Hacker News Reader

Comment by legitster | Hacker News Reader

Can't have your cake and eat it too - If you want hosted multiplayer and regular updates, the dev has to pay for it. And I don't think a monthly payment would be any better.

But before I rattle on about entitled users, I have to keep in mind the median gamer here is not gainfully employed. The bulk of the complaining is being done by minors and dependents. You know, literally children.

View on HN

The vast majority of Squad servers are hosted by the community.

Can't hosted servers just not support the DLC then?

Squad servers are operated by the community, mostly by gaming clans and similar organizations. But Squad uses a "server license" system where server owners must meet certain criteria (for example a minimum level of moderation) in order to be allowed to operate a server. Supporting the DLC is sure to be a requirement.

This system existed in Project Reality too, I believe in that game it outright prohibited you from even having access to the server executable without a license while in Squad it only applies to being listed in the client's server browser.

> This system existed in Project Reality too, I believe in that game it outright prohibited you from even having access to the server executable without a license while in Squad it only applies to being listed in the client's server browser.

You could decompile the Python code in PR. The PR devs could "blacklist" servers if they wrote magic strings in chat etc with their BF2 user names.

They could also give them self Ninja kits.

I doubt it, unless they choose to not update the game and stay on an old version (at which point no one would play on them anyways).

If I could put out my vote I wouldn't have hosted multiplayer be the only option. However, it is becoming increasingly common that this isn't tolerated. Regular updates is another thing

Reply on news.ycombinator.com