People buy these products, what they are taking away from customers doesn't actually benefit the consumer at all. Not to mention continuing to provide these features costs them little. Besides they could easily require anyone who wanted to run private services to pay them for it.rapidoud said:
Infinity Ward Responds to Modern Warfare 2 Controversy
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Read all the other posts in this thread, you're restating a basic (contested) viewpoint, not making a new observation.sneakypenguin said:
After you're done reading, I'll hope you'll realize that yes, dedicated servers are very different from private lobbys.
you are probly too young to even remember what stuff was like back in those days. stuff today is SOOOOOO much easier to figure out and use. we had to use stuff like quakespy, until they changed the name to gamespy, to figure out how to play, the look up method for normal quake was really odd, tho easy to figure outThe Bandit said:
today's stuff is rather braindead and easy to figure out
But how so different? with the game not supporting mods your only options are the ingame features. The only benefits of dedicated servers would then be potentially minuscule speed differences would it not? I've read the whole thing but nothing has jumped out and screamed "this is why dedicated servers are better"vivaldiscool said:
I don't like the idea of all the servers of the game being in one location making the game laggy for people far from it and meaning the whole thing could go down from a natural disaster, ala Steam in 2006 after storm took out all connections to it.sneakypenguin said:
Penguin, PC gamers want dedicated servers because that is how PC games are, if you are having a tournament you setup a server and host from that machine. That way you control everything that goes on with the server, settings map, MODS, etc. That and LAN parties kind of need this, you shouldn't need internet access to host a LAN party. We want the option to have dedicated servers, the games popularity will eventually fade and the number of servers will drop very low. Dedicated servers mean they don't need to pay for them and players have more servers. Its an options thing.
MOD SUPPORT IS A MAJOR DEAL, lack of it is a deal breaker for me.
But can you not to that in private lobbies? I realize its another option but it seems a bit extraneous. You have LAN support, then p2p private lobbies for tournys etc. I can understand annoyance at lack of mods but seems many are clinging to the idea of thats the way it was thats the way it should always be. I have a feeling this will work perfectly fine. But then again I don't game execept for COD4, so my views are limited in scope.4RT1LL3RY said:
You cannot have mods in a private lobby. Well, heck, going along with their announcment, you can't have mods at all. You also cannot control cheating in a private lobby, as people have mentioned from the P2P system. They cannot customize map rotation, say, to keep out the "barnyard" map because no one likes that one, or play "office complex" 24/7.
Also, what happens ten years later when Infinity Ward says "Screw it, no one's buying the game anymore" and turns off the servers? (knowing them, maybe 3 years) I'll give you a fact, pal: People STILL play the original Counter-Strike 1.6, and even Quake 3. What happens if Infinity Ward themselves can't even run the servers? (which happens quite often at launch because of "A network surge we COMPLETELY didn't expect despite the massive sales numbers111")
Also, what happens ten years later when Infinity Ward says "Screw it, no one's buying the game anymore" and turns off the servers? (knowing them, maybe 3 years) I'll give you a fact, pal: People STILL play the original Counter-Strike 1.6, and even Quake 3. What happens if Infinity Ward themselves can't even run the servers? (which happens quite often at launch because of "A network surge we COMPLETELY didn't expect despite the massive sales numbers111")
1. Its not a double negative: - it means I can't tell you that any of those games wouldn't have been better off with an MM system.Treblaine said:
2: Server is in New York. I have the advantage on any non-North Eastern connecting to the server, even if it shows them 100% perfect connection. Server is in Texas, I have a disadvantage to anyone connecting from the Southwest.
P2P - Host has advantage vs. everyone, but everyone else is essentially equal.
Having to deal with 1 slightly boosted person, or potenially 2+? Not a hard decision.
3: Stop saying its simple to do such and such. You have to think about it from the perspective of someone whose techincal knowledge extends only to "Put disc in, install, play". Which believe it or not, is many, many more people than you would think.
4: People keep saying that both systems can exist at the same time. This is technically true, but the dedicated servers will defeat the purpose of MM, since gamers, having tendencies for being greedy and egocentric, will ignore MM in favor of the endless waves of one map, one gametype, slight time variation that plaques server games.
Its basically about bang-for-buck here people. When you let players control the experience of other players, you're setting the ones without the power or knowledge to run it up to be robbed. I could go through every single game I listed and cut out about 30% up to 75% of the MP content, and you'd never notice because your vaulted server systems never use it.
Ironically, the BF-series offer a one-click-join-server button, IIRC it is "Play Now" or some-such?Paragon Fury said:
Point #3 is odd, and I've commented on the same thing from other users. If server selection is somehow difficult for them to perceive and understand, then why are they on a PC? PCs aren't known for plug-and-play experiences. If server selection has become a problem, how about educating the user? Have a popup window or tooltip appear the first time the user accesses the game's server browser giving a quick run-down on how it works.
You know, instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator?
No it is the developers who are getting the short end of the stick. No matter what they do no matter what they try someone will always be unhappy. At least by appealling to the people who "can't navigate through servers" they have a chance of selling thier game because obviously those people will be too technoligically impaired to pirate them.Nimbus said:
Then again why shouldn't PC gaming be press and play? Isn't technology supposed to make things easier?
So paragon I take it your also for random guns in MM? You know, to force us to use somehing other than our favorites, just like they force us to play different maps. Too many people like using the m40a3 so we should make them switch right? Cause its bad to play something you like. In fact, I think MW2 should instead boot up minesweeper 1 in 10 times you attempt to play it. To mix things up instead of constantly playing the same MW2 all the time.
It NEVER will be. There are countless different combinations of any given piece of hardware to be configured in essentially limitless different configurations in what adds up to a PC. Add on top of that another layer of essentially limitless different configurations of software. These infinite combinations are what the game developer creates the game to (hopefully) run upon. PCs aren't a closed platform like consoles. The operating environment can be anything under the sun, and as such the errors and just plain weird WTF-why-isn't-this-running? moments can also be anything under the sun.squid5580 said:
That's why I don't buy the bull about it being for these mythical creatures that have problems navigating COD4's server browser. Creating IW.Net is about one thing: control over the end user, and a closed environment in which to force-feed PC users the same micro-transactions that the console users are forced to endure. If they had actually wanted to make it easier for the technologically-impaired COD4 user to learn how to operate the server browser, a full-on in-game tutorial would've cost LESS MONEY, LESS MAN-HOURS, and LESS LINES OF CODE than IW.Net.
I do believe that is not what he is saying. What he means is out of 20 odd maps 3-5 are usually hammered with one or two gametypes. In Unreal 3 it was always insta gib or the rocket level(at least for the 360) You could create a lobby but only get 5 ppl and it sucked, it killed that game pretty quick in my exp with it. With matchmaking you ensure full games on differing maps,(map rotations edited to favor what ppl play most) Your making sure that the minority doesn't have to keep playing X with Y every other game.slopeslider said:
If the minority doesn't like what the server offers, than the minority should've stopped being lazy asses and simply hit "disconnect" and chosen a different server. Another BS argument. Jump on Modern Warfare right now on the PC. Hundreds of servers offering all sorts of different experiences. The ONLY map I never see in server rotations? Shipment. Why? Because it was a retarded-ass map to begin with.
In other words people will not play the way you want to play, so your solution is to take away their ability to play the way they want to, and only allow them to play the way you would. Explain to me how this is not egocentric. What I and others want is the possibility to play the way we want to granted to us by the manufacturer, we don't want to be told "You must use MM to make Paragon Fury happy." We want Paragon Fury to have the option to use MM if he or she chooses, while we have the ability to use a private server if we so choose.Paragon Fury said:
The fact that people do not know how to use something does not justify removing it or not implementing it. The number of people who understand CSS even a little is fairly small compared to the number of people that do not. That does not mean that web browsers should not let you apply your own custom stylesheet does it? (This is a feature of just about every modern browser in existence right now.) I use it to forcibly change the colours on various websites to my liking because browsers have a bad habit of inheriting colour settings from the system theme which causes some poorly made websites to break. I also have issues with eye strain so I set up a stylesheet that makes most text fields display white on black instead of black on white. By your logic this kind of functionality should be removed without complaint from people like me who happen to know about it because most people do not understand how it works.
Paragon Fury said:
I can't reconcile these two paragraphs.Paragon Fury said:
In the first, you seemingly say that the large majority of PC gamers will forgo matchmaking because they prefer playing their favorite map or their favourite game type in exclusion to all others. You label this as "greedy and egocentric" for some strange reason. For the purposes of this post, I'm also going to ignore the fact that this paragraph invalidates several of the other things you've said in favour of matchmaking.
In the second, you state that the ones without the power to run a server themselves are being robbed of the proper experience of the game and that this devalues their purchase.
So, if you could, explain to me how you can simultaneously believe that the majority of PC gamers prefer server browsing over matchmaking because they are "greedy and egocentric" and that also the majority of PC gamers are being robbed of the full multiplayer experience because most servers are "endless waves of one map, one gametype, slight time variation."
There's also the matter that if, in the first paragraph, you did not mean that the majority of PC gamers prefer server browsing over matchmaking (or do not care); you still have a problem reconciling that with the second paragraph. If the majority of PC gamers are not "greedy and egocentric" then the majority of servers run by these very same PC gamers will not be "endless waves of one map, one gametype, slight time variation." The majority of servers will be a proper mixture of all the game types, maps, and time limits. The proper mixture being, of course, what the majority of the multiplayer players prefer.
Hmm, you missed the part where they insulted the entire community with the title of their previous statement. And the fact that he(and the older article as well) glossed over every single bad thing of his "new" p2p system and downplayed all advantages of the old dedicated server system.
Not to mention the blatant lie of "PC will be the same as ever" a few weeks ago.
Not to mention the blatant lie of "PC will be the same as ever" a few weeks ago.
Have Infinity Ward never heard of the "Quick Join" or "Play Now" button? You can put that button in, get rid of all that matchmaking BS, and then for the fools who don't know how to work a server browser (read console gamers), they can click that button, and it can send them off to a nice safe IW server, with people at there skill level, and they can go shoot, for the rest of us, why get rid of something as tried and tested as the SB? Its one of the main complaints i've heard that most people have with L4D, the only other big I know of on the PC that uses matchmaking system's for its multiplayer.
I think the problem here is, Infinity Ward getting too big for there boots, and I wonder whose pulling the strings on that? Mister Kotick himself. Lets hike the price, get rid of there server's, and make them completely dependent on us for everything. You know the worst thing about this whole IW.Net thing? I can fucking guarantee that there will be times those servers are down, maintenance, accidental damage, whatever, and because of that, we won't be able to play.
DEATH TO INFINITY WARD.
I think the problem here is, Infinity Ward getting too big for there boots, and I wonder whose pulling the strings on that? Mister Kotick himself. Lets hike the price, get rid of there server's, and make them completely dependent on us for everything. You know the worst thing about this whole IW.Net thing? I can fucking guarantee that there will be times those servers are down, maintenance, accidental damage, whatever, and because of that, we won't be able to play.
DEATH TO INFINITY WARD.