Star Wars Battlefront Will Have Dedicated Servers

Star Wars: Battlefront [official site] will have dedicated servers. EA DICE’s Jamie Keen confirmed the feature to PlayStation LifeStyle at the Tokyo Game Show. It’s good news though a slight surprise, given that it was announced earlier this month that the game wouldn’t have a server browser.

When asked directly about whether the game would have dedicated servers, Keen – who is a senior producer on Battlefront – responded clearly: “We’ll still have dedicated servers. Absolutely. It’s one of the hallmarks of making sure we deliver an unparalleled online service for the game.”

In place of a server browser, the game instead employs a “new skill based matchmaking system”, according to an EA rep on the Battlefront subreddit. Presumably that means people will be able to run ranked dedicated servers that participate in that matchmaking system.

I played ten minutes of Battlefront at this year’s Gamescom, pairing with a stranger in order to play the game’s last stand/horde mode equivalent. It certainly did have laser pistols in it, and those laser pistols did certainly look a lot like the ones from those movies. I remain to be convinced that this is a game for me, but I may feel differently if I can rocket-boost on top of an AT-AT.

We’ll find out more when the approaching open beta launches. It’ll be available to all and will include both multiplayer and singleplayer modes.


  1. gunny1993 says:

    AM I missing something or does this just look like a way for EA to get other people to pay to host servers they can’t control?

    Or are they just saying it won’t be using P2P connections?

    • Devan says:

      I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds like the PR person is just saying “The servers that host Battlefront won’t be used to host any other games at the same time”. That statement actually makes sense given how common virtual servers are these days, but it’s not at all what we PC gamers mean when we talk about “dedicated servers”.

      If that’s the case then this is basically non-news at best and misinformation at worst.

      • Kamalen says:

        I wont blame the two of you for not knowing this. This is actually PR directed to console player. For a time, on console, multiplayer games were in fact really hosted by a given player hardware, the very same Xbox360 or PS3. Such systems had quite, as you guesd, mixed results with random connections quality and load times should the host leave a game.

        It may have declined since that time, but still they need to PR about it.

  2. Rahdulf123 says:

    I really wish they would stop with these cheap shots in their attempts to get positive PR. Announcing something horrible only to backpaddle because you’re TOTALLY listening to yours fans got old a long time ago. Stop it.

  3. Phinor says:

    Great, dedicated servers run by EA with no option to choose a server to join to or indeed rent one yourself (or put one up yourself but that’s a distant gaming memory at this point). In Europe this usually means servers in the UK/Ireland and possible Germany. Everyone else is ignored and the gaming experience is often poor because of high latencies. Multiplayer gaming is pretty defined by the actual playing with others experience and the worse your latency, the worse the experience. They can fake a lot of things but there’s no comparison between 10ms latency and 100ms latency gaming. So they need server hubs all over the world and in Europe that’d mean servers in at least North/East/Southeast/South/Southwest/West/Central/other Central Europe. And that’s just Europe, the world is a big place.

    I’d be more than happy to be wrong and that they actually have good server availability but I have zero faith in that happening.

    Then again, this new Battlefront is going to die a quick death anyway regardless of servers.

    • Asurmen says:

      I can’t imagine a need for servers all over Europe to maintain sub-100ms ping. That’s the ping to America, isn’t it?

    • SuicideKing says:

      I didn’t have a single official server in India for BF3, just one odd unofficial one that would be rarely present.

      Other servers were in China (+300 ping thanks to great firewall), Singapore (~200), Japan (+300), west Asia (again +200).

  4. Hunchback says:

    No clan-ran servers = GTFO. Simple as that, sadly.

  5. Razumen says:

    Dedicated servers are one thing, and not really surprising, but *community* dedicated servers are a totally different thing to support, and that doesn’t look like they confirmed that at all.

  6. rumtotinggamer says:

    I watched the gameplay footage of this and i don’t see the longterm playability in it, your life expectancy looks to be in seconds the big toys are on rails the smaller ones being scarce and a battle to get hold off and the game funnels all the action into a certain part of the map which look tiny by themselves.

    Playing Hoth will be awe inspiring for a half hour then the novelty will wear off and you’ll realise there ain’t much else to it except DLC.

    All the choice and variety of playing in BF1942 and 10 years ago in Battlefront2 is long gone now and were left with a race to the bottom for the COD market share.

    • Hunchback says:

      That time when Battlefield was actually a solid shooter…eh?

      • rumtotinggamer says:

        Well they were clunky and arcadey but nothing has beaten being able to beach an aircaft carrier to then walk across it to either man an AA gun, take a landing boat or fly a plane half way across a map to parachute into a tank to cap a point then join spawning allies to capture the next point which has an airfield which spawns a bomber which you all get into….

  7. Darth Gangrel says:

    This is pretty good for people who like MP, but I usually wait for SP-only games to go down to 5 euros before I buy them (because backlog and other reasons). It’ll have to have great SP content or get to 3-4 euros before I consider getting this almost-only-MP game.

    I’ve yet to play the older Battlefront games (and for some reason no one sells Battlefront 1), so I’ll be fine.

    • Kamalen says:

      Not sure, but i think Battlefront 1 was console only. Anyway you can skip it, there is no solo content with story and is in all ways inferior to the sequel

      • AUS_Doug says:

        Not sure, but I think Battlefront 1 was console only.

        No, PC as well.

        there is no solo content with story

        Yes there is (on PC at least); Its just that the Campaign missions don’t have many (any?) scripted events in them (unlike those in II), and are therefore just basically a series of linked Conquest games.

        and is in all ways inferior to the sequel

        Not true; You cannot lie prone in II and the absence of Concussion Grenades as a secondary to Thermal Detonators is disturbing.

      • Darth Gangrel says:

        The first Battlefront was also for PC, but everyone says that it’s inferior, so perhaps I should break my self-imposed rule of playing games in order of chronology. I got the second in a humble bundle, but would need to get Battlefront 1 from ebay or such and it’s not cheap enough on those sites.

  8. SomeDuder says:

    So are we at the point yet where we have gone full circle and we are back at the “dedicated servers” area? Because I’d like to stay there this time. P2P connections are fucking horrible, dependent on way too much nonsense (Yea Timmy, you can totally host your connection-intensive bullshit game on your shitty laptop way up in the attic/basement with a shitty wireless reception) to be able to deliver a good experience. At least with a dedicated server, you can tell the lagging person to move to a civilized country.

  9. Xzi says:

    A pointless footnote without a server browser. What’s next? Difficulty settings for bots which neither move nor shoot at things?

  10. SupahSpankeh says:

    No server browser, no sale. End of.

  11. B0GiE-uk- says:

    Why has it taken them this long to verify dedicated servers? Does their community managers/PR do fcuk all?

    Bunch of Retards, not expecting much of this game at all. Another poorly executed Star Wars attempt.

  12. GAmbrose says:

    Always assumed this was a given anyway, since its essentially using the BF4 netcode.

    Switching to Pier to Pier would have made no sense.

    Dedicated servers does not mean community controlled though, but its still a good thing

  13. Stupoider says:

    DICE have a very strange habit of taking features out (BF3; eg. commander mode, boats) only to reintroduce them as ‘NEW’ features at a later date (BF4). I guess Star Wars Battlefront 4 will be the ‘complete’ version?

  14. SuicideKing says:

    Lol he didn’t say PC dedicated servers. Careful what you expect from EA.

  15. LuNatic says:

    Ugh, forced matchmaking is what killed Titanfall.

  16. Curry the Great says:

    “Welcome 20 years into the future, 1995-man. Things have changed. Where we used to think dedicated servers and a working server browser were standard fare, they are now marketable assets only brought to you because the gaming companies work thousands of programmers to the bone to create them for you! Except for the server browser, that turned out to be too hard. Enjoy the future games* ** ***, future man!”

    *: Without unsanctioned mods
    **: After purchasing your season pass so you can play all of the game!
    ***: Yearly release. New purchase required every year.

  17. Afr0Samura1 says:

    The “no server browser” thing is kinda dumb, but if let’s you favorite the ones you have a good time/experience on, that could lessen the blow.

    /Long-time lurker, first-time caller commenter.