Originally posted by: GullyFoyle
Originally posted by: Red Irish
The pc gaming industry is in a healthy state. Games on this platform are not simply console ports that increasingly fail to take advantage of the capacity of the pc and we should all buy the latest hardware to ensure that we get the most from future releases.
Complaints about aspects such as the lack of server support or Lan play can be attributed to an extrememly vocal minority: most people are extremely happy with the state of the industry and wouldn't change a thing. If Call of Duty is printed on the box, there is clearly nothing to complain about.
Sounds like you don't know really understand what all the hubbub is all about. You should spend more time with your head outside the bag
I mostly agree with you on one point, people are pretty happy about the state of PC gaming. They like that PC games offer more than most console games. Free maps, mods, expansions. A better online experience.
That's why they are pissed that IW is trying to take that all away. Get it?
And they are doubly pissed because the source has Call of Duty printed on the box. Lots of people were really lookng forward to more of a good thing. A lover scorned...
I've played on that server before, albeit not very much. Kudos for a very professional and mature server.
Originally posted by: Red Irish
Originally posted by: GullyFoyle
Originally posted by: Red Irish
The pc gaming industry is in a healthy state. Games on this platform are not simply console ports that increasingly fail to take advantage of the capacity of the pc and we should all buy the latest hardware to ensure that we get the most from future releases.
Complaints about aspects such as the lack of server support or Lan play can be attributed to an extrememly vocal minority: most people are extremely happy with the state of the industry and wouldn't change a thing. If Call of Duty is printed on the box, there is clearly nothing to complain about.
Sounds like you don't know really understand what all the hubbub is all about. You should spend more time with your head outside the bag
I mostly agree with you on one point, people are pretty happy about the state of PC gaming. They like that PC games offer more than most console games. Free maps, mods, expansions. A better online experience.
That's why they are pissed that IW is trying to take that all away. Get it?
And they are doubly pissed because the source has Call of Duty printed on the box. Lots of people were really lookng forward to more of a good thing. A lover scorned...
sarcasm /'s?rkæz?m/ [sahr-kaz-uhm]
?noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
Originally posted by: looper
BlueWeasel...
I've played on that server before, albeit not very much. Kudos for a very professional and mature server.
Thx, I appreciate that. You are welcome to join us anytime...my user name in the game is 'DFWallace'...
If IW's decision on this does not change, then our clan will be looking for another 'FPS' to replace MW2... maybe 'Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising'...I don't know much about it yet...wonder if there is a demo available...
EDIT... BTW, I have the E8400 cpu on a Asus P5B-D MB, OC'd to 3.6ghz... I'm more conservative than you! (I have 'fried' some MB's and cpu's in my time!)
Multiplayer
Dragon Rising also features a multiplayer mode. In storyline co-op mode, up to 4 human players can play through the singleplayer campaign together, each human player replacing a computer-controlled character. There are also the pure multiplayer modes Annihilation and Infiltration, with more multiplayer modes promised for after the release of the main game. It is important to note that the game does not support dedicated servers. The online community has been further enraged by the fact that the pc retail package misleadingly lists, under its multiplayer requirements, that "Dedicated host server are recommended for optimum performance"...
Originally posted by: slayer202
are the IW servers a bnet clone, or does a player host the games? wtf. do they really expect people to host 40 person games on their home pcs? I'm finding this hard to believe. can anyone show us some proof on whether IW hosts with their own servers or not?
Originally posted by: slayer202
are the IW servers a bnet clone, or does a player host the games? wtf. do they really expect people to host 40 person games on their home pcs? I'm finding this hard to believe. can anyone show us some proof on whether IW hosts with their own servers or not?
Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
Woah - it's 60 bucks on the PC? Think I'll pass on that.
Originally posted by: mrblotto
Originally posted by: slayer202
are the IW servers a bnet clone, or does a player host the games? wtf. do they really expect people to host 40 person games on their home pcs? I'm finding this hard to believe. can anyone show us some proof on whether IW hosts with their own servers or not?
I believe you already commented on this yourself back on page 4 - no disrespect intended of course:
"they aren't making players host their own games...they are hosting with their own servers. they obviously don't expect people to host 40+ person games for the fun of it with no control. "
But, yes, it would be nice to get a simple 'yes or no' answer to the dedicated server question, without all the song and dance that IW has been doing lately.
Originally posted by: Zaitsev
I have to share this article I just read. It really nails how I feel about this debacle. Source: http://earlydawn0388.blogspot....c-gaming.html#comments
Any PC player who's into shooters has probably heard the oncoming train-wreck that will be Modern Warfare 2 multiplayer. Infinity Ward dropped a bomb earlier this week, officially confirming months-old concerns that it would not ship with dedicated server support. The official Modern Warfare 2 forums erupted into virtual civil war, forcing the separation of the single central board into platform-specific sub-forums.
Here's the skinny; Modern Warfare 2 will not ship with dedicated server support, nor is there any being considered. Instead, patch distribution (and presumably, DLC) will be handled through Steam, while matchmaking will operate through the new Battle.net clone, "IWNet". IWNet's matchmaking will function almost identically to console matchmaking, accomidating for player skill, connection strength, and a variety of other factors. On the technical side of things, the game will also function like the consoles - the player with the strongest connection will host, keeping track of the game and transmitting the game state to his fellow players.
While this sounds like a great model for the game, it suffers from major issues of practicality. Peer-to-peer hosting is a good model when you can flatten out a lot of the variables; identical hardware is a primary way of accomplishing this, which is why consoles can generally get away with it. From the perspective of PC, this idea falls apart. Players' hardware generally runs the gamut of cutting-edge new video cards are multi-cored processing, to two or three-year old rigs with graphics one step away from "off". Matchmaking could also be a disaster in and of itself. On consoles, an inevitably larger pool of players and slightly reduced variables (see same hardware) make the process reasonable. However, on PC, the process is significantly more complicated, as the number of variables skyrocket. Connection speed, hardware power, geographic position and player skill and rank must all be accommodated out of a player pool a fifth the size.
There are other sacrifices associated with losing dedicated servers. In the United States, there is a particular emphasis on gaming along either coast. Players in central North America are greatly hampered if they cannot host a server in close geographic proximity. Military players are particularly hit hard by the decision. An Air Force friend of mine is stationed at a base in North Dakota. While he can generally play MMOs and RTSes without problems, shooters are out of the question unless they host the server off of hardware in their town. I can only imagine how this may affect personnel stationed in Germany or Japan, where the player-base is even lower.
I also reject the weak arguments that Infinity Ward has put forward to defend its decision. Fourzerotwo, the community manager for Infinity Ward, posted this piece earlier today defending the choices made for multiplayer. He makes several unsubstantiated claims. The first and most dubious is the mythical gamer who can't figure out how to use the original title's server browser. Considering that I was able to figure it out with no assistance at the age of 10, I'm going to have to call bullshit. Perhaps even more perplexing, he makes the claim that the matchmaking will place you with the most stable, speediest game possible. In the strictest sense, this is probably true - Modern Warfare's netcode was excellent and I have faith in their programmers - but it fails to account for the fact that average pings will probably be double that of a ping to a good dedicated server, across the board. In a separate editorial, IW's Jason West and Vince Zampella explain the company's desire to make the PC experience more accessible for the average PC user. The argument is floated by unsupported quantitative claims and straw-man arguments that are too numerous to address here, but the "politics" of the argument are certainly interesting. The cost of hardware and general headache of PC gaming caters to a more dedicated, capable crowd of gamers then consoles do, to the point where I question the actual existence of this disenfranchised softcore PCer.
Perhaps the biggest sticking point of this debacle is the price. Activision has decided to charge $60 for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2, without the option for either of the collector's versions. I certainly think that Modern Warfare was an excellent game worthy of $60, so I'd certainly pay it for the sequel. However, I simply will not pay 20% more for a game with a dubious chance of being a strong online title, nor will I pay for less features. I am not some kind of online revolutionary, but I am not willing to simply sit around and accept whatever crumbs that a developer drops for me. Purchasing a game with reduced features for more money sets a dangerous precedent for future titles on the platform.
I leave you with a history lesson; I have been playing multiplayer PC games since 1998, beginning with Tribes. Dedicated servers have been a cornerstone of every PC shooter that I have ever played. In fact, I cannot recall a game (successful or unsuccessful) that I have played that utilized a peer-to-peer hosting model. Gaming history, however, is filled will such examples. Medal of Honor: Airborne is the most recent example of a PC game with a peer-to-peer hosting system - and quite notably, a failed example.
Originally posted by: GullyFoyle
New info: http://www.fourzerotwo.com/?p=745
You?d have to scroll through a Server Browser which listed every available server which was hosted by individual server admins
It will put you in the game that will give you the smoothest gameplay possible without you having to manually find a server with the best ping
This now allows you to play custom games out of the box without the need to install mods, find a modded server with the rules you like, or worry about not being in control of the match
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I really hope that so few PC players pick this game up that the matchmaking simply can't find decent games for most people and the whole thing proves to be a dismal failure.
Originally posted by: BillyAZ1983
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I really hope that so few PC players pick this game up that the matchmaking simply can't find decent games for most people and the whole thing proves to be a dismal failure.
But at what cost? What if they decide that because of whatever reason, the PC was so unpopular that in the future IW/Activision decides because of poor sales on the platform that they will not developme any further titles? Thats the only downside I see with boycotting the game.
As it was said before though, IW/Activision would NUTS to do that since CoD was based on the PC first.
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: BillyAZ1983
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
I really hope that so few PC players pick this game up that the matchmaking simply can't find decent games for most people and the whole thing proves to be a dismal failure.
But at what cost? What if they decide that because of whatever reason, the PC was so unpopular that in the future IW/Activision decides because of poor sales on the platform that they will not developme any further titles? Thats the only downside I see with boycotting the game.
As it was said before though, IW/Activision would NUTS to do that since CoD was based on the PC first.
If this is the direction IW is heading I don't care if they ever develop another PC game, I have no interest in playing this garbage.
Originally posted by: ReepNeep
This begs the question: not buy, or pirate out of spite?
No it doesn't. If you want to play the game, buy it. There is no moral ambiguity here, piracy is wrong. I'm not buying the game because I don't want to play it on their shitty IWNet. If I don't buy the game I don't have the right to play it. Stop it with this fucking entitlement syndrome, you're only entitled to play the game if you pay for it.
Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer
Originally posted by: ReepNeep
This begs the question: not buy, or pirate out of spite?
No it doesn't. If you want to play the game, buy it. There is no moral ambiguity here, piracy is wrong. I'm not buying the game because I don't want to play it on their shitty IWNet. If I don't buy the game I don't have the right to play it. Stop it with this fucking entitlement syndrome, you're only entitled to play the game if you pay for it.