@AristarhUcolov2 wrote:It's simple. [NO-FORCED-INTERNET-CONNECTION]
P.S Battlefield was single and multiplayer during the 2000s era.
The direction consoles are heading, you need the internet to play anything, even single player. I can't imagine the size of the hard drive needed to privately run such huge maps and 128 players with everything else going on. Just doesn't seem feasible. That's like hosting a professional football game in your backyard and expecting 50,000 people to fit on your property.
@tyl0413 wrote:
@ZombieP1ow1. That's a stupid comparation
2. It's been done for decades, on far weaker hardware, many games do it today, there's no reason for Battlefield not to, how about just put it in there for those that can run it, if let's say regular PCs only in a few years can run it only (which is not the case) well put it in there right now, so once we get there even if the game is abandoned by developers it can be played and preserved. What if i wanna go out and acquire a few of the machines they're running the game off of? The hardware argument really doesn't work. It's all about control, so once they release the next game they can kill the servers for this one so youre stuck with a useless entry in your Steam library and are forced to buy the brand new game. Stop downgrading PC games bc of consoles, and stop killing games with always online DRM
Steady on. Can your PC handle 128 people? Calling my comparison stupid is off base. You're angry at DICE because of the direction modern tech and games are going? The whole "they gonna kill a game" fades in the light of BFBC2 servers STILL having people on them. Not PC. XBOX. Doesn't look "killed", BF4 is far from "killed" you're pontificating on a percieved event years down the line. Why? Most games, PCs and Consoles work better connected to the internet.
@ZombieP1owGames die when they're required to connect to a centralized closed service like EA servers. Just a matter of time til Bad Company and BF4 shuts down, once EA decides it's no longer worth it. After that point unless some modders who actually care about the game unlike EA make an offline mode you can never play the game again. Meanwhile the campaign will remain playable, well for the most part anyways, after a point you'd have to knock Origin out of the game so the campaign can be preserved since without that they can just delete the game off origin, delete it form your library, ban you whatever they want and the games gone.
Games like Quake III Arena or DOOM can never be killed, because they are DRM free so you can store them away on a hard drive for ages and it'll still work, you can host your own server for local play, LAN or online, the code is public so anyone can port it to newer platforms so the game can be played for as long as at least some people care, it's built to last. Battlefield games and the like are built to die, it's not a matter of if, but when. It's not in EAs interest to keep these games alive til the end of time, they don't care, if anything having the old games playable affects their business negatively because people can just stay on the old ones for longer instead of buying the new games. You literally lose nothing if you wanna play only until the next one comes out on official servers and give the people that care the tools to keep the game alive so i really don't understand why you'd be against mod tools/offline/LAN modes/etc. More features and choice is rarely a bad thing.
Also here just some games off the top of my head i can think of that are completely unplayable due to being rendered useless by requiring a constant connection to services that no longer exist:
Nosgoth
Battleborn
Lawbreakers
Paragon
EA's own Darkspore or Titanfall 1 which servers are hacked and they refuse to fix it.
or just read this: https://www.ea.com/service-updates
Anything on that list with online function are now completely unusable, wouldn't be the case if they supported offline/LAN/self host servers/mod tools etc. Back then at least you could play single player offline ,as we move forward it's just getting worse and worse, good luck playing modern call of duty campaign offline. Soon people gonna jump on the streaming bandwagon which gonna be the last nail in the coffin of game preservation. Remember OnLive? I hope i made my point.
@ZombieP1ow I see your point. If they did some sort of offline mode, I’d assume it would be on a small map with less players
I think there should be a little offline mode, like 10vs10 or something. You know a little arena for warmup/practise (if thats your thing). Though no progression there...little timmy will have to put on his bigboys pants, and get on the battlefield for that!
Id also really like a sort of gun range, with multiple targets (some moving), at multiple ranges.
But you dont always get what you want, and im fine with that.
@AristarhUcolov2 wrote:
@ZombieP1ow[HDD][SSD][M.2][SSHD][AndAll]
The maps take only 20-40GB.
Bots only take up 1-10GB.
how much does keeping track of the vehicles, bullet/missle/HE round tracking, in game destruction, levolution, and any other number variables take up though. I see frame rate stutters on BF4 servers during levoluton events. I'm on your side, but I'm aware how EA operates.
