Gamers Unite! We're being screwed!

Vegeta

Hercule wrote: »

THIS IS NOT A RANT AGAINST PAID DLC

3rd time now - if you dont know what this is about stop tacking on to something unrelated and arguing about that! I regret mentioning DLC as its all everyone seems to have homed in on.

People know this, they just see them as very similar. Milking the gamer for even more money.

super_furry

Have IW explained their reasons behind this decision or reacted to the negativity?

Steffano2002

Kinetic^ wrote: »

hooradiation perma-banned for dual accounts.

Good man!

Liamario

super_furry wrote: »

Have IW explained their reasons behind this decision or reacted to the negativity?

It was unlikely to be their decision. I mean firstly, why would they remove this feature and secondly Bobby Nodick is a money hungry bastard. Now that I think of it. Call of Duty is the only game I buy published by activision.

0ubliette

At the end of the day, Activision are going to do whats good for business. There is no money to be made from providing support for 3rd party dedicated servers, but there is money to be made forcing everyone to use IW.net. Theres no money in letting people mod the game, but there is in forcing people to buy DLC if they want to be able to play the game online anymore.
Its ****ty, and a rotten way to treat their old userbase, but its makes sense if youre Bobby Kotick.
Sadly, alot of these decisions probably are based on how rampant piracy is in PC gaming. Not pointing the finger at any pc gamers here but you cant deny a massive amount of sales are lost due to certain pc gamers percieved right that they should be allowed tog et everything for free, and firing up Utorrent to get a copy of COD4 etc.
I wholly disagree with what activision are doing as i think its a death knell for alot of clans out there and a lot of modders, but this isnt a PC thing, this is a gaming thing and anyone with any sense regardless of platform owned should view this as a very worrying trend for the future

Steffano2002

Why Dedicated Servers in MW2 is Important to PC Gamers

From: dotdosh.com

With the recent announcement that instead of dedicated servers for online play there would be a matchmaking service like on the console variants of MW2, there has been a uprising of discontent from fans with the announcement on the internet today. From posting on the Infinity Ward forums and other forums showing their discontent, to numerous petitions online (with over 42K signatures so far), to canceling their pre-orders and threatening to not buy the game and pirate it because of IW got rid of dedicated servers and replaced it with a matchmaking option. So with all this madness going on, why are dedicated servers something PC gamers really care and need about to go and do all this?

As a PC gamer myself, I bought the original MW for the PC and played countless hours killing people online and having fun doing it.I would start the game, look for the usual server that I would join, and when I joined I would see the usual people in there and we would play the game. With the decision to replace dedicated servers with a matchmaking service, it would not be the same.

Changing to a matchmaking service makes the PC version more like the console version. This can cause many things to be different that would be normal to other PC games that have dedicated servers. The following things are a result of this happening:

Matchmaking issues

When I start up CoD:MW or almost any other multi-player game I just click on the “Join Game” button and I can look for the usual server that I go to and play with the usual people that play on there. With the change to matchmaking, you would no longer be able to chose what server you can go to and what people you will play with. You will be playing with people that is your rank, but that does not mean that they are not noobs and non-team players or not. Every time you play, there will be a new set of people there playing with you.

Latency = Higher

Dedicated servers are run by providers that have a huge amount of upload/download speed and bandwidth. They have upload speeds of over 100 MBits/sec and with high upload speeds, it keeps ping down. With matchmaking the end user has to run the server and not everyone has 100 MBits/sec upload connections, let alone 10 MBits/sec or 5 MBits/sec. This will cause the ping to increase not a lot, but enough to make it lag and have horrible hit registration.

No more BIG games

With matchmaking you won’t be able to set up big games because of the latency and performance issues from the user hosting the server. The users connection would not be able to handle a big server, so server sizes will be going down.

Cheating

With punkbuster being removed and in it’s place VAC, the game is now more prone to cheating. Punkbuster is a good, but annoying method to counteract cheating, instead of leaving it in they replaced it with something worse. You can see other games like Counter Strike and how easy it is to cheat when using VAC. Cheating makes the game less fun and if you can’t win it’s worthless to you.

No custom content or mods

You won’t be able to set up a game with custom maps or mods because there are no dedicated servers to run them on. Since there is no SDK and no dedicated servers there will be no custom content. Since there would be no custom content they can nail you with map packs for a price.

Map Packs+Patches (DLC) on the PC may not be free anymore

Game developers and publishers create DLC on the consoles because there is nothing more that users can do with what came with the actual game. In order to give them more they charge them for more. With the PC, people would create mods and maps for free for users to play with. With no custom content for MW2, Infinity Ward and Activision can now charge you for extras. Where they would be free for games that are open to the community (L4D, CS, and more), it can now be something that they can make some money off of.

Lack of Control over rules, etc

In a dedicated server scenario, the person that is running the server can ban anyone that they want. In a Matchmaking system, everyone has to vote on whether or not the person they want kicked should be or not, it’s not the same as an instant ban against the person. You can also control the game exactly the way that you want it on a dedicated server, like rules, map configurations, mods, etc.

No clan servers

Clans will no longer have a place where they can call home. They won’t have a place where they can just go and play with their fellow clan members and just do whatever. Clans won’t be able to run private servers where they can train or practice or just play with custom rules on purpose for specific scenarios/etc. With this change it will just make things harder for everyone.

These are just some of the main reasons why PC gamers want dedicated servers over a matchmaking system. There is however a bigger picture behind why this is happening. Infinity Ward and Activison and ALL the other game developers and publishers are starting to not care for the PC gaming group. Instead of putting time and effort into the PC version of the game, they are just porting the game directly from consoles and not caring what happens to the PC version. Patches are usually released latter than the console version and so are map packs. With the dedicated servers being removed Infinity Ward is putting one of the final nails in the coffin of PC gaming as we knew it, which was open and filled with support.

Maybe in the end of the battle between PC Gamers and Infinity Ward/Activison we might get a compromise of options to have both Dedicated Servers and Matchmaking service, but hopes for that are slim. With the petition growing ever so largely, all we can do is hope that change will happen for both the game and the way that the PC is viewed as a gaming platform

GothPunk

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If you're not going to bother creating a dedicated server option for the consoles it doesn't make financial sense to do so for the PC platform when the existing model you've engineered is up to the job.

One would assume that they already have working netcode from COD4 though, theoretically it wouldn't be that hard to port into the COD6 code. I'm not sure either that the matchmaking netcode would be the same for PC's as it would for the consoles, therefore I don't think we can say that keeping or removing the dedicated server option would cost or save money. Unless you've read something to the contrary?

0ubliette wrote: »

/snip ...this isnt a PC thing, this is a gaming thing and anyone with any sense regardless of platform owned should view this as a very worrying trend for the future

QFT.

A good example to remind people is what Xbox LIVE taught Microsoft, i.e. that some gamers are willing to pay for the 'privilege' of multiplayer gaming. For the PC market they made Game for Windows LIVE a subscription based service, and what happened? Nobody used it. Games for Windows LIVE then went free. So it is possible for gamers to vote with their monies and bring about a change in how things are run, I'm just not sure if the numbers are there in this case to make Infinity Ward/Activision change their plans. People kicked up a fuss about what ActivisionBlizzard have planned for Starcraft 2 LAN play and I'm not aware of anything changing there. There is a trend ongoing here with Activision telling the userbase what they want.

Rev Hellfire

GothPunk wrote: »

One would assume that they already have working netcode from COD4 though, theoretically it wouldn't be that hard to port into the COD6 code. I'm not sure either that the matchmaking netcode would be the same for PC's as it would for the consoles, therefore I don't think we can say that keeping or removing the dedicated server option would cost or save money. Unless you've read something to the contrary?

Possibly I don't know what the cost would be, but I would imagine that keeping the various codebases as close to each other would be to their advantage.

You have to remember that the consoles are now the main market and as such that's where any effort should be spent.

PC gamers throwing their rattles out of the pram and claiming they're either going to boycott the underselling platform or pirate on it really only serve to further endanger its viability long term.

Mr Freeze

How many have actually cancelled their preorders though????

While I completely support ye if ye feel IW and Activision are messing ye around and it sounds like they are, big time, I find it had to believe that there is gonna be a mass of people cancelling their preorders and not buying the game.

Liamario

CKWPORT wrote: »

How many have actually cancelled their preorders though????

While I completely support ye if ye feel IW and Activision are messing ye around and it sounds like they are, big time, I find it had to believe that there is gonna be a mass of people cancelling their preorders and not buying the game.

Of course they are. This will give them some time to get used to the idea of the changes. Petitions have never done anything

gizmo

L31mr0d wrote: »

Yes they can. If a game has the net code to allow for LAN play offline then those games can be played over the internet using that same feature.

Actually it wouldn't surprise me if there was no LAN play altogether, note it hasn't been specifically mentioned thus far afaik. One need only look at the response to the Starcraft II No-LAN play issue to see the lengths certain companies will go even with established fan-bases.

"We don't currently plan to support LAN play with StarCraft II, as we are building Battle.net to be the ideal destination for multiplayer gaming with StarCraft II and future Blizzard Entertainment games. While this was a difficult decision for us, we felt that moving away from LAN play and directing players to our upgraded Battle.net service was the best option to ensure a quality multiplayer experience with StarCraft II and safeguard against piracy.

Even if it was implemented then given the measures they've taken with IWNet the situation will more than likely be on-line LAN play via their servers so you'll need a legit IWNet account/CD Key to play any type of multiplayer game.

At the end of the day folks the issue is quite simple, they see cracking down on piracy and giving themselves the opportunity to charge for DLC as superseding any of the reasons you've outlined above. Plus I'd be willing to bet that they reckon the number of customers they'll lose is less than the number of people they saw playing CoD4 illegally online.

And in case you're wondering whether they should be trusted, check out this interview with Bowling from the end of September on Shacknews...

Shack: By the way, have you changed the way multiplayer games function on the PC at all?

Robert Bowling: PC will be the same as it always was.

Shack: LAN support as well?

Robert Bowling: LAN support, yes.

:rolleyes:

Canis Lupus

gizmo wrote: »

Plus I'd be willing to bet that they reckon the number of customers they'll lose is less than the number of people they saw playing CoD4 illegally online.

I think someone else has mentioned (EDIT sorry was you Ckwport) as well that people will still go out and buy the game in it's droves. I really wonder just how big a part of the player base buy the game specifically for the reasons mentioned by the OP. I know the points raised mean nothing to me in terms of what I want from the game.

MooseJam

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I know the points raised mean nothing to me in terms of what I want from the game.

you don't want a good multiplayer experience ?

Tyrant^

maybe its fake... maybe they are just bull****ing about this new IW.net just so the majority cancel their pre orders and then have to pre order/ order it again with the new €60 price tag

brian plank

Tyrant^ wrote: »

maybe its fake... maybe they are just bull****ing about this new IW.net just so the majority cancel their pre orders and then have to pre order/ order it again with the new €60 price tag

so now we've moved from anger to denial. . i seriously doubt IW or activision give a sh1t about 60000 people who might not buy the game when MW1 sold 12 million between 360 & PS3 alone. :rolleyes:

Canis Lupus

MooseJam wrote: »

you don't want a good multiplayer experience ?

I consider CoD a singleplayer game. What they've done to multiplayer or rather the impact listed by the OP I couldn't give a toss about bar the "presumed" impact on latency.

MooseJam

Canis Lupus wrote: »

bar the "presumed" impact on latency.

so you think it's possible there will be no impact on latency due to moving hosting from dedicated servers with very large bandwidth to Joe Bloggs internet connections.

:rolleyes:

Overheal

Call of Duty is overhyped anyway.

SeantheMan

Where did you get this information Stefano.
Please post links, all I've head in regards to the situation is this.... quite informative and interesting. Well worth a listen, Many of the top people in the COD community discussing it.

http://www.ustream.tv/flash/video/2369799

Maximilian

Well after the fiasco that was/is Operation Failpoint: Dragon thingy, I'm pretty much always going to think twice in future before buying (i) a console port and (ii) a game set up to flog DLC. And I fully agree with Overheal - way overhyped.

Thank god for L4D2. My mp hunger will be fully satisfied.

Canis Lupus

MooseJam wrote: »

so you think it's possible there will be no impact on latency due to moving hosting from dedicated servers with very large bandwidth to Joe Bloggs internet connections.

:rolleyes:

Ah sorry, see I misread that. I just thought it mean they controlled the servers.

Still not bothered tho :P

SeantheMan

I'll still be buying it as its my only way to play it.

I also reckong 50-90% of those posting here will have the game within 2 months.



And Leimrods new sig is class!

Hellm0

SeantheMan wrote: »

I'll still be buying it as its my only way to play it.

Shouldn't do that, the less people who actually buy the game the better.

Mr Freeze

SeantheMan wrote: »

I also reckong 50-90% of those posting here will have the game within 2 months.

True, I would say within 2 weeks though if they don't get it on release day, because some will cancel their preorders of those that signed the petition, but it will be a tiny minority, with most still getting the game at launch.

Making It Bad

Activation are a disgrace. I shall not be buying any more games published by them in future!

/signed

EDIT: The great reviews are already flowing in

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Call-Duty-Modern-Warfare-DVD/dp/B0021AETOU/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1255988337&sr=8-3

Soby

Canis Lupus wrote: »

I consider CoD a singleplayer game.

Based on at least the last two installments,you couldnt be more wrong

neGev

I've heard unofficial word that IW have decided to listen to the community and at least add a server browser. Not sure about the dedicated servers yet.

Overheal

Unless they plan on charging a monthly subscription, I can imagine them wanting to foot the bill for the gaming addictions of a million odd CoDfish :rolleyes:

witnessmenow

signed, its over 80,500 now

gizmo

Soby wrote: »

Based on at least the last two installments,you couldnt be more wrong

On a personal level I actually agree with Canis Lupus, CoD2 and MW1 were great single player games. Horses for courses and all that though.

neGev wrote: »

I've heard unofficial word that IW have decided to listen to the community and at least add a server browser. Not sure about the dedicated servers yet.

Any source for that? I'd be quite surprised if they bent over so quickly to be honest, especially since it goes completely against what they've described from the system. Plus, if they're willing to piss off an entire country with leaving out LAN play in Starcraft II then I doubt they'll fold to a minority of players complaining, most of which will probably end up buying the game after launch anyway.