/you could tie that 
>>>>> server's ID to your CC or to your cdkey.
>>>> Yes, I did read your suggestion. As a server owner/administrator, 
>>>> I'm not prepared to give my CC to every random company that wants 
>>>> to do something like this, and I'd be surprised if many others 
>>>> were. I don't trust EA with that information, frankly.
>>>> James
>> !DSPAM:4213906a194481606420926!

More information about the Bf1942 mailing list