POST STUFF
|
 by Sol Invictus, Level 54
Last updated at October 21, 2009, 12:20 am
|
|
The other day, I wrote an article urging annoyed gamers to chill out and not make such a big deal out of the issue regarding Modern Warfare 2's removal of dedicated server support.
Heavy consideration into my previous stance has allowed me to worry about how it will actually affect international players, and anyone with a less-than-stellar internet connection.
In most online games, players are not dependent on the performance of their own internet connection to play without connectivity issues, as the dedicated server hosting the game makes such considerations irrelevant. Without dedicated server support and only listen servers as a substitute, the quality of a multiplayer session depends entirely upon the host player's own connection. Most PC gamers can relate to how such a set up could translate into a bad experience.
Needless to say, I'm slowly but surely becoming convinced that Infinity Ward may be making a mistake with their decision to strip dedicated server support from the game. There's absolutely no good reason why it wouldn't be possible to have a matchmaking service like IWNet and listen server functions in addition to dedicated server support.
I will admit that their argument about how providing dedicated server support would somehow 'bifurcate' the community is partly true, because players familiar with dedicated servers would probably opt to stay on the classic system rather than utilizing the game's matchmaking function. In doing so, the matchmaking feature may suffer from a sparse population and an overabundance of "newbie" players.
Even so, I do not believe that this truly justifies the removal of dedicated servers, which have been a staple of first person shooters on the PC. Perhaps an integration of the two would have been a better compromise; much as Left 4 Dead allows players to choose their servers through the use of Steam Group Servers and search keys. Why can't Infinity Ward provide the same features?
Simply put, it would be very shortsighted of them to dismiss dedicated server support in its entirety.
Report Post
23 comments
The Extremist Oct 21, 2009 at 2:57 am
+8 votes
I've always appreciated your willingness to revisit your opinions publicly. Gaming bloggers (and sometimes journos) are often required to form an opinion of something on the spot, and as more information comes in or more thought can be given to the topic one's opinion might change but by saying so publicly you risk losing face. It demonstrates honesty and a modicum of humility that you would publish your feelings on the matter even though you went on record with a strongly worded opinion piece. Never change that about your character.
1 reply to The Extremist (hide)
1 reply to The Extremist (show)
Permalink
Post Reply
Reply to this comment
n00bie51 Oct 25, 2009 at 8:30 am
+2 votes
lawl sol invictus u r such a nooooooob u were soooo wrong lol
I love you, Sol, keep it up.
I love you, Sol, keep it up.
The Extremist Oct 21, 2009 at 3:27 am
+2 votes
Okay, back to business.
The "listen servers only" policy could really blow up in their face. As Stardock learnt the hard way, there are well developed nations out there with good downstream Internet connections (download) but shocking upstream connections. So you'll end up with many clueless players polluting the matchmaking system with listen servers that can't handle the upstream requirements. There will be cases where a group of friends will not have a good enough upstream connection among them to even be able to play online since they can't just meet in some ISP or clan server whose connection *can* handle the load.
Then there's the other reality of worldwide Internet. Connections between continents introduce unacceptable latency in most cases. When it comes to FPSes 100ms ping makes a huge difference. Undersea fibre can only carry signals so fast. As such, worldwide matchmaking is a pipe dream for the time being. IW should be localising the matchmaking (i.e. allow local ISPs to host matchmaking servers, which in turn talk back to IW's servers). This will also allow a system of dedicated servers hosted by the same ISPs to be integrated into the matchmaking system.
The "listen servers only" policy could really blow up in their face. As Stardock learnt the hard way, there are well developed nations out there with good downstream Internet connections (download) but shocking upstream connections. So you'll end up with many clueless players polluting the matchmaking system with listen servers that can't handle the upstream requirements. There will be cases where a group of friends will not have a good enough upstream connection among them to even be able to play online since they can't just meet in some ISP or clan server whose connection *can* handle the load.
Then there's the other reality of worldwide Internet. Connections between continents introduce unacceptable latency in most cases. When it comes to FPSes 100ms ping makes a huge difference. Undersea fibre can only carry signals so fast. As such, worldwide matchmaking is a pipe dream for the time being. IW should be localising the matchmaking (i.e. allow local ISPs to host matchmaking servers, which in turn talk back to IW's servers). This will also allow a system of dedicated servers hosted by the same ISPs to be integrated into the matchmaking system.
Opet Oct 21, 2009 at 5:32 am
+1 votes
As Stardock learnt the hard way, there are well developed nations out
there with good downstream Internet connections (download) but shocking
upstream connections
700 kb/s download 20 kb/s upload WHYYYYYYYYYY
there with good downstream Internet connections (download) but shocking
upstream connections
700 kb/s download 20 kb/s upload WHYYYYYYYYYY
Wargasm Oct 21, 2009 at 1:21 pm
+2 votes
A lot of ISPs will cap the upload speed pretty low. I'm not sure why.
Also, even if you do localization, it's still not as good as a dedicated server with a huge amount of bandwidth at its disposal. A home DSL line just isn't made for this kind of thing.
Also, even if you do localization, it's still not as good as a dedicated server with a huge amount of bandwidth at its disposal. A home DSL line just isn't made for this kind of thing.
Cleric Oct 26, 2009 at 8:35 am
+1 votes
I couldn't have said it better Extremist.
Our local home DSL lines work when it comes to local traffic (mostly) but international is a b!+@#. Especially when it comes to FPS. When you see a server with a ping over 100, it's not even worth trying to connect.
Our local home DSL lines work when it comes to local traffic (mostly) but international is a b!+@#. Especially when it comes to FPS. When you see a server with a ping over 100, it's not even worth trying to connect.
Blackhand Oct 21, 2009 at 6:47 am
+2 votes
Their decision truly baffles and is going to hurt competitive play immensely. There are big problems associated with listen servers: The host is always at an advantage, upstream limitations on most internet connections (700kb/s down and 20kb/s up is a typical example), latency in general to players is worse than to a dedicated rack server at a datacenter etc. etc.
These were problems ID Software foresaw already with Quake 1, which is exactly why they came up with the dedicated server setup in the first place! We are even seeing strategy games, a genre known for P2P play and matchmaking, moving towards dedicated servers because to put it bluntly, they have proven to be the BEST setup for online gaming.
Infinity Ward have have done so many things well, then to make such fundamental mistake with their multiplayer, effectively restricting a big part of their competitive community to LAN play? One can only hope they realize their mistake very shortly after release and get the dedicated server software to the public ASAP.
These were problems ID Software foresaw already with Quake 1, which is exactly why they came up with the dedicated server setup in the first place! We are even seeing strategy games, a genre known for P2P play and matchmaking, moving towards dedicated servers because to put it bluntly, they have proven to be the BEST setup for online gaming.
Infinity Ward have have done so many things well, then to make such fundamental mistake with their multiplayer, effectively restricting a big part of their competitive community to LAN play? One can only hope they realize their mistake very shortly after release and get the dedicated server software to the public ASAP.
Helion Oct 21, 2009 at 8:59 am
+1 votes
If IW want to kill competitive play on CoD6 there's still plenty of other good games out there we can still play. Hell, I can't see the CoD4 and CS comp communities dying any day soon.
Blackhand Oct 21, 2009 at 10:20 am
+1 votes
It would be nice though if they could actually get something so simple right in what looks to be an otherwise excellent game, but what is COD without multiplayer =/
Wargasm Oct 21, 2009 at 1:20 pm
+1 votes
I agree, CoD without multiplayer is about 4 hours of fun compared to 100+ hours of fun.
Cleric Oct 26, 2009 at 9:37 am
+1 votes
There is no CoD6. It was CoD4:MW, then came CoD:WaW and now coming CoD:MW2.
Replacing the name with a number in the order it was released, is like calling Windows 98, Windows 3. But we don't call Windows 98, Windows 3 or Windows 2000, Windows 4 now do we?
No we don't.
Replacing the name with a number in the order it was released, is like calling Windows 98, Windows 3. But we don't call Windows 98, Windows 3 or Windows 2000, Windows 4 now do we?
No we don't.
Helion Oct 27, 2009 at 2:54 pm
+0 votes
But then it is customary in the tradition of most entertainment media to refer to various parts of a single series through the use of numbers. I don't remember Windows classifying as entertainment media.
qrter Oct 21, 2009 at 11:20 am
+3 votes
"I will admit that their argument about how providing dedicated server support would somehow 'bifurcate' the community is partly true, because players familiar with dedicated servers would probably opt to stay on the classic system rather than utilizing the game's matchmaking function. In doing so, the matchmaking feature may suffer from a sparse population and an overabundance of "newbie" players."
I just love that argument. IW is right (and thus you are right), that is a potential problem, but it's also a problem they've wholly created themselves.
I just love that argument. IW is right (and thus you are right), that is a potential problem, but it's also a problem they've wholly created themselves.
forkz Oct 21, 2009 at 11:26 am
+1 votes
that game informer article is such a joke. the whole tone suggests the writer has no clue about the complaints and is just brown nosing the developers he got to talk to, who also blow the dedi systems problems way out of proportion.
Sol Invictus Oct 21, 2009 at 5:28 pm
+4 votes
I had a paragraph written about the tone of the GameInformer piece, but it didn't really fit into the scope of my article, so I omitted it with some regret. Needless to say, the writer's disdainful opinion of PC gamers left a rotten taste in my mouth.
Wargasm Oct 21, 2009 at 1:17 pm
+2 votes
If it isn't broken, don't fix it! Keep dedicated servers, they just work.
Godsmak Oct 21, 2009 at 3:04 pm
+0 votes
I am all for Infinity Ward and the new matchmaking service. Can't wait!
Blackhand Oct 21, 2009 at 3:49 pm
+1 votes
Listen servers (player hosted) are an ancient way of connecting players
together that was brought back for consoles because dedicated servers
weren't practical for that platform. They otherwise only serve as a
backup means of connection.
Dedicated servers were brought in as an improvement on listen servers
with Quake 1 because of all the major latency, insufficient upstream,
reliability and host advantage problems (problems on every single
console multiplayer game). They nowadays also allow the game's
community to live on many years after the game's release (Quakeworld
for instance) and players to create custom content.
If ID Software had the foresight more than 10 years ago to realize
dedicated servers were THE way to go, how the hell does one of today's
most prominent FPS developers make such a backwards mistake, forcing us
back into the dark ages of gaming.
If it was practical and console games offered the optional choice of
dedicated servers in their games, I bet my family jewels that within a
year it would become the most popular means of multiplayer on that
platform.
This is why PC gamers worldwide are going berzerk. They are taking away one of the most important triumphs in PC gaming.
together that was brought back for consoles because dedicated servers
weren't practical for that platform. They otherwise only serve as a
backup means of connection.
Dedicated servers were brought in as an improvement on listen servers
with Quake 1 because of all the major latency, insufficient upstream,
reliability and host advantage problems (problems on every single
console multiplayer game). They nowadays also allow the game's
community to live on many years after the game's release (Quakeworld
for instance) and players to create custom content.
If ID Software had the foresight more than 10 years ago to realize
dedicated servers were THE way to go, how the hell does one of today's
most prominent FPS developers make such a backwards mistake, forcing us
back into the dark ages of gaming.
If it was practical and console games offered the optional choice of
dedicated servers in their games, I bet my family jewels that within a
year it would become the most popular means of multiplayer on that
platform.
This is why PC gamers worldwide are going berzerk. They are taking away one of the most important triumphs in PC gaming.
Godsmak Oct 21, 2009 at 4:27 pm
+1 votes
Blackhand said
Listen servers (player hosted) are an ancient way of connecting players
together that was brought back for consoles because dedicated servers
weren't practical for that platform. They otherwise only serve as a
backup means of connection.
Dedicated servers were brought in as an improvement on listen servers
with Quake 1 because of all the major latency, insufficient upstream,
reliability and host advantage problems (problems on every single
console multiplayer game). They nowadays also allow the game's
community to live on many years after the game's release (Quakeworld
for instance) and players to create custom content.
If ID Software had the foresight more than 10 years ago to realize
dedicated servers were THE way to go, how the hell does one of today's
most prominent FPS developers make such a backwards mistake, forcing us
back into the dark ages of gaming.
If it was practical and console games offered the optional choice of
dedicated servers in their games, I bet my family jewels that within a
year it would become the most popular means of multiplayer on that
platform.
This is why PC gamers worldwide are going berzerk. They are taking away one of the most important triumphs in PC gaming.
together that was brought back for consoles because dedicated servers
weren't practical for that platform. They otherwise only serve as a
backup means of connection.
Dedicated servers were brought in as an improvement on listen servers
with Quake 1 because of all the major latency, insufficient upstream,
reliability and host advantage problems (problems on every single
console multiplayer game). They nowadays also allow the game's
community to live on many years after the game's release (Quakeworld
for instance) and players to create custom content.
If ID Software had the foresight more than 10 years ago to realize
dedicated servers were THE way to go, how the hell does one of today's
most prominent FPS developers make such a backwards mistake, forcing us
back into the dark ages of gaming.
If it was practical and console games offered the optional choice of
dedicated servers in their games, I bet my family jewels that within a
year it would become the most popular means of multiplayer on that
platform.
This is why PC gamers worldwide are going berzerk. They are taking away one of the most important triumphs in PC gaming.
They look at this way. COD4 for PC did ok, in the beginning there were a decent sized amount of dedicated servers (Nothing compared to CS), but then they just started tapering off. People are being drawn to the easier console ways (which don't have any amount of lag from what I have experienced, which has been 3 re-lvls of lvl 55) and so Infinity Ward sees this as a opportunity to revolutionize PC gaming. Also this will finally get rid of all those horribly run dedicated servers that have horrible map rotations and settings.
PC gaming is mostly alive due to MMOs.
I hope IWnet works like a charm.
Blackhand Oct 21, 2009 at 5:26 pm
+2 votes
I beg to differ. COD 4 dedicated servers are thriving. Not as much as CS of course, but CS has been around far longer. A big reason why CS still lives on however, is because of dedicated servers and the communities formed around those servers.
The guys at Valve understood that they can give us matchmaking while still keeping all the many advantages of dedicated servers and a server browser. Take away the dedicated servers and only problems come from it.
I'm surprised developers get away with it on the consoles, especially in foreign countries. PC gamers won't be fooled for a second however since this battle has been won many times. Dedicated vs Listen, dedicated wins out every time in every aspect. There are no advantages to listen servers for the gamers, only disadvantages.
The guys at Valve understood that they can give us matchmaking while still keeping all the many advantages of dedicated servers and a server browser. Take away the dedicated servers and only problems come from it.
I'm surprised developers get away with it on the consoles, especially in foreign countries. PC gamers won't be fooled for a second however since this battle has been won many times. Dedicated vs Listen, dedicated wins out every time in every aspect. There are no advantages to listen servers for the gamers, only disadvantages.
tarquin Oct 21, 2009 at 6:32 pm
+1 votes
i'm certainly not against dedicated servers. i can't imagine refreshing the server browser and not seeing all those sponsored servers - sponsored community servers with excellent communities - now you how do you play with the same bunch week in week out? strangers every day? eeew
and what... so pc gamers get the 'pause' whenever the host leaves the game, while the host switches over?
people with lower end computers won't be able to host games.
i can't really see any advantages of removing dedicated servers.
and what... so pc gamers get the 'pause' whenever the host leaves the game, while the host switches over?
people with lower end computers won't be able to host games.
i can't really see any advantages of removing dedicated servers.
Blackhand Oct 21, 2009 at 6:53 pm
+2 votes
There are none, only disadvantages.
From IW/Activision's perspective, they have one PLAUSIBLE excuse, that is pirate servers. They would like those pirates to pay for their game. That excuse is now moot however as the backlash has been so harsh that they lost a sizeable chunk of their paying customers.
From IW/Activision's perspective, they have one PLAUSIBLE excuse, that is pirate servers. They would like those pirates to pay for their game. That excuse is now moot however as the backlash has been so harsh that they lost a sizeable chunk of their paying customers.
Cleric Oct 26, 2009 at 1:39 pm
+1 votes
Oh, I just would like to share this recent blog from the Battlefield guys.
They also stand by the fact that dedicated servers are and will always be the best way for online gaming.
"With dedicated servers everyone gets non-stop action with no connection penalties based on some other player and their internet. This makes dedicated servers the best solution for online PC gaming hands down!"
I know it's not CoD:MW2 related, but the fact remains that they are pointing out indirectly that this move of IW is not a good idea at all.
They also stand by the fact that dedicated servers are and will always be the best way for online gaming.
"With dedicated servers everyone gets non-stop action with no connection penalties based on some other player and their internet. This makes dedicated servers the best solution for online PC gaming hands down!"
I know it's not CoD:MW2 related, but the fact remains that they are pointing out indirectly that this move of IW is not a good idea at all.
« Previous |
1 |
Next » |
Forging a Passion for Video Games
24 Subscribers
3 Likes: 7 November 19, 2009, 2:40 pm3 Likes: 3 November 17, 2009, 4:04 pm13 Likes: 7 November 16, 2009, 11:05 am3 Likes: 3 November 15, 2009, 2:11 am13 Likes: 5 November 14, 2009, 2:14 pm0 Likes: 3 November 14, 2009, 11:29 am12 Likes: 3 November 14, 2009, 6:27 am1 Likes: 5 November 13, 2009, 2:17 pm3 Likes: 4 November 13, 2009, 12:29 pm88 Likes: 6 November 13, 2009, 11:55 amStarted August 15, 2008
611 Total Entries
611 Total Entries
Your Comment is being posted. Please wait...