COD:MW2 lack of dedicated servers: QL experience

[Seschder]

@ PanzerIV: You are right, most CoD or Quake Servers are way too spammy but I dislike the idea that the game prevents you from going above 9v9. You can't get a funny spamround because the game doesn't support it. I generally like smaller playercounts more than higher ones, except for ETQW, BF and stuff for example

[Kosmo75]

Originally Posted by 7hink

This.

And don't be all like: "How did this happen? I don't get it!" Because if I get it with my limited intelligence you should all be able to get it. PC gamers pirated so much that it's not worth it for a game developer to make games for a PC. It's the PC gamers own fault and now everyone has to suffer the consequences.

Now console games are much more pirated then PC games.

http://www.SiteVacuum.com/publisher/...IconShadow.gifhttp://www.SiteVacuum.com/publisher/...IconShadow.gif

[Stanith]

Originally Posted by unrealrulz

No, the person whose pc is used as the host will have 0 ping, while the others will have at best 100ms ping, as mentioned by the Infinity Ward douchebags who answered fans' questions. The only reason they are doing this is so they can charge for everything to the pc gamers, DLCs, mappacks, everything.

I just explained in reasonable detail why that's not the case, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. No one has zero ping in a game based on the peer to peer networking model, go pick up a book on networking :P

Back on topic, the replies to the article on Kotaku more or less sum it up, it's a lot cheaper for them to make the PC port if it's peer 2 peer like the console version (they also won't need to pay for the bandwidth of dedicated servers hosted by themselves post-launch).

The truth is, the main reason we ever had dedicated servers to begin with is because everyones internet SUCKED back in the days of Quake and Quake II. Some people were still on 28.8k modems (or worse even), and peer 2 peer would not have been feasible. Now that everyone has broadband it is less of an issue for many types of game on console. However, especially with very fast paced games like Quake, it is still inferior to the dedicated server network model (but considerably cheaper for publishers). Because of the cost, and the only slight degradation of performance from their perspective, they opt for peer to peer.

Games like Halo 3 are perfectly playable on console with peer to peer, but then...they're not Quake. :P

[Stanith]

Originally Posted by 7hink

This.

And don't be all like: "How did this happen? I don't get it!" Because if I get it with my limited intelligence you should all be able to get it. PC gamers pirated so much that it's not worth it for a game developer to make games for a PC. It's the PC gamers own fault and now everyone has to suffer the consequences.

That's just what they want you to believe. The reality is that this is nonsense, I shall explain:

Games sales have never suddenly dropped on PC massively, the truth is that game development budgets have increased exponentially since the old days. Consoles have a far larger target market than PC games do, most people who own a PC cannot even play games (no graphics card capable of doing so) and so the market is tiny in comparison to that of Xbox 360, Wii etc. Therefore by making a game for console, they can recoup the costs quite effectively when compared to making a game PC-only. As a result of the huge size of the console market, publishers now don't view PC as a viable target platform to lead on...and so the vicious circle begins (less quality games made for PC, less PC gamers exist... it spirals downwards). These new "lesser quality" games on PC then need something to blame for the lack of sales, so they blame piracy (when the truth is just that UT3 just sucks, and its console counterpart never sold either).

Pretty much the only exception to the above is World of Warcraft and The Sims, and Valve's games on Steam... not many others can compare in sales to big console titles regardless of how good they are anymore.

The conclusion? Publishers are therefore pretty much responsible for the decline of quality pc games, not people pirating games.

[7hink]

Originally Posted by Kosmo75

Now console games are much more pirated then PC games.

http://www.SiteVacuum.com/publisher/...IconShadow.gifhttp://www.SiteVacuum.com/publisher/...IconShadow.gif

Originally Posted by Stanith

That's just what they want you to believe. The reality is that this is nonsense, I shall explain:

Games sales have never suddenly dropped on PC massively, the truth is that game development budgets have increased exponentially since the old days. Consoles have a far larger target market than PC games do, most people who own a PC cannot even play games (no graphics card capable of doing so) and so the market is tiny in comparison to that of Xbox 360, Wii etc. Therefore by making a game for console, they can recoup the costs quite effectively when compared to making a game PC-only. As a result of the huge size of the console market, publishers now don't view PC as a viable target platform to lead on...and so the vicious circle begins (less quality games made for PC, less PC gamers exist... it spirals downwards). These new "lesser quality" games on PC then need something to blame for the lack of sales, so they blame piracy (when the truth is just that UT3 just sucks, and its console counterpart never sold either).

Pretty much the only exception to the above is World of Warcraft and The Sims, and Valve's games on Steam... not many others can compare in sales to big console titles regardless of how good they are anymore.

The conclusion? Publishers are therefore pretty much responsible for the decline of quality pc games, not people pirating games.

Neat conspiracy theory, but if I'm looking at a random torrent site there are hardly any titles you won't be able to find for the PC. Pretty good ones too. Mirrors edge for example. Really good game. It was downloadable within days of the release and didn't sell very well.

So unless you care to back up that story I'm just going to believe that a lot of PC gamers (if not most) don't buy a game which doesn't have an online multi-player which is worth playing.

Originally Posted by Stanith

when the truth is just that UT3 just sucks, and its console counterpart never sold either

That didn't exactly help your theory by the way.

Edit: Just thought I'd mention that I do realize that a lot of the games which are published these days aren't really that great, but there are plenty out there which still are. The thing is just that those don't sell either.

[onlinefragger]

Originally Posted by Stanith

I just explained in reasonable detail why that's not the case, you clearly don't know what you're talking about. No one has zero ping in a game based on the peer to peer networking model, go pick up a book on networking :P

Back on topic, the replies to the article on Kotaku more or less sum it up, it's a lot cheaper for them to make the PC port if it's peer 2 peer like the console version (they also won't need to pay for the bandwidth of dedicated servers hosted by themselves post-launch).

The truth is, the main reason we ever had dedicated servers to begin with is because everyones internet SUCKED back in the days of Quake and Quake II. Some people were still on 28.8k modems (or worse even), and peer 2 peer would not have been feasible. Now that everyone has broadband it is less of an issue for many types of game on console. However, especially with very fast paced games like Quake, it is still inferior to the dedicated server network model (but considerably cheaper for publishers). Because of the cost, and the only slight degradation of performance from their perspective, they opt for peer to peer.

Games like Halo 3 are perfectly playable on console with peer to peer, but then...they're not Quake. :P

It's you who do not know what you are talking about. Dedicated servers are not hosted and paid for by IW. Maybe one or two "official IW" servers and such, but that's not where the vast majority of cod clans, gamers both casual and competitive alike play. They play on THIRD-PARTY dedicated servers hosted by THIRD PARTIES who pay for the bandwidth themselves. They made IW a big favour by keeping the game alive for them, and maintaining interest on it, long after bobby kotick has told IW it's time to focus on next year's release. IW/Actiblizzard only have to release 1 single dedicated server file, which would cost them a day's worht of developer time, to the community so they can host servers with their game. But they arent doing so, because they want to shove the XBox-Live "pay for everything up to your sleeves" model to PC gamers, and they dont like that.

[onlinefragger]

Originally Posted by 7hink

Neat conspiracy theory, but if I'm looking at a random torrent site there are hardly any titles you won't be able to find for the PC. Pretty good ones too. Mirrors edge for example. Really good game. It was downloadable within days of the release and didn't sell very well.

So unless you care to back up that story I'm just going to believe that a lot of PC gamers (if not most) don't buy a game which doesn't have an online multi-player which is worth playing.



That didn't exactly help your theory by the way.

Edit: Just thought I'd mention that I do realize that a lot of the games which are published these days aren't really that great, but there are plenty out there which still are. The thing is just that those don't sell either.

BTW, modern warfare 2 the 360 version will be pirated in big numbers. Actually, 360 iso file already available on warez sites.

[Toil3tDuck]

Originally Posted by FlaccidMilkjugs

Nah IWNet's servers will host the games. So really it's your connection to wherever they are.

wtf you're talking about IWNET ain't hosting ****


And I don't know how the original poster can compare the two. QL has dedicated servers MW2 will not. At least with QL I'm guaranteed good ping in the servers in certain countries every time I connect, with MW2 games are going to be lottery, probably most of the times everyone else besides the host warping around with 100+ ping, oh joy.

Originally Posted by Stanith

(they also won't need to pay for the bandwidth of dedicated servers hosted by themselves post-launch).

How about they release dedicated server files so others do the hosting and not them...

Originally Posted by donkz

We cannot set up servers in Russia, Italy, South America.

There are servers in Russia and you don't have to have servers explicitly in Italy, I'm sure they can get good ping in some of the servers in neighbouring countries.

I'll take guaranteed good steady ping over server control.

[onlinefragger]

Quake live does have dedicated servers, hosted in each country by a third-party provider, not by id itself. There arent any custom or mod server options but they are still dedicated servers. MW2 won't have any dedicated servers at all, it'll be all xboxlive p2p-like.

[14tehmoney]

"No. PC has custom stuff like mouse support, text chat in-game, and graphics settings."


/thread