Treemonkeys Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Has there been any news yet as far as how the multiplayer will be handled? Now that we even have a $15 arcade game that has dedicated servers, I really hope other developers and gamers are taking note. I for one will not spend $60 on a "AAA" game that has a heavy multiplayer focus without dedicated servers. It's pretty sad to me how many people on the internet will become so angry for things like Valve releasing a sequel while the big games like Halo 3 and CoD are still being hosted off residential internet connections. At least Valve gave us a game with minimal lag and fair competition via dedicated servers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browno Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It will end up the same as all Call of Duty games have been done online, one players the host for the whole game until they leave? Surely? If we had dedicated servers it's gonna cost Activision money to set up, and I can't see them wanting to do that, therefore just doing it through a one player host. But launch day would be hell for dedicated servers, just like BF:1943, that's why I think it will be an unrealistic possibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treemonkeys Posted July 27, 2009 Author Share Posted July 27, 2009 It will end up the same as all Call of Duty games have been done online, one players the host for the whole game until they leave? Surely? If we had dedicated servers it's gonna cost Activision money to set up, and I can't see them wanting to do that, therefore just doing it through a one player host. But launch day would be hell for dedicated servers, just like BF:1943, that's why I think it will be an unrealistic possibility. Yet here and now a few weeks later BF1943 is far smoother and more fair online than the CoD games....and they did it with a $15 a pop fee, you really think it's unrealistic for a higher priced game? :huh: People are going to hopefully be playing MW2 for a very long time, they should care about more than launch day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted July 27, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 27, 2009 This really should support dedicated servers (Y) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted July 27, 2009 Veteran Share Posted July 27, 2009 Has there been any news yet as far as how the multiplayer will be handled? Now that we even have a $15 arcade game that has dedicated servers, I really hope other developers and gamers are taking note. I for one will not spend $60 on a "AAA" game that has a heavy multiplayer focus without dedicated servers. It's pretty sad to me how many people on the internet will become so angry for things like Valve releasing a sequel while the big games like Halo 3 and CoD are still being hosted off residential internet connections. At least Valve gave us a game with minimal lag and fair competition via dedicated servers. Yes but Valve had a huge backlach with TF2 when it launched (on the 360 that is) for the lack of dedicated servers. That is why they made sure to include them for L4D. It's a shame the way they handled TF2 on the 360 as it really could have been a great game on the system. I suppose they put their efforts into the version which matters most though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Dedicated servers are trash, usually located far away from me and my ping ends up crap - Give me some Danish / Swedish Client-side hosting and badass pings please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treemonkeys Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Yes but Valve had a huge backlach with TF2 when it launched (on the 360 that is) for the lack of dedicated servers. That is why they made sure to include them for L4D.It's a shame the way they handled TF2 on the 360 as it really could have been a great game on the system. I suppose they put their efforts into the version which matters most though. I don't see what is wrong with L4D on 360, I have both versions. That game would probably be nearly unplayable with a client hosting all of the zombies on screen. I also thought the backlash about TF2 on 360 was just because of the horrible lag that was there when the game launched, not necessarily dedicated servers. Anyways if the servers on L4D are a response to the backlash then that's just more props for Valve. Look at all the backlash the original Gears of War had due to online lag and then look at what they gave us for GoW2. Dedicated servers are trash, usually located far away from me and my ping ends up crap - Give me some Danish / Swedish Client-side hosting and badass pings please. Just because they aren't usually available in your area doesn't mean they are trash, they are clearly superior to client hosting. The host is always going to have an advantage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Just because they aren't usually available in your area doesn't mean they are trash, they are clearly superior to client hosting. The host is always going to have an advantage. The fact that they are only better for those living CLOSE to the server says that they're not always better. Dedicated servers are great if everyone lives near them, but that doesn't happen often and if you live further away, the advantage those players have is just as bad as host advantage. COD: MW2 is going to be a VERY popular game, the server capacity required to service all the people jumping on to play it is just too unrealistic, that's why the P2P model is used, because it doesn't matter how many players there are, it'll just grow and grow with demand. In 3 or 4 years time when it isn't as popular any more, there's nothing stopping EA shutting down those BF1943 servers. Not saying they will, but it's definitely possible, we've already seen a couple of games have their dedicated servers shut down for that very reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treemonkeys Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 The fact that they are only better for those living CLOSE to the server says that they're not always better. Dedicated servers are great if everyone lives near them, but that doesn't happen often and if you live further away, the advantage those players have is just as bad as host advantage.COD: MW2 is going to be a VERY popular game, the server capacity required to service all the people jumping on to play it is just too unrealistic, that's why the P2P model is used, because it doesn't matter how many players there are, it'll just grow and grow with demand. In 3 or 4 years time when it isn't as popular any more, there's nothing stopping EA shutting down those BF1943 servers. Not saying they will, but it's definitely possible, we've already seen a couple of games have their dedicated servers shut down for that very reason. It might not be as good in Europe but in the United States I can play on a server anywhere in the country and it is still better than having a host, even a European server is usually much better than having a host. I also think you are really underestimating how cheap dedicated servers are, on top of that they can leave the P2P system in place and have dedicated servers as well. For example on L4D if there are no dedicated servers available it will just host like other games. There was a time when it was unheard of for a PC game to not have dedicated servers I think they just do it to console gamers because the console gamers don't know any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 It might not be as good in Europe but in the United States I can play on a server anywhere in the country and it is still better than having a host, even a European server is usually much better than having a host. I also think you are really underestimating how cheap dedicated servers are, on top of that they can leave the P2P system in place and have dedicated servers as well. For example on L4D if there are no dedicated servers available it will just host like other games. There was a time when it was unheard of for a PC game to not have dedicated servers I think they just do it to console gamers because the console gamers don't know any better. That's because 99% of "dedicated servers" are hosted in America. For everyone else, they get absolutely shafted when connecting to american hosts, dedicated or otherwise. Just ask any australian that has tried to play left 4 dead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted July 28, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 28, 2009 It might not be as good in Europe but in the United States I can play on a server anywhere in the country and it is still better than having a host, even a European server is usually much better than having a host. I also think you are really underestimating how cheap dedicated servers are, on top of that they can leave the P2P system in place and have dedicated servers as well. For example on L4D if there are no dedicated servers available it will just host like other games. There was a time when it was unheard of for a PC game to not have dedicated servers I think they just do it to console gamers because the console gamers don't know any better. All the 1st party Sony games have dedicated servers and I never have an issue with them in the UK. Warhawk/Killzone 2/Resistance 1&2/Motorstorm 1&2/GT5P/etc. I believe they have servers in the EU as well as USA. In Killzone 2 in the beta you could choose which to join. I guess as long as devs do both EU and USA it should be fine for most gamers.... Warhawk devs just used PS3s :laugh: All games from big developers/publishers should come with dedicated servers as well as P2P (Y) EA/Dice just need to learn people buy their games and stop putting up only 2 servers to deal with hundreds of thousands of people buying Battlefield games. Once more console games get dedicated server support we'll start seeing more robust matchmaking that actually lets you play on the maps/game modes you want - That's the biggest issue I have with some console games, sitting down to play them and being forced to play a map or game mode I don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 All games from big developers/publishers should come with dedicated servers as well as P2P (Y) EA/Dice just need to learn people buy their games and stop putting up only 2 servers to deal with hundreds of thousands of people buying Battlefield games. It's not P2P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted July 28, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 28, 2009 It's not P2P. You know what I mean, I can't remember what you call it. It's commonly mistakenly referred to as 'P2P'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Aye, just bugs me every time someone calls it that :laugh: It's Client-side Host(ing). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted July 28, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted July 28, 2009 Aye, just bugs me every time someone calls it that :laugh: It's Client-side Host(ing). Yup it's this P2P would be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Exactimundo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I believe that 1vs100 uses a Peer-to-peer model, but I'm not 100% sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I think P2P works well with games like Call of Duty. The game lobbies aren't crowded and a little bit of latency isn't a problem. It's when games require a good connection and there is visible advantage by being the lobby host that it needs dedicated servers to even things out. Like someone said above, with dedicated servers, you could quite easily be thrusted onto a game hosted across the ocean from you. At least with a P2P model and with matchmaking servers you're at least likely to be in a game hosted fairly close to your location. It's just when the netcode is **** and picks the worst possible connection every time that it doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I think P2P works well with games like Call of Duty. The game lobbies aren't crowded and a little bit of latency isn't a problem. It's when games require a good connection and there is visible advantage by being the lobby host that it needs dedicated servers to even things out. Like someone said above, with dedicated servers, you could quite easily be thrusted onto a game hosted across the ocean from you. At least with a P2P model and with matchmaking servers you're at least likely to be in a game hosted fairly close to your location. It's just when the netcode is **** and picks the worst possible connection every time that it doesn't work. You son of a ... :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
what Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 You son of a ... :p :) If it's something that really makes your blood boil, then y'know, take some beta blockers or something. You know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sethos Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 :)If it's something that really makes your blood boil, then y'know, take some beta blockers or something. You know what I mean. My blood boil :blink: Now I hope your kidding ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treemonkeys Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 Just ask any australian that has tried to play left 4 dead. Yeah but if you are in Australia you can just host a L4D game like any other, the dedicated servers don't hurt them at all, they just miss out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 There will be hundreds of thousands of people playing MW2, that kind of server capacity would cost too much. You'd end up with just P2P Client-side hosted matches anyway. Besides, the real issue is people's shoddy connections, not the Client-server model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy0 Posted July 29, 2009 Share Posted July 29, 2009 If it was only dedicated servers then there's a high chance that half the people on release day won't be playing online due to errors, not enough servers, etc. By using "P2P" they can avoid these issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT Seth Posted October 27, 2009 Share Posted October 27, 2009 If it was only dedicated servers then there's a high chance that half the people on release day won't be playing online due to errors, not enough servers, etc.By using "P2P" they can avoid these issues. This is where u dont understand dedicated servers. There were clans standing in line to have dedicated servers up and running by release time. There would have been hundreds if not thousands of dedicated servers waiting on release day. There havent been issues in the past with COD4 or GRAW or any of the Rainbow Six releases. Or any of the BF series or any of the other hundreds of games that have dedicated servers, on release day. So, I would rather have servers run by ppl that love the community and not those that are just in it for the money. Where will these P2P servers be in three years, when the casual gamers have moved on to newer games? What will we dedicated gamers do for servers than? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts