Back to Article

  • espaghetti - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    Thanks for the heads up Craig! Reply
  • zdw - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    There's hidden 128 player support in BF3, which on one of the larger conquest maps would be just awesome.

    I hope they relax these arbitrary limits after the release of the game. Obviously, there is demand from players.
  • ContractMan - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    EA could care less about their players or what they want. Reply
  • seamonkey79 - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    How much less? Reply
  • webmastir - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    ^this. Reply
  • B3an - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    Oh god not another one... You mean couldN'T you idiot. Basic English here!

    If EA could care less then that implies they do care.
  • augiem - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    You must have one awesome life, dude. Kudos to you! Reply
  • Proxy711 - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    Anyone else think its completely absurd to get EVERY EA game on your account banned for doing something this minor in a beta? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    This is stupid EA death-threats at their worst. Go ahead and ban an account from the BF3 beta if you must, but that's where this should end. As zdw notes above, the real problem is that the BF3 beta code was apparently easily "hacked" (tweaked really) to allow more than 32 player modes. I'm betting there are some major bugs when the game officially launches, with rampant cheating, haxors, etc. resulting in bans because EA would rather ban than spend the time fixing their code. Reply
  • Ratinator - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    You do understand what Beta testing is do you not? Reply
  • JarredWalton - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    Yes, I do. And why should EA go threatening bans for people who are providing a free service? "OMG, they created a non-standard server and that's not supposed to happen!" Um, so what? That means there's a security hole that should have been plugged if you didn't want users to be able to do this with the beta, not that what the users did was inherently wrong.

    Put another way, legislating encryption isn't the same thing as making strong encryption that can't be cracked. It seems EA is basically counting on people not making the effort to hack a game rather than making a game unhackable -- and if they're wrong, and you accidentally join a "bad" server, they might just ban your account and deny access to any EA games you have purchased through Origin.

    Considering the number of bugs in the beta right now (you should have heard Brian go off on BF3 in our last conference chat...), users creating "unauthorized server configs" should be the least of our worries. This is a beta, yes, but more importantly it's a DICE beta. 'nuf said.
  • therealnickdanger - Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - link

    I always play betas under an alias tied to a separate e-mail address. I don't care if it gets locked or banned. I want to find one of these 128-player maps! Sounds like fun!

    EA/DICE, get a life. It's a beta, YOUR free beta. Fix it or shut up.
  • BlamTech - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    While understanding the need to "protect" things like Ranking, I can't say I agree in ANY way with prohibiting people from either running their own servers, or playing on "unofficial" servers.

    CallOfDuty series seems to have taken this same plan (MW1 was the last you could host your own server), and it's been harmful, both to the brand, and to the individual titles. Look at how many COD4:MW1 servers still exist, largely because people can host/control them. (And because they don't want to fight international lag to play on "official" servers...)

    Make "official" and "unofficial". Keep ranks unique between the two if you want.. .just retain the ability to run your own dedicated servers... players DO want this.. and some players will abandon a title simply because this feature is not available.
  • rcc - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    Bearing in mind that this is a beta, they can't very well iron out bugs if the bug reports are from a modified server.

    I too would like to see a return to the dedicated servers, but only after the code is stable.
  • faizoff - Monday, October 03, 2011 - link

    The Battle log has posted that the beta released is an old beta more than a month old and the final game is much evolved from what we currently see. Reply
  • Deleted - Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - link

    Which sort of defeats the purpose of a beta test, does it not? Why have an open beta where the testers have no idea which bugs have been fixed and which haven't? This is just a terrible demo with no actual testing involved. Reply
  • khory - Tuesday, October 11, 2011 - link

    Not if the primary focus is testing the netcode and server stability. Reply
  • Menty - Tuesday, October 04, 2011 - link

    Hrm, banning people because they released beta software that isn't bullet-proof? Classy act EA, and way to miss the point of a beta test. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now