John Carmack Says No Dedicated Servers for Rage

[Zer_]

It totally depends on how Rage's multiplayer will pan out. You see matchmaking in L4D is fine, it works well enough because you got 4 people playing together, and possibly 8 people for the Versus mode. It's a smaller scale multiplayer game.

MW2 is a game where 16-32 players will play together (On PC that is). If they somehow limit that number down due to not having Dedicated Servers, then I'm not purchasing MW2.

RAGE on the other hand is a mysterious beast. We have absolutely no clue how RAGE will play online, or how they intend to implement multiplayer. For all we know Carmack may be doing away with dedicated servers, but keeping much of the same functionality as you would normally get through dedicated servers. It is also possible that only RAGE's racing portion will be playable online, which means that games won't have more then 4-6 people anyways, so yes matchmaking makes sense in that case. Bottom line is that we don't know enough about RAGE to make an informed decision.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

Wow, does anyone learn anymore. IW drops dedicated servers and the world blows up on itself. Then Dice announces that it will have dedicated servers about a day later taking the storm for awsomeness. Couldnt Rage just join in on that good train, wither way they arent pioneers as Carmack said, but atleast you'd have more support.

And im not even a PC gamer.

 

[Caliostro]

You see matchmaking in L4D is fine,

Sort of.

It works half-decently for 2 things: First because of the extremely low player counts inherent to the game, and second because of the gameplay (long team based matches) mean that you'll either be playing with people you know, and you can just "join a friend", or with random strangers. There isn't much of an option (or use) to just hang around your "usual" server.

Matchmaking in games like Counter Strike, TF2 or MWII is disastrous and just downright inefficient.

 

[Fasckira]

Carmack admits hes glad someone else is attempting it first, meaning hes aware its a rubbish move and not exactly popular ...

He doesn't necessarily admit it's a rubbish move, just that, as you said secondly, it's not a popular decission. If he thought it was a rubbish move, he wouldn't do it.

Sorry, you're right, I am putting words in his mouth there but what I mean is that even though he appreciates it isn't popular hes still considering it. It just seems a bit of a silly move on the whole, considering how experienced he is in the gaming industry and how well he understands the market.

 

[RoseBridge]

As a console only player, I don't get what all the fuss is about. Whats so special about the dedicated servers anyway? what do they do differently to console online? why are companies dropping it in favour of other methods, and how are those other methods meant to be better?

So many questions!

A dedicated server hosts the game with no players on, that means it can be set up for whatever game modes and left running.

Basically what it means as a gamer is that you get a list of servers which are there all the time, it tells you the game mode, number of players on, number of spaces available, map etc.

My experience of console gaming is that you click on multiplayer, it puts you in a random game with random people, random maps etc etc etc.

With dedicated servers you choose everything, you get to know the servers which are good/which people you like go on etc.

Far superior to random match making.

You can always just pick custom matches on console games and choose everything.
Thanks for the explanation on dedicated servers though, I was about to wiki.

 

[lord canti]

What no dedicated servers I'm outraged. I'm going to boycott this game as soon as I sign a petition.

 

[AceDiamond]

John Carmack is one of the people who made PC gaming what it is today. Few people know the platform better, I'd wager.

So it's really interesting to see him saying this.

Games are not like Quantum Physics. You can't have huge success, and then years later, when the industry has changed completely, and still be considered an expert just because you were years ago.

John Carmack is one of the people who made PC gaming what it is today. Few people know the platform better, I'd wager.

So it's really interesting to see him saying this.

Maybe, but he is not as near as relevant as he was back then

Because frankly, PC games aren't as relevant as they were back then.

The man is staggeringly smart, and I'd wager good money that he's still in the highest echelons of people who understand the PC as a gaming platform and what it can do.

I'm on your side in this, Funk. Carmack never had a personal Daikatana, he's done relatively well with any venture he's made (like Orcs and Elves most recently, which is a bit of a departure for him I'd say). I don't think he's suddenly become irrelevant just because he didn't invent a genre recently. And really, how many legendary designers can even claim to have invented an entire genre? Not many. How many designers can claim to have won 2 Emmys? Not many.

*engaging sarcasm*
I suppose though, if he isn't relevant, then we shouldn't listen to anything he says like his advocacy for open-source software and his opposition to software patenting. Cause clearly what does he know? We should listen to people like Cliffy B who equate PC gamers with piracy.
*sarcasm disengaged*

 

[axia777]

Next Epic will say the upcoming version of Unreal Tournament will nave dedicated servers too!

What is happening to dedicated servers? I say game publishers are just getting cheap on us. Fuck them! I won't buy their games it they are going to be dicks.

 

[Credge]

John Carmack is one of the people who made PC gaming what it is today. Few people know the platform better, I'd wager.

So it's really interesting to see him saying this.

If by really interesting you mean sad and depressing then sure.

I don't play console games primarily because of how servers are done on most console games. It looks like I won't be playing PC games much longer either.

 

[soliduck]

So if he says they are planning on dropping Dedicated Servers, there is a good reason for it.

A "good reason" could be in his own interest, not ours.

People need to stop throwing around the word boycott. If you don't buy something because you don't want to buy it... that's not a boycott.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

The beginning of the end.... IW really is setting a new standard, that is essentially screwing over the same people that made them what they are today. Good job, IW, alienating us PC gamers and standardizing the console experience on PC.

I don't think you can blame IW for this. This is the sort of decision you don't make in the span of a month, and from what Carmack said it sounded like they'd been planning on it for a while. This was probably the direction Carmack & Co. decided on themselves. As much as people like to pin the blame on IW (and by extension Activision, since it is obviously The Great Satan and behind everything evil ever), their only sin in this case was probably announcing it first.

John Carmack is one of the people who made PC gaming what it is today. Few people know the platform better, I'd wager.

So it's really interesting to see him saying this.

Could it be a sign to PC gamers to accept change for the good and bad?

Probably. I doubt they'll change their minds any time soon.

Totally off topic to the conversation, but you mentioning Satan with Activision made me laugh literally aloud.


OT: Hurray for being a RTS fan for Computers!

 

[Malkavian]

Carmack admits hes glad someone else is attempting it first, meaning hes aware its a rubbish move and not exactly popular ...

He doesn't necessarily admit it's a rubbish move, just that, as you said secondly, it's not a popular decission. If he thought it was a rubbish move, he wouldn't do it.

Sorry, you're right, I am putting words in his mouth there but what I mean is that even though he appreciates it isn't popular hes still considering it. It just seems a bit of a silly move on the whole, considering how experienced he is in the gaming industry and how well he understands the market.

That I'll give you. I'm a console gamer, so there'll be no difference to me, but GOD I have cried out in rage many a time when games end prematurely because the host decides he doesn't want to play that map/has to go/is whiny over being shot by people better than him. And with some hosts, the connection is just shite. I can't claim to have any expertise or insight in why they choose to go this way with pc games, but it seems to me like a very idiotic move.

 

[Worgen]

is rage a multiplayer game? I thought it was mostly a big single player thing

but yeah getting rid of dedicated servers is bs, its like they are trying to kill off pc gaming

 

[scotth266]

I'm actually relatively ok with the lack of a server. AS LONG AS: they come up with a solution that offers the same features that servers did, especially the kicking ability and the low ping rates.

So you're okay with the removal of dedicated server support, as long as all the functionality of dedicated server support remains?

I suppose I can't disagree with that, but it's a bit of a reinvention of the wheel, is it not?

Exactly. You see, I can't help but think that the move to P2P is a GOOD thing. Here's why:

THE SERVERS.

Servers have maitnenance costs. Odds are that the companies are attempting to get rid of these costs. And shifting to P2P means that if a company goes under and their servers shut down, then their games don't lose multiplayer functionality.

Granted, it's sort of perplexing as to why they're doing this to games which will obviously sell like hotcakes and maintain player bases far into the future, but I suppose that SOMEONE has to pioneer the process... and take a few lumps for the effort.

 

[Chaos Marine]

Let's face the music, PC gamers: Server browsers are usually clunky and unintuitive. In trying to teach a (non-PC-gaming) friend how to play TF2, the first twenty or so minutes were just spent on how to sort through and select a server. I know that we PC gamers like to think of ourselves as an exclusive little club of special kids who hold high reign above those console lowlifes, but really? Are people really complaining about a more easily accessible game with modern matchmaking technology?

This one stings a bit. Infinity Ward did a great job with Modern Warfare but Carmack is - or was - "one of us." Is it possible that he's right - that dedicated servers are a "remnant" of days gone by and have no place in contemporary gaming? John Carmack is a groundbreaking genius and I'm really not looking to start an argument with the man but simplicity aside, I honestly don't see the benefit of dropping dedicated server support. How does it make the experience better for anyone?

So firstly you complain and defend IW retarded decsion to remove dedicated servers and now you're wondering why anyone would want to do that because to you dedicated servers are apparently too complicated? Right.

But in regards to the topic at hand and id in particular. Fuck id. I pretty much formed that opinion when they said that if they saw anyone not using a 360 or Xbox controller they chewed them out. Carmack is a total whore to MS now and I don't give a damn about Rage.

Quake III was the last multiplayer game they did well with everything else being watered down swill. Quake IV wasn't nearly as great (Which is why getting into the web portal version of Quake III is so time consuming and Q4 is no where near as well populated.

 

[jigs160]

i'm really sad that no dedicated servers
especially since i get a better connection on dedicated servers
and i'll be missing the user made mods as well
if want the same function of a console i'd use a console.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I'm actually relatively ok with the lack of a server. AS LONG AS: they come up with a solution that offers the same features that servers did, especially the kicking ability and the low ping rates.

So you're okay with the removal of dedicated server support, as long as all the functionality of dedicated server support remains?

I suppose I can't disagree with that, but it's a bit of a reinvention of the wheel, is it not?

Exactly. You see, I can't help but think that the move to P2P is a GOOD thing. Here's why:

THE SERVERS.

Servers have maitnenance costs. Odds are that the companies are attempting to get rid of these costs. And shifting to P2P means that if a company goes under and their servers shut down, then their games don't lose multiplayer functionality.

Granted, it's sort of perplexing as to why they're doing this to games which will obviously sell like hotcakes and maintain player bases far into the future, but I suppose that SOMEONE has to pioneer the process... and take a few lumps for the effort.

It also eliminates independently-run servers. You remember how at one point Counter-Strike had more people playing online than any other FPS game? Those were all public dedicated servers not run by Valve.

Let me put this another way. Imagine that there's a club in your neighborhood where everyone likes to hang out. It's a fun place, you know a lot of the people there, and you can relax and have fun without troublemakers coming to ruin your good time, because the proprietors keep out the riffraff.

Then, one fateful day, your club is forcibly closed by the government. So is every other club in the neighborhood. Clubs are now illegal, as is any other place purposed for the congregation of large amounts of people. Instead, you are expected to gather in small orderly groups in random locations around the city. You're stuck outside, it's loud, the weather sucks and you don't even know most of the people you're gathered with. Maybe you'll meet a couple new nice people now and then, sure, but it's a hassle tracking them down again later, and you can't meet up with more than a few of your friends at a time.

I'm not against the P2P concept as a backup if a dedicated server is unreachable. Heck, I'm even up for splitscreen options. But dumping dedicated server functionality entirely is a direct attack on the core of PC gaming and a move to lower all of gaming to basic console levels. Heck, consoles are practically specialized PCs these days... can't they be given dedicated-server functionality and the ability to use Mods and other custom content?

 

[ReepNeep]

I'm actually relatively ok with the lack of a server. AS LONG AS: they come up with a solution that offers the same features that servers did, especially the kicking ability and the low ping rates.

So you're okay with the removal of dedicated server support, as long as all the functionality of dedicated server support remains?

I suppose I can't disagree with that, but it's a bit of a reinvention of the wheel, is it not?

Exactly. You see, I can't help but think that the move to P2P is a GOOD thing. Here's why:

THE SERVERS.

Servers have maitnenance costs. Odds are that the companies are attempting to get rid of these costs. And shifting to P2P means that if a company goes under and their servers shut down, then their games don't lose multiplayer functionality.

You seem to be confused. Games that use matchmaking services only work as long as the company maintains the servers that the matchmaking software runs on. It doesn't matter if another user is the game host as no one can connect to the game without the company servers as the middleman. They shut down the servers, no more multiplayer unless the game has a direct connect to IP option which, moving forward, it doesn't look like games are going to have.

Not only can private users run dedicated servers, most of them are going to be run by users. The developer/publisher often doesn't run any dedicated servers for PC games, even at launch. There are still dedicated servers for the original quake floating around out there and that game shipped in 1996. There will always be multiplayer long as you can actually run the game.