DDoS Attack Clobbers Battlefield 3 Servers

[My name is Fiction]

Arent there supposed to be security measures for servers to prevent things like DDoSing? Why haven't there been more reports of DDoSing of online games when streamers have to deal with this shit all the time? Wouldn't people who DDoS prefer the bigger fish for their shits and giggles rather than being relegated to fuck with a single individual?

The problem is you cant actualy solve a DDoS attack without shuting down the server. If you have enough people repeat the most computational taxing action at the same time it might have to lock people out to meet those requests. Some bot farms are composed of hundreds of thousands of compromised computers. Either hacked or cordinated together.
A good example would be when some famous people ask their fans to go on a web site on a exact time. I think the Gears guy did that once on twitter for the lulz.

 

[Thedutchjelle]

I don't know if its true, but I heard that the attack is some kind of retaliation after recent massive ban-wave. EA (finally) managed to ban most of hackers using tools from hacking pay-sites, which probably resulted in severe money loss for those sites. In theory it explains pretty well the nature of the attack but still I don't understand why someone would target object that harm players more than the company.

EA doesn't do most of the banning, that is done by PunkBuster, the service they use. Some generous people bought hacks and then gave them to the PB staff so that they could take action against them.
Not that EA doesn't ban at all (they do) but the banning of hacks and cheats and other crap is usually done by Punkbuster.

 

[the doom cannon]

Don't players run their own servers? or are all BF3 multiplayer servers hosted by EA?

All PC Bf3 servers save a few are privately hosted. Uninformed people please take this moment to be informed. I don't know about consoles. I think it's sad that some people take enjoyment from messing with other people's free time.

Are they really privately hosted, in the true "server in someone's basement" sense of the word, though? I remember a lot of noise being made at the time of release about how the only way to get a "private server" was to rent it from EA, you couldn't just use a server app and run it on your own computer.

For PC, EA has very strict requirements for the servers that outside companies can run, like gameservers for example. I know my clan's server box could easily handle another 256 players but EA rules say we can't run that many people on a single box. So I guess it's not 100% public, but most of the servers for PC are not rented from EA

 

[Techno Squidgy]

DICE "lied" after they "promised" that they'd never charge for maps? That's absolutely adorable. The very post you linked to has the quote that Mr. Bach didn't ever want to charge for maps, and they insisted to EA that it was crucial for the games' success. (I agree with him wholeheartedly; I haven't bought map-packs for MW3 nor Halo: Reach, and can't play with some of my friends at times.) But when it's EA that holds the purse-strings, who do you think has final say in the matter?

I agree with you here, but mostly because I still want to believe that DICE care about the player base. I'm not happy about BF4 though. BF3 still has plenty of life left in it, and it's not time for a new main series battlefield game yet. Bad Company 3 I'd be happy to see, but not BF4.

 

[the doom cannon]

DICE "lied" after they "promised" that they'd never charge for maps? That's absolutely adorable. The very post you linked to has the quote that Mr. Bach didn't ever want to charge for maps, and they insisted to EA that it was crucial for the games' success. (I agree with him wholeheartedly; I haven't bought map-packs for MW3 nor Halo: Reach, and can't play with some of my friends at times.) But when it's EA that holds the purse-strings, who do you think has final say in the matter?

I agree with you here, but mostly because I still want to believe that DICE care about the player base. I'm not happy about BF4 though. BF3 still has plenty of life left in it, and it's not time for a new main series battlefield game yet. Bad Company 3 I'd be happy to see, but not BF4.

You have to realize that the Battlefield series has been annual. It's just disguised by the names. Here's a link to the wikipedia article for battlefield, it has a list of release dates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(series)

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

DICE "lied" after they "promised" that they'd never charge for maps? That's absolutely adorable. The very post you linked to has the quote that Mr. Bach didn't ever want to charge for maps, and they insisted to EA that it was crucial for the games' success. (I agree with him wholeheartedly; I haven't bought map-packs for MW3 nor Halo: Reach, and can't play with some of my friends at times.) But when it's EA that holds the purse-strings, who do you think has final say in the matter?

I agree with you here, but mostly because I still want to believe that DICE care about the player base. I'm not happy about BF4 though. BF3 still has plenty of life left in it, and it's not time for a new main series battlefield game yet. Bad Company 3 I'd be happy to see, but not BF4.

You have to realize that the Battlefield series has been annual. It's just disguised by the names. Here's a link to the wikipedia article for battlefield, it has a list of release dates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battlefield_(series)

That Wikipedia article is counting expansions as full games, though. From Battlefield 1942 to Battefield 2142, there were only three actual games released, the other eight items on the list were expansion packs. Even since then, it's mostly been expansions and weird spinoffs, like Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield Play 4 Free, and not major titles in either the main series or the Bad Company spinoff, which is at least a AAA standalone instead of an f2p spinoff. Then again, even an early 2014 release for BF4 is a little over two years from the initial release, since BF3 came out in late 2011. That's actually pretty well in line with the other titles in the series, although it certainly /feels/ too soon. Probably because we had 2142, the Bad Company games, and all the other smaller titles in between 2 and 3.

Edit: Just realized, you're the same person who answered my question about the servers. It's still not exactly in keeping with the spirit of PC gaming and dedicated servers, but it's a heck of a lot better than the initial rumors.