Modern Warfare 2 PC will not have dedicated servers

[TheMuffinKing]

Fuck them, fuck consolesconsole ports.

How are consoles at fault? It's the developers being a bunch of lazy douches. That being said, 9 v 9 multi is shitty whether for PC or for console.

If 9vs9 keeps the lag down, then I'll live with it. I have Kz2 and Bad Company 2 to satisfy my monster FPSMP needs.

[MKSheppard]

How are consoles at fault?

No memory -- PS3 has only 256, 360 has 512, and the fact that usually, in console games, there are no dedicated servers, so the amount of players available in a game are limited by how much overhead the console itself has to run a server on top of the game itself -- e.g in a group of four console owners, the one with the least lag to the other hosts.

[Mr Bean]

Fuck them, fuck consolesconsole ports.

How are consoles at fault? It's the developers being a bunch of lazy douches. That being said, 9 v 9 multi is shitty whether for PC or for console.

If 9vs9 keeps the lag down, then I'll live with it. I have Kz2 and Bad Company 2 to satisfy my monster FPSMP needs.

Unless your using netcode from Quake(Or Battlezone 2 uggh) even thirty party bargain basements games manage 12 on 12 games with no netcode issues. They already HAVE the netcode from MW1 which did just fine with 32 on 32 games for the PC with no lag.(Assume you could spend 500$ on the server and you could host up to four games assuming your net connection was up t it) The code is NOT the issue. Hell less than a three months from now there's a 128 on 128 massive FPS game going to be released called MAG for the PS-3. Yeah... 9 on 9 "keep the lag down". Never mind they rented 64 player servers for MW1...

No memory -- PS3 has only 256, 360 has 512, and the fact that usually, in console games, there are no dedicated servers, so the amount of players available in a game are limited by how much overhead the console itself has to run a server on top of the game itself -- e.g in a group of four console owners, the one with the least lag to the other hosts.

A limit you can get around if you want to run a few servers of your own Developer side.

[Mr Bean]

OAN more MW2 news, or rather Stream is a trojan horse news

Digital distributors boycott MW2

Digital distributors Direct2Drive, Impulse and GamersGate have announced a boycott on Modern Warfare 2.
A number of large digital distribution services - namely Direct2Drive, Stardock's Impulse and GamersGate - have announced that they are boycotting Modern Warfare 2 and will never have the PC version of the game on sale on their networks.

The row stems from the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's reliance on IWNet for multiplayer gaming, which is built on Valve's Steamworks system and therefore requires the installation of Steamworks to run.

"We don't believe games should force the user to install a Trojan Horse," a Direct2Drive spokesperson told Kotaku.

Activision and Infinity Ward announced that Modern Warfare 2 would make use of Valve's Steamworks system just a few weeks ago, at the same time saying that they implement the system in such a way that there is no support for dedicated servers and user-generated content.

The Steamworks tool kit itself however can be used to add a number of functions to Steam games, such as game authentication, auto-patching and syncing with the Steam Cloud. Valve have previously claimed that the system would make DRM completely obsolete and have released the system for free as a way to encourage developers to use it.

Direct2Drive has claimed it will boycott the title as it is unhappy that the game should require the installation of a rival's software and that it will not support or sell an Steamworks games until Valve "decouples itself from the marketplace".

Can you really blame them? "Hey when you buy this game you have to install Steam even if the game does not use it only it's assets" Good dick move on Steam's part even if it was not there doing since this is necessary of any game that uses Steamworks technology and the main reason they are giving it away at very cheap rates, so more dev's have to included Steam on the disk so their game works.
But hey, Achievements!

[TheMuffinKing]

Unless your using netcode from Quake(Or Battlezone 2 uggh) even thirty party bargain basements games manage 12 on 12 games with no netcode issues. They already HAVE the netcode from MW1 which did just fine with 32 on 32 games for the PC with no lag.(Assume you could spend 500$ on the server and you could host up to four games assuming your net connection was up t it) The code is NOT the issue. Hell less than a three months from now there's a 128 on 128 massive FPS game going to be released called MAG for the PS-3. Yeah... 9 on 9 "keep the lag down". Never mind they rented 64 player servers for MW1...

Well, the reality of netcode aside, I have always noticed considerably more lag in modern warfare 1 when it got over 12 players.

Heck, all the hoopla surrounding this seems quite amusing and I really want to see if the boycotts and canceled pre-orders will have any effect on IW in the future, though I bet it won't, the console cash cow probably brings in more than enough money.

[Mr Bean]

They already made their statements and no the PC pre-order cancelations have no affected them. Even best case it's a 3 to 1 comparing the PC to Xbox360 and PS3 sales.

[ray245]

They already made their statements and no the PC pre-order cancelations have no affected them. Even best case it's a 3 to 1 comparing the PC to Xbox360 and PS3 sales.

I still have no idea why IW would wish to throw away potential revenue.

[Ghost Rider]

They already made their statements and no the PC pre-order cancelations have no affected them. Even best case it's a 3 to 1 comparing the PC to Xbox360 and PS3 sales.

I still have no idea why IW would wish to throw away potential revenue.

As pointed out, the issues with how much cost versus profit arguement. Another is they know the product will sell...with less work on their part. Why put more work if in one's eyes it's for minor boost.

[Alyeska]

They already made their statements and no the PC pre-order cancelations have no affected them. Even best case it's a 3 to 1 comparing the PC to Xbox360 and PS3 sales.

I still have no idea why IW would wish to throw away potential revenue.

As pointed out, the issues with how much cost versus profit arguement. Another is they know the product will sell...with less work on their part. Why put more work if in one's eyes it's for minor boost.

Cost versus profit, yes. But I seriously doubt they will make more money this way. I've not seen a game with such bad press before this close to launch. This is negatively affecting potential sales. PC players are almost uniformly pissed. I've already talked to my clan and shown them whats going on. They are largely going to ignore this game now.

Yes, they saved costs. But those costs almost certainly would have gotten them higher revenue than the costs themselves. Then when you consider that IW isn't just not adding features, they have expended effort to remove them, its clear that IW is spending money here. They are spending money to strip the game features. And it won't get them more sales, it will get less.

[Darth Wong]

They already made their statements and no the PC pre-order cancelations have no affected them. Even best case it's a 3 to 1 comparing the PC to Xbox360 and PS3 sales.

I still have no idea why IW would wish to throw away potential revenue.

As pointed out, the issues with how much cost versus profit arguement. Another is they know the product will sell...with less work on their part. Why put more work if in one's eyes it's for minor boost.

I can't help but wonder if they think that the entire PC market is expendable.

[Ghost Rider]

As pointed out, the issues with how much cost versus profit arguement. Another is they know the product will sell...with less work on their part. Why put more work if in one's eyes it's for minor boost.

Cost versus profit, yes. But I seriously doubt they will make more money this way. I've not seen a game with such bad press before this close to launch. This is negatively affecting potential sales. PC players are almost uniformly pissed. I've already talked to my clan and shown them whats going on. They are largely going to ignore this game now.

Yes, they saved costs. But those costs almost certainly would have gotten them higher revenue than the costs themselves. Then when you consider that IW isn't just not adding features, they have expended effort to remove them, its clear that IW is spending money here. They are spending money to strip the game features. And it won't get them more sales, it will get less.

The largest problem is we won't know of the effects until their next game. Which by then a whole host of changes can affect sales. The shitty part is that literally they are satisfied with projections that they saw nothing wrong with what they are doing.

They are fucking the gamer and laughing because there's plenty whole will buy, and if pirating goes nuts, it is a perfect reason to further screw with the PC crowd because they will claim that action is why they need to concentrate less on that particular group.

[Ghost Rider]

I still have no idea why IW would wish to throw away potential revenue.

As pointed out, the issues with how much cost versus profit arguement. Another is they know the product will sell...with less work on their part. Why put more work if in one's eyes it's for minor boost.

I can't help but wonder if they think that the entire PC market is expendable.

I honestly believe that have some real notions of such. Following even as little as I've done, the sheer amount of shit they've piled onto the PC side is astounding and is following some rather disturbing signs of their future predictions of what to do to the PC market. If this does minimal damage, they will simply believe this is what the PC market wants. If too much piracy, they will exclaim failure, and lessen that particular end of the market.

[TheMuffinKing]

I can't help but wonder if they think that the entire PC market is expendable.

With development costs and ease of development considering the static nature of the platform, incorporated with DLC income and the size of the user base, perhaps it is expendable.

[Alyeska]

The largest problem is we won't know of the effects until their next game. Which by then a whole host of changes can affect sales. The shitty part is that literally they are satisfied with projections that they saw nothing wrong with what they are doing.

A self fulfilling prophecy. There have got to be some people at IW who see what is actually going on. And its got to have them seething inside to see what IW and Activision are doing so blindly and without reason.

They are fucking the gamer and laughing because there's plenty whole will buy, and if pirating goes nuts, it is a perfect reason to further screw with the PC crowd because they will claim that action is why they need to concentrate less on that particular group.

A coworker came up with the best way to describe the situation. IW isn't treating PC players like PC players, they are treating them like console players. And they are deluding themselves by completely ignoring the massive shitstorm that has been created. What sort of groupthink is going on with these people?

[ray245]

A coworker came up with the best way to describe the situation. IW isn't treating PC players like PC players, they are treating them like console players. And they are deluding themselves by completely ignoring the massive shitstorm that has been created. What sort of groupthink is going on with these people?

They are becoming more lazy?

[Edward Yee]

I think it's more of an active, overt decision of "eating the cost" to do whatever change they want to do.

[starfury]

can't help but wonder if they think that the entire PC market is expendable.

Well the Top Charts of PC gaming are daily dominated by the Sims and World of warcraft, which at least the seems to what most people regard as PC gaming, Games like Modern Warfare 2 might as well not exist for the general public who does not about or does not care, even EPIC games outright stated that the kind of people who had a decent high to mid-range PC is far more likely to Pirate then the audience for these games. This combined with the who developer dislike for the PC lacking a standard range for them to develop for made them think console gaming is just easier to develop for, the Piracy thing seems to like a face saving way of saying it.

[Ace Pace]

I can't help but wonder if they think that the entire PC market is expendable.

It is. Revenue from the PC market is far smaller than from the console market. It costs more to develop to a PC audience than to an equivalently sized console audience because of multiple technical issues. It is harder to market to PC gamers. PC gamers are more likely to pirate their games. These all pile together into "Most FPS developers release for PC out of loyalty for the platform and not because it makes business sense."

[Uraniun235]

That implies that said FPS developers lose money on developing for the PC, rather than simply not making as much money per dollar invested. If they didn't spend the money on PC development, what else would they invest in to earn more money?

[Stark]

Maybe 'being on all platforms' is considered a valuable bullet-point, and thus it's worth creating a (terrible or not very profitable) PC version, just to appear like a 'big name title'. Alternately, if the PC version is actually unprofitable, it could easily be management inertia - I've worked with companies where the management had experience in a different time (ie, the 90s in this case) where something was effective or good, and they continued to do it well after the economic reality changed.

Hasn't EPIC pretty much admitted they don't expect to make money on PC games? The market has changed so much EPIC may well have made more money on Shadow Complex (a side-scrolling Xbox Live game for $12) than they did on UT3 (a high-spec PC twitch-shooter for $50). This example brings is a lot more variables (like microtransactions) but it's possible decisionmakers from the 90s may not be adapting to the opportuities of the current market.

[Ghost Rider]

Maybe 'being on all platforms' is considered a valuable bullet-point, and thus it's worth creating a (terrible or not very profitable) PC version, just to appear like a 'big name title'. Alternately, if the PC version is actually unprofitable, it could easily be management inertia - I've worked with companies where the management had experience in a different time (ie, the 90s in this case) where something was effective or good, and they continued to do it well after the economic reality changed.

There's likely a lot of truth to that when considering that they make DS and lesser version of some games for no reason whatsoever.

[Minischoles]

Christ 9v9? there goes my plans to buy it, i'll only buy a game like this for the MP (a SP campaign keeps you entertained for a day at best, the MP is what keeps you there) and 9v9 is terrible.
I do honestly go with the notion that they're deliberately screwing the PC game, so people pirate just to get a better modded version, then they'll scream about pirates ruining the game and do an even more half assed job on their next game and save money. They can't seriously think PC players will put up with this kind of shit can they?

[TheMuffinKing]

Christ 9v9? there goes my plans to buy it, i'll only buy a game like this for the MP (a SP campaign keeps you entertained for a day at best, the MP is what keeps you there) and 9v9 is terrible.
I do honestly go with the notion that they're deliberately screwing the PC game, so people pirate just to get a better modded version, then they'll scream about pirates ruining the game and do an even more half assed job on their next game and save money. They can't seriously think PC players will put up with this kind of shit can they?

Aside form teh fact that PC gamers are now irrelivant, what is so bad about 9vs.9? I really want to know, because I've seen an unholy amount of complaints about this.

[Mr Bean]

Aside form teh fact that PC gamers are now irrelivant, what is so bad about 9vs.9? I really want to know, because I've seen an unholy amount of complaints about this.

Nine on nine is a low enough number of players that one man can dominate a server. The more players you add the more teamwork matters and the less individual skill matters. Nine on nine on the maps I've seen so far typically means Three on four at this chokepoint and four on six at this chokepoint with some one sniping poorly in the background. Unless you make the map one long hallway the best fight your going to have is four on one. Not five on five or ten on ten because people are dead, people are afk, people are loading in. Nine on Nine is small enough that you spend a decent chunk of time fighting one on one battles only to get blind sided. More over the main issue is you could find 24, 32, and 64 player servers before now it's 9 on 9 when everyone else is looking to beat the 64 player mark, they are looking to bring it back to the Xbox days.

And PC gaming irrelevant? No we are still facing the issue we were three years ago. It's called Activision/Blizzard and the fact they pull down over a third of a billion dollars from World of Warcraft in subscription fee's alone each quarter. Plus their points store, plus their race changing and faction switching fee's and all the other things that Blizzard is cooking up to have WoW make them more money. Can you name any other game that still manages to sell twenty thousand copies a month minimum so many YEARS after it's release? The last online guess says that the revenue WoW has made to date has already topped five billion dollars by itself between game sales, subscription fee's and microtransactions. And that's millions of PC's who may play that as their only primary game because if your playing WoW, why go out an drop 60$ on the new MW2? That's not a matter of record but it's a matter of an educated guess or two and observed player trends that hardcore games(Of which there's about two million tops in the US) have a decent chunk or so missing because economic times are tough and WoW is cheaper than spending 100$ a month on a new game every two weeks. Then your digging into the "occasional gamer" market also with WoW. Yes there are those members who also buy other games but it's hard to justify another game when you have something like World of Warcraft. Lots of people gets sucked into that "I'm paying for it, I might as well play it" and it depresses PC gaming sales.

For Xenu sake, Blizzard has not sold but one game and expansion for that game for five years now. Yet had 1.1 Billion in Revenue for 2008. It's a serious depressing force on the remainder of the market.

[TheMuffinKing]

So it seems that PC gaming has become pigeonholed into acting as a WoW/MMORPG portal?

As an aside, I've seen plenty of single people dominate larger servers. I would go so far to say that smaller servers force better teamwork, or at least it streamlines command and control. Honestly, I can see that argument going either way with what you and I having posted both being relevant.