+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 17, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 17, 2009 No mod tools = No custom content or mods (N)No Dedicated servers = no clan servers (N) No Dedicated servers = possible end of competitive ladders (N) No Dedicated servers = means those few servers you frequent and play with friends are gone (N) Steam integration = Map Packs+Patches (DLC) on the PC may not be free anymore. (N) PC Release = No delay (Y) Only one piece of good news today, the other news makes things a little uncertain going forward for the PC crowd. Woah I didn't really realize how castrating of the PC community this is till I read this post. What an absolutely ass backwards move... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deadpool2k Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 They seem to have a whole lot of animosity towards PC users totally raped our version. Well, i for one, damn won't be buying this IWD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deletedxyz Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I guess L4Dead 2 will get my money instead this holiday season. Goodbye Infinity Ward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SMELTN Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I am pretty ****ed off at this right now.. No dedicated servers.. So the ONLY way they can save themselves from this is if they announce cross platform support, and even then, without dedicated servers, its stupid. I swear to God I HATE sitting in a God Dang lobby waiting for enough players to connect so I can play a round.... SCREW THAT :argh: :argh: :argh: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I swear to God I HATE sitting in a God Dang lobby waiting for enough players to connect so I can play a round.... SCREW THAT I think the average waiting time is like 5 seconds when waiting for players to connect, unless you are on a god awful connection and have closed NAT ports. I spent more time searching through that colour-orgy on the PC, looking for a server with somewhat normal settings on the PC than I do finding a server on the console. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 18, 2009 I truly don't see how anyone finds it hard to find a normal server. There would usually be official ones from the developer, and even if not all PC games let you favourite servers. All you need to do is look for the Jolt/Multiplay/Wireplay servers that are in nearly every online PC game, servers run by large gaming websites. I've put over 200 hours into TF2 just playing on the multiplay servers. I've seen the same people pop up on these servers for over a year, people just find places they like to call home on a PC online game and keep revisiting. Creates a good chemistry when you get to play alongside regulars. End of the day there's no reason for an 'or' scenario, dedicated servers should of been included, with the option of possibly having matchmaking as well. They've just decimated the PC's most historic and polished feature, clans. Console games are only just starting to get fully featured clan support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 But they aren't and it makes for great internet drama, that's a win-win situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 18, 2009 But they aren't and it makes for great internet drama, that's a win-win situation. Bit of drama can be funny, but as a gamer when the games start getting affected negatively for the wrong reasons I can't ever possibly see that as a win situation. It's funny to laugh at the teenager now carving hate messages into his wall at Activision, but there's a lot of level headed disappointed gamers out there, I'm guessing on the PC many older people who're more mature anyway. I don't see how anyone could ever say removing clan support from a PC game is a win situation. Matchmaking only in Arma2 Sethos? :rofl: Looks like PC gamers are waiting on Battlefield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Yes, had I used any of the features being removed I would also be all over the floor now with my arms flailing around, problem with this situation is, they are pretty much removing every single negative aspect from the PC version, in my opinion - So I have no reason to complain. I'm fully aware this negatively effects a lot of gamers out there but it effects me positively - So I'm just going to smile. Clan support is going to work just like the console versions and that worked pretty good, yes you don't have a dedicated server for your clan but it's not the end of the world. It sounds like they are bringing unified and streamlined multiplayer experiences to the PC which is one of the biggest reasons I'm playing these games on the console. If they actually manage to pull it off, I might invest in the PC version as well! So it's still a win-win situation for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 18, 2009 I'll say this then, you've clearly been in clans, you must understand how important a clan server is for people taking their clan seriously? Training/Getting together/Playing with custom rules on purpose for specific scenarios/etc. That identity has followed PC gaming for years, why in 2009 is a step forward to outright remove it? As I said earlier console games are only just starting to push forward with clans, things like KZ2 have a whole integrated tournament system, so does Socom and MAG. Yet for some reason PC gaming is getting dumbed down worse than certain console games? Even Warhawk allows you to run your own dedicated server... But by large the main reason console games don't have dedicated servers is you can't run a server client on a PC. With Warhawk you need to run it through your PS3, which is obviously counter intuitive as it ties up your console. All the companies/gaming outlets aren't going to buy hundreds of PS3s/360s to provide dedicated servers, so we get matchmaking and client hosted games. I don't see why you wouldn't prefer the ability to do everything PC gamers have always done AND have matchmaking, why is it a one or the other situation for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Aren't matchmaking private matches still available, I'd say you could practice just fine? All those current-gen games that are officering so much clan-based stuff is just one massive gimmick, it's fun but a massive god damn gimmick. I've played in clans all my life and not once did we need 80% of the crap offered by these massive clan networks games employ. Clan tag, clan members and a way to play together and you got all you need. And allowing people to have dedicated and / or choose the rules would render matchmaking useless because I know people prefer the customizing and coloured-text servers but most of them are crap, straight out crap with those weird ass settings. So I'm glad to see an integrated system being shoved down their throats. That also increased the efficiency of matchmaking, faster search times etc. I love the way console searching and gaming is handled in the competitive based shooters, I don't mind it at all. It's a bit like the American Healthcare situation, a lot of people over there don't want healthcare and ( for analogy sake ) I'd love to have healthcare and I'm getting that, just means its shoved down everyone else throat - Giving you the choice between the two would seriously cripple the one that is most efficient when everyone is involved. So yes, some games requires you to have dedicated servers because the games just cannot be played through matchmaking due to the nature and possibilities of the game ( Like ArmA 2, as you mentioned ) yet other smaller competitive games like Call of Duty and such works just fine through matchmaking, especially because they have a rank system, perks and all this, you need a more closed environment to avoid all this file-tampering, boosting and going around it basically rending the system null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SOOPRcow MVC Posted October 18, 2009 MVC Share Posted October 18, 2009 The problem with user hosted games is that they end users typically have less upload bandwidth available and thus larger size games will provide with higher pings. There is also the CPU power issue when you have larger (24+) player games and such. This is really not a smart move and I think it will really really hurt PC sales as well as the general multilayer experience on the PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 18, 2009 The problem with user hosted games is that they end users typically have less upload bandwidth available and thus larger size games will provide with higher pings. There is also the CPU power issue when you have larger (24+) player games and such. This is really not a smart move and I think it will really really hurt PC sales as well as the general multilayer experience on the PC. Well that's why custom content/maps is getting cut and no SDK provided. Well and because it will allow Activision to charge for map packs as PC owners can't say FU and go download custom maps. I bet hardly any PC owners buy the maps and then the next ugly flaw of matchmaking/charged DLC rears its head, you'll hardly find any games to play on with the DLC maps. People would create mods, possibly things like a 64 player battlefield mod which just couldn't be sustained on user hosted connections, not without there being some sort of dedicated backbone. MAG does 256 players on the PS3, but there's a dedicated backbone for it, it's not 1 of those 256 player hosting the match :p Another shame is the IW engine is obviously really good but we'll never see it's modding potential. Look at some of the class mods that came about for BF2. That's the heart and soul of an online PC community, a PC is not a console, PC owners don't need or want the same experience as a console owner, if they did they'd buy the console version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Another shame is the IW engine is obviously really good but we'll never see it's modding potential. Blame the community, Call of Duty 4 has SDK available and what have they created? A ProMod, which is the peak of modifications for Call of Duty 4, a slew of bot-mods and a ton of terrible maps with a few decent ones in the mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 18, 2009 Blame the community, Call of Duty 4 has SDK available and what have they created? A ProMod, which is the peak of modifications for Call of Duty 4, a slew of bot-mods and a ton of terrible maps with a few decent ones in the mix. Blame the community? If the SDK was available for COD4 I see no reason it can't be made available for COD MW2. Activisions choice. Better to have the SDK and have the chance of something epic coming along than not have it at all and have no chance of ever seeing anything other than vanilla MW2 and paid for map packs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Because they had the chance to create something, proof the community is capable of creating something great. Maybe if someone had created a great modification with a large backing, it would be an entirely different situation today. Now Act / IW just decided to go with the integrated ranking / server route and cut support for something that didn't seem to have much interest in the first place - I don't blame them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SOOPRcow MVC Posted October 18, 2009 MVC Share Posted October 18, 2009 They could cut off the SDK for all I care but cutting off dedicated servers is over the line for me. I'm guessing about the best ping/lag experience you can expect from a user hosted game is an 8 player game. Maybe 12 or 16 if the host has a really good computer and connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 18, 2009 Because they had the chance to create something, proof the community is capable of creating something great. Maybe if someone had created a great modification with a large backing, it would be an entirely different situation today. Now Act / IW just decided to go with the integrated ranking / server route and cut support for something that didn't seem to have much interest in the first place - I don't blame them. Providing the tools has never been about a ****ing competition of only doing so if someone manages to set the world on fire, most PC devs do it because it's "natural", let the community play around with your engine and have something to try and build upon. I don't think you'll ever see VALVE not release an SDK. It's the power of the PC's open nature, you can't release an SDK on a console because it's a closed device. Activision are trying to provide a closed title on an open platform, it's counter intuitive. It's being done to lock the game down and force feed gamers only what Activision wants to put out. Which will no doubt be 2 paid map packs in a year. MW2 is like the most anticipated title ever, building upon the success of the first chances are they were only going to reign in more PC gamers, which equals a higher chance of talented modders getting on board, but now they've just cut off the PC community altogether? That's a bit of an extreme knee jerk reaction just because someone didn't basically create a new game out of the COD4 SDK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 They could cut off the SDK for all I care but cutting off dedicated servers is over the line for me. I'm guessing about the best ping/lag experience you can expect from a user hosted game is an 8 player game. Maybe 12 or 16 if the host has a really good computer and connection. Played Call of Duty 4 on the console for over a year and the times I've experienced lag in the bigger matches can pretty much be counted on one hand - You are blowing it out of proportion. There's plenty of players out there with a connection able to handle 12-16 player matches without any problems. Most people today have a decent broadband connection with an acceptable upload and that's more than enough to handle a game of this "size" and it's not a lucky draw either, it doesn't pick some 56k player, it always picks the player with the best connection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SOOPRcow MVC Posted October 18, 2009 MVC Share Posted October 18, 2009 One consoles and PC's are two different hardware platforms. PC's are almost always running other tasks in the background. The person who is hosting the game will always have the advantage of a zero ping and for us PC gamers a 16 player game size is small. There are reasons PC gamers don't like console gaming. Treating them like console gamers is going to hurt there sales in the short and long term. It really will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 One consoles and PC's are two different hardware platforms. PC's are almost always running other tasks in the background. The person who is hosting the game will always have the advantage of a zero ping and for us PC gamers a 16 player game size is small. Yes but now you are getting console standards, meaning no more 200.000 player games, thus making all that useless variables. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SOOPRcow MVC Posted October 18, 2009 MVC Share Posted October 18, 2009 Which is what we don't want. How can you not get that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted October 18, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 18, 2009 So to take this topic away from how badly PC owners are getting the shaft, console version on sale for $49.99 for 3 days at Futureshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Which is what we don't want. How can you not get that? I think I've said a million times now I KNOW you don't want that, I'm saying _I_ want that and don't give a toss about the rest of you - I approve of this approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+SOOPRcow MVC Posted October 18, 2009 MVC Share Posted October 18, 2009 Why not just stick to your console then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts