5 ms·
What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from
by ajmurmann 9y ago
What bothers me about this is that people bought the game, but they can't play it because EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so. I very much preferred the old days when players had to run their own servers. It was less convenient, but made for great community and avoided situations like this.
- slezyr 9y agoWell it's not about server, but about MASTER servers. Those used to discover "players own servers" in the internet.
- masklinn 9y agoIsn't that even worse? That would require even less resources on EA's part, and is even less consequential to the actual game.
- Thaxll 9y agoYeah right ... showing homemade server by official EA servers. It's a recipe for disaster.
- scopecreep 9y agoThis is how it was for many years. Decades even. It was fine. They weren't exactly "homemade" servers either. There was an entire industry of game server rentals and these were datacenter rack servers connected to fat pipes. It wasn't unusual at all to find third-party servers with way better pings (and higher player caps) than the official servers. I don't remember the official bf1942 servers ever having 32v32 player matches but that was fairly common for thirdparty servers for example.
- ajmurmann 9y agoCan I still type in a IP address directly?
- oakwhiz 9y agoIt's too bad that something like DHT isn't used for storing info about game servers.
- maxerickson 9y agoI think my preferred fix is to require them to support the online features until a date that they make clear wherever the game is sold. Then the legal system isn't trying to mandate specific implementation details.
- subway 9y agoThen they bust out Hollywood style accounting. Each game gets it's own LLC, then pays the studio exorbitant rates for handling G&A, and put liability for keeping the servers online with the disposable LLC.
- maxerickson 9y agoOh I would think they would just make ~18 month promises. But then people at least have a chance to know what they are buying. I find this much less problematic than the idea that support will be eternal for a $50 game.
- mustacheemperor 9y ago>EA doesn't want to run servers for it and prohibits everyone else from doing so The actual content of EA's letter makes it quite clear they are specifically after the unauthorized usage of their branding and trademark, and the fact that the site hosted the actual Battlefield Heroes game binaries for free download. The letter does not demand the site unilaterally shut down its server hosting. The site's response is arguably a big overreaction by the administrators, and most of the comments here seem to be misreading the events the same way. There's a potential debate to whether EA should still "own" the right to block distribution of Heroes when there's no other way to acquire or play it, but debating whether or not EA has the right to shut down player-hosted servers is unrelated to the subject at hand. They do have an established right to enforce the use of their trademarks (logos, branding, etc) on a fan site like this.
- Shendare 9y agoAgreed. Distributing actual EA assets and using EA-owned branding (and artwork?) seems to be the problem. Simply running alternate servers, distributing patches to the game, and using their launcher without copyrighted artwork or branding (maybe a "not endorsed by or associated with EA" sort of disclaimer) would seem to be fine. It's reminiscent of the EverQuest server emulation community. They distribute patches and run open-source server infrastructure, but forbid distributing copies of the EQ game itself, pointing people to legitimate acquisition methods.
- LocalhostDemon 9y agoGone are the days of BF1942 and playing on the low ping, clan servers with the same good gamers.