...I don't think the community will be able to host ranked servers for themselves, as Gordon is talking about "ranked server provider hosting" in the interview.
I guess we'll get what we got with BF2 back then: ONE exclusive ranked provider for each country, meaning there will be NO price fight among competitors. I guess servers will be horribly expensive again - in Germany they were so expensive that most clans rented servers from the official Dutch provider.
When CoD4 first came out I thought "What? The stats are just stored locally? That sucks!" But since then I have experienced that this concept is actually better than Battlefield's concept of centralized stats, because the community can use their existing linux root-boxes for server hosting and people aren't as mad about their stats as in BF2. I guess that's because everyone knows that everyone can easily manipulate their stats locally. So people just care less about them - and that's a GOOD thing!
you think thats bad, i was a server provider back when BF2 came out, the requirements to host ranked servers was totally crazy.
I had to have a minimum of 10 unranked servers at 16 slots per to host one ranked server, that was the agreement for 1 year.
EA make good games and if they cant make money from you you are no use to them, so they use legal means of discrimination to make money from burocratic comercial hosts, and drop you public admins like a heavy bag of potatoes lol.
Afaik BF games are gonna be done like BF Heroes. A few licensed GSP and no public server files rank or unranked.
No one at DICE will give an answer on it. We all know what silence usually means *cough* IW and no dedicated servers *cough*
IMO IW did rank right except storing it on the client. BF2 style stats cost money and we pay for it in the form of booster packs where as COD has offered free map packs (Sponsored is just used to shut the console owners up)