Battlefield 1’s server pricing is based on a “One size fits all” 64 player +spectator package. Cpu+Ram+Bandwidth (cloud service).
All BF1 rental servers come with 64 player slots. As an admin you will be able to change the slot count to your preferred number. 16p, 32p 20p 10p etc.
Battlefield 4’s default tick rate is 30Hz and BF1 defaults at 60Hz. The tickrate effects pricing. Not all GSP’s offer higher tick. Some won’t offer a higher tick for slot counts less than 32. Some don’t offer over 48p for 60Hz.
So lets get the real numbers posted for fact based comparison.
NFOServers offers BF4 @ 60Hz, but they have a minimum order of 10p and a max of 48p.
48p ~ 30 days: $81.14, 90 Days: $219.08 (10% discount), 180 Days: $425.99 (12.5% discount) MultiPlay offers BF4 @ 60Hz, but they have a minimum order of 32p. They also charge $3.66 to debrand the server (server name prefixed with Multiplay::, server banner and graphics).
64p ~ 30 Days: $104.51 , 90 Days: $282.16 (10% discount),180 Days: $532.98 (15% discount) EA - BF1 60Hz … includes 64 player slots + spectator slots.
1 day: $2.99 ($0.0467 per slot) ~ (hourly slot $0.0019)
7 days: $11.99 ($1.7128 per day) ~ ($0.0267 per slot daily) ~ (hourly slot $0.0011)
30 days: $42.99 [slot cost $0.6717] ~ ($1.433 server per day) ~ ($0.0223 per slot daily) ~ (hourly slot $0.0009)
90 days: $99.99 [slot cost $0.5207] ~ ($1.111 server per day) ~ ($0.0173 per slot daily) ~ (hourly slot $0.0007)
180 days: $149.99 [slot cost $0.3905] ~ ($0.8332 server per day) ~ ($0.0130 per slot daily) ~ (hourly slot $0.0005)
Hopefully this clears up the pricing issues.
Most GSPs allow you to rent servers with less than 64 slots, making it a more affordable option if, for example, you only need a 12 slot server for 5v5 squad obliteration in BF4. Whilst the BF1 servers are cheaper per slot, it makes little difference to someone who only wants to rent a 12 slot server and now needs to pay for a 64 slot server.
For a 18 slot server (minimum for a 8vs8 competitive match),1 month period and 60Hz:
EA: $42.99 ($2.39 per slot)
4netplayers: $17.46 ($0.97 per slot)
For a 40 slot server (operations game mode), 1 month period and 60Hz:
EA: $42.99 ($1.07 per slot)
4netplayers: $33.07 ($0.83 per slot)
For a max (68 for bf1, 70 for bf4) slot server (conquest game mode), 1 month period and 60Hz:
EA: $42.99 ($0.63 per slot)
4netplayers: $53.93 ($0.77 per slot)
What is that showing us? EA servers are less expensive only for public conquest mode. Unless EA reconsiders and charges depending on slots too, it is not so cheaper as some want to imply.
No doubt that ea are far more cheaper.
The question is how many regions servers will be available, and what about the plugins? Guess we’ll have to wait to full reveal
Price wasn’t cut unless you look specifically at 64 player servers which many people don’t rent. Also we are getting less control for higher prices, especially on lower player count servers. The OP doesn’t understand simple concepts like these.
That is only based on 1 month. Who pays month by month? May as well throw your money away.
A better calculation (based on 6 months) would be EA matching all pricing as 4netplayers for 30 slots. Anything under 30 slots and net4players is slightly better, anything over 40 and EA pricing is better, 64 player and EA eats them for breakfast. That is based on 60Hz no procon or plugins. We will be getting customisation for that price as well and as Braddock posted they are trying to match as many features as previously available for BF titles. A.K.A Inbuilt Procon 2.0, or since I know Singularity will rip me apart for saying that, a new tool that does many similar things that procon and plugins do.
Everybody rents a server for a specific slot option, which is the highest they will use. If it is a public server (conquest & marginally operations) EA is cheaper. If it is a private one used for scrims or a public domination-tdm one, EA is more expensive.
That is all we are saying. Instead of saying that EA is giving us a better price, can you just say it is a better customer deal if the cost had some dependency on slots too? It is only fair, when the server uses a lot less bandwidth and processing power.
But it is still a rip-off due to the reduced control. I’d rather pay higher prices and have more control then pay lower prices with very little control.
Sure EA is offering us the servers for cheaper, but at what cost?
We dont get to pick between different levels of quality
We dont get to pick pricing per slot
We dont get to use any 3rd party plugins and will have to wait for EA/DICE to build said plugins for us
We dont get the full controll of the servers as we use to
I get what you are saying and if they worked like traditional GSP’s I’d agree. But they don’t. Servers are now cloud instance based. Cloud service providers don’t offer instances that accommodate every slot configuration. They provide pre-bundled instances. And you pick the bundle that works for your service.
Still, this decision was theirs. They chose to go to cloud instance based servers and not use the infrastructure that traditional GSP used. My guess is that was cheaper and most significantly, much easier to use. They don’t have the staff to handle anything, so the whole procedure had to be automated. You press a button and a cloud instance appears.
And this means even less choices for the people who rent, with the most significant one (and I am not talking about admin options here), not being able to pay per slot.
They could even have 2 or 3 different cloud based server categories/bundles, each with different processing power, offered to different slot numbers/modes, in different prices.
Even if options were the same, nobody can even insinuate that this service is cheaper. It is cheaper in some case, and more expensive in others.
Maybe they will expand the bundled options after launch. Whatever the bundles are they need to be the same with both MS Azure and Amazon EC2 and at the same price.
Your guess is as good as mine as to why they chose this route instead of traditional GSP’s.
Faster deploy, easier to update/expand, equal performance and stability across all regions covered, same hardware etc.
they do not have african server, they did with gsp’s and they do not have asian server they did with gsp’s they do not have even german located server they had about 8 hosters in the past in germany and a competetive market where you were able to choose the right gsp for your need with different pricing. they had high license fee’s the gsp’s had to pay and they also controlled the server hardware the gsp’s had to use since they could read the hardware through telemetry logfiles that could not be accessed by the gsp’s so what you are telling is not true