(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); OK, I get the the msg when logging in that i have not participated in a while so this is my solution. ^

Reading some of the threads I see several references to anytime someone has a problem that EA is a bad company and can never get an online game right.

I beg to differ.

BC has been a great game to play on the PS3 using MP. People refer to the divinely status of Call Of Duty. who's **** doesn't stink.

Why I think EA got it right and is going in the right direction while franchises such as CallOfDuty are going the wrong way and off the mark.

The number one reason is Server Technology.
BC uses a central server scheme while CoD uses a star topo with an elected host.
in BC the host is always the same it can be one of several servers but they are all on the same network host while EA relies on one of the game boxes to become the server and host the game. Foremost the central server is way more reliable. there is no changes on the server side as far as speed, type of lines or different load balancing. While an elected host has MANY things to overcome. Each person that has a game box has the potential of being the host. Therefore you have variables such as DSL, Cable or t1s as possible connection types with some times they have different upload and download speeds. you have to contend with Throttling and QoS that have been put in place that can affect the comm of the elected server. The box can be behind a firewall which can be one of many different available and different configurations it can also be behind a router which again could be one of a hundred different types.
What it comes down to is that the server is responsible for providing multiple connections to multiple differently configured machines while itself being subject to being online many different ways. This leads to a lot of extra programming inflating the program and also having to seamlessly account for the dropping out of one host while the next host that picks up the load is never connected the same way as the last host given the many different setups available to connect out there. This means more lag, and more game drops.
While a central server topo has none of those variables to contend with. yes it is connecting to many different configured client machines but because of eliminating an unknown variable of having a host with many different configurations the end user then is responsible for only troubleshooting the client end of a configuration and they can do that easier tweaking their settings to their connections.


What it comes down to is cost. EA and CoD has gone the route of assuming more cost by setting up and maintaining the servers while AV and CoD has gone the cheapo route and basically pawning off the server hosting to the end user.

The only downside is that you are relying on the company to maintain a server for someone to connect to and eventually as numbers drop off these servers will go down and eventually disappear. But IMHO by that time the latest and greatest out there means I had lost interest in even playing that game at all and I have moved on. Plus if I am one of the only ones playing then in MP you need numbers that want to play in order to play. So it doesn't matter that I might want to go back and play a nostalgic game of BC in the year 2015 I would doubt that there would be multiple anyone elses who have the same exact nostalgic need to play again at that exact moment in time.

My 2 cents.

ye it wasnt a cod4 better but i was good slick and great fun to play (especally with the gofl buggys )