Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Malstrom (Wii Disruption guy) takes on Tycho!

135

Posts

  • zerg rushzerg rush regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Yes. Boycotts have never worked in the history of existence and therefore we shouldn't ever attempt them.

    How dare that people attempting to boycott something should talk about boycotting it as well.

    zerg rush on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Bad analogy. You didn't buy a previous hat of the same model with that feature and then it was removed this year.

    Anyway, I desperately want to play MW2. I have it preordered on the PC, but now I'm debating not buying it all or switching to 360. The one thing that confused me about this debactle is Tycho's stance. In the past Gabe and Tycho have been more of the opinion that the paying customer should not be harmed because a company is worried about piracy. They have also been vocal about games being an open platform(mods, etc...). But Tycho's argument flies in the face of previous opinions he has held on other games. I'd like to know why he changed his mind or feels differently about MW2. Maybe he doesn't care about it so it doesn't affect him? It's wierd.

    YodaTuna on
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited October 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Yes. Boycotts have never worked in the history of existence and therefore we shouldn't ever attempt them.

    How dare that people attempting to boycott something should talk about boycotting it as well.

    Boycotts of a product in the entertainment industry?

    I like the product how it is when it comes out, and I will enjoy the single player enough for it to be worthwhile in itself.

    Johannen on
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Bad analogy. You didn't buy a previous hat of the same model with that feature and then it was removed this year.

    You can't go back and buy the hat you once had again? What if the hat is exactly the same but merely with a different peak, or a slightly different colour scheme? But it's basically the same hat, from the same company, with the same material, and the same style all round.

    Johannen on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Bad analogy. You didn't buy a previous hat of the same model with that feature and then it was removed this year.

    You can't go back and buy the hat you once had again? What if the hat is exactly the same but merely with a different peak, or a slightly different colour scheme? But it's basically the same hat, from the same company, with the same material, and the same style all round.

    Ok maybe it's a bad analogy because a hat and a video game are different.

    YodaTuna on
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited October 2009
    I like hats.

    Johannen on
  • XaquinXaquin regular Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    yeah .... except this isn't so much of a hat, as it is a program with vague box information .... no where on the box would you see something to the efect of "far worse online multiplayer than previous iterations"

    It just has quotes that say "Incredible" -Gamespot and minimum PC specs.

    Xaquin on
  • XaquinXaquin regular Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Bad analogy. You didn't buy a previous hat of the same model with that feature and then it was removed this year.

    You can't go back and buy the hat you once had again? What if the hat is exactly the same but merely with a different peak, or a slightly different colour scheme? But it's basically the same hat, from the same company, with the same material, and the same style all round.

    also, this is a hat you can't return once you open it.

    Xaquin on
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited October 2009
    I don't trust reviews so I don't really pay much attention to them. Also, it's really true that a couple of years ago you would be paying nearly this much (maybe $5-10 less or a little more, but I did get Fallout3 for £22 on the opening day from Blockbuster) for a game with no online capabilities, or extremely poor and limited ones. And in these situations people would enjoy the games for their single player modes, which is where the companies really try to get people to enjoy the game.

    Sure, people may enjoy this iteration less because it's not moving with the technology available and peoples ideas on what is an overall experience, but I think they're putting out what they think is a good experience. I really don't think there's a man sitting in a chair cackling that he's going to go this one without putting in servers and just leave it with matchmaking because he can.

    Johannen on
  • agoajagoaj Top Tier No FearRegistered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Bad analogy. You didn't buy a previous hat of the same model with that feature and then it was removed this year.

    You can't go back and buy the hat you once had again? What if the hat is exactly the same but merely with a different peak, or a slightly different colour scheme? But it's basically the same hat, from the same company, with the same material, and the same style all round.

    also, this is a hat you can't return once you open it.

    Also, it won't work with your own hat rack, you'll need to share one with friends.

    agoaj on
    qnu0EMk.png
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    I really don't think there's a man sitting in a chair cackling that he's going to go this one without putting in servers and just leave it with matchmaking because he can.

    Outside the OP quote, I don't think anyone really thinks that. This is obviously some type of business move in an attempt to make more money? I'm not Infinity Ward or Activision, I'm not concerned on whether they make money. I'm concerned about the game, and they've gutted a major component of that game. Very disappointing.

    I've backed Infinity Ward since CoD1. I didn't even buy CoD3 or WaW because they weren't made by IW(also because CoD3 wasn't on PC).

    YodaTuna on
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited October 2009
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Yes. Boycotts have never worked in the history of existence and therefore we shouldn't ever attempt them.

    How dare that people attempting to boycott something should talk about boycotting it as well.

    The main difference, however, is some of those complaining about MW2, or more specifically, stating they won't buy the game, claim that they would pirate it. In protest, of course, because no one pirates good games.

    Judgement on
    309151-1.png
  • JohannenJohannen Registered User
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I really don't think there's a man sitting in a chair cackling that he's going to go this one without putting in servers and just leave it with matchmaking because he can.

    Outside the OP quote, I don't think anyone really thinks that. This is obviously some type of business move in an attempt to make more money? I'm not Infinity Ward or Activision, I'm not concerned on whether they make money. I'm concerned about the game, and they've gutted a major component of that game. Very disappointing.

    I've backed Infinity Ward since CoD1. I didn't even buy CoD3 or WaW because they weren't made by IW(also because CoD3 wasn't on PC).

    How does doing this make them more money?

    Johannen on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Judgement wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Yes. Boycotts have never worked in the history of existence and therefore we shouldn't ever attempt them.

    How dare that people attempting to boycott something should talk about boycotting it as well.

    The main difference, however, is some of those complaining about MW2, or more specifically, stating they won't buy the game, claim that they would pirate it. In protest, of course, because no one pirates good games.

    So the main component of CoD is the online. IWNet only affects online play. I've been informed by other sources that PunkBuster on CoD4 could just as easily root out pirated copies of the game. So that pretty much removes the excuse the this is being done because of piracy.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

    Also, I don't pirate games and I don't think my gaming experience should suffer just because other people do.

    YodaTuna on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Johannen wrote: »
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I really don't think there's a man sitting in a chair cackling that he's going to go this one without putting in servers and just leave it with matchmaking because he can.

    Outside the OP quote, I don't think anyone really thinks that. This is obviously some type of business move in an attempt to make more money? I'm not Infinity Ward or Activision, I'm not concerned on whether they make money. I'm concerned about the game, and they've gutted a major component of that game. Very disappointing.

    I've backed Infinity Ward since CoD1. I didn't even buy CoD3 or WaW because they weren't made by IW(also because CoD3 wasn't on PC).

    How does doing this make them more money?

    They can charge for DLC. And supposedly prevent piracy, which will make more people buy it, I guess? See my previous post.

    YodaTuna on
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Bad analogy. You didn't buy a previous hat of the same model with that feature and then it was removed this year.

    Anyway, I desperately want to play MW2. I have it preordered on the PC, but now I'm debating not buying it all or switching to 360. The one thing that confused me about this debactle is Tycho's stance. In the past Gabe and Tycho have been more of the opinion that the paying customer should not be harmed because a company is worried about piracy. They have also been vocal about games being an open platform(mods, etc...). But Tycho's argument flies in the face of previous opinions he has held on other games. I'd like to know why he changed his mind or feels differently about MW2. Maybe he doesn't care about it so it doesn't affect him? It's wierd.

    Maybe because were talking about the same thing(s) in different times. For example, PC dominated the "hardcore" gamer experience for quite awhile. It really didn't have any competition back then. But now we see that not only can a console deliver a similar(if not sometimes better) experience, it can keep it fun and lasting. Also, the market for games has evolved quite a bit, and making games for both PC/Console can get expensive when you make them very different. Making the same game shouldn't cost you a lot of money when developing for both PC/console.

    The last thing is the main reason I'd still buy it. It's made by Infinity Ward. Not Treyarch. Not some other shit company. Infinity Ward. If they say they can make Matchmaking enjoyable and not suck fucking ass, I'll believe them. If it was Treyarch making the game, I'd go and refund my damn pre-order right now.

    Judgement on
    309151-1.png
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Judgement wrote: »
    zerg rush wrote: »
    Johannen wrote: »
    I am really annoyed that the hat I bought doesn't have the right peak in it, how fucking annoying is that!? Why should I just buy these hats without peaks in? How will that show these hat companies that they should stop making hats with this kind of peak on it?! Idiot people saying I should just put up with this item made by a company how they want to make it with no input from me, telling them to change all their hard work because if they don't i'll feel impotent and do nothing.

    Yes. Boycotts have never worked in the history of existence and therefore we shouldn't ever attempt them.

    How dare that people attempting to boycott something should talk about boycotting it as well.

    The main difference, however, is some of those complaining about MW2, or more specifically, stating they won't buy the game, claim that they would pirate it. In protest, of course, because no one pirates good games.

    So the main component of CoD is the online. IWNet only affects online play. I've been informed by other sources that PunkBuster on CoD4 could just as easily root out pirated copies of the game. So that pretty much removes the excuse the this is being done because of piracy.

    Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

    Also, I don't pirate games and I don't think my gaming experience should suffer just because other people do.

    I'll edit with the article in a minute, but some hackers actually were hacking the game and creating servers that:

    (1) Couldn't be found by Punkbuster,
    (2) Allowed those who pirated the game to play it, and
    (3) Cost IF money because random servers were being created.

    Edit1: Here is one web example of what are referred to as "Cracked Servers". I.e. servers that don't use PB or require CD-keys.

    http://www.epcgaming.com/epcgaming_v2/servers2.php?gameid=16

    Judgement on
    309151-1.png
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff regular Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Also IW has yet to ever charge for their extra content on PC, and they probably wouldn't even attempt it due to how easy it would be to pirate anyway

    FyreWulff on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Judgement wrote: »

    Maybe because were talking about the same thing(s) in different times. For example, PC dominated the "hardcore" gamer experience for quite awhile. It really didn't have any competition back then. But now we see that not only can a console deliver a similar(if not sometimes better) experience, it can keep it fun and lasting. Also, the market for games has evolved quite a bit, and making games for both PC/Console can get expensive when you make them very different. Making the same game shouldn't cost you a lot of money when developing for both PC/console.

    The last thing is the main reason I'd still buy it. It's made by Infinity Ward. Not Treyarch. Not some other shit company. Infinity Ward. If they say they can make Matchmaking enjoyable and not suck fucking ass, I'll believe them. If it was Treyarch making the game, I'd go and refund my damn pre-order right now.

    They have been very pro-mod in the past. Nothing about any platform has changed that now. Maybe less people PC game(or more likely, more people console game), but there are still modders and now they've been effectively locked out of MW2. I don't think including a server list would require a lot of extra money/time on IW's part. I mean, they could just port over the netcode from MW1.

    On your second point, there things that are inherently bad about matchmaking and no amount of programming wizardry on IW's part is going to change that fact.

    YodaTuna on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff regular Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    Modders don't have an inherent civil right to mod the game. As in, the developers don't have to provide any support for it.

    IW has straight up, directly said that they're putting the experience of the people that play the game above the experience of the modders. No pussyfooting, passive aggression, they've just said it plain and clear. If you don't like that.. don't buy the game.

    But of course people assume they could just ctrl-c ctrl-v all of Modern Warfare's code over. What the fuck.
    On your second point, there things that are inherently bad about matchmaking and no amount of programming wizardry on IW's part is going to change that fact.

    And those would be?

    FyreWulff on
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Judgement wrote: »

    Maybe because were talking about the same thing(s) in different times. For example, PC dominated the "hardcore" gamer experience for quite awhile. It really didn't have any competition back then. But now we see that not only can a console deliver a similar(if not sometimes better) experience, it can keep it fun and lasting. Also, the market for games has evolved quite a bit, and making games for both PC/Console can get expensive when you make them very different. Making the same game shouldn't cost you a lot of money when developing for both PC/console.

    The last thing is the main reason I'd still buy it. It's made by Infinity Ward. Not Treyarch. Not some other shit company. Infinity Ward. If they say they can make Matchmaking enjoyable and not suck fucking ass, I'll believe them. If it was Treyarch making the game, I'd go and refund my damn pre-order right now.

    They have been very pro-mod in the past. Nothing about any platform has changed that now. Maybe less people PC game(or more likely, more people console game), but there are still modders and now they've been effectively locked out of MW2. I don't think including a server list would require a lot of extra money/time on IW's part. I mean, they could just port over the netcode from MW1.

    On your second point, there things that are inherently bad about matchmaking and no amount of programming wizardry on IW's part is going to change that fact.

    I agree on your first point, I understand that modders are out there(I was one) and see how this can be very disappointing. Also, I'm not sure what the cost are exactly for servers, nor what amount of time/effort needs to be put into such. Playing devil's advocate, though, and just trying to give reason to perhaps why.

    To the latter point, I trust IF won't fuck it up, much less remove any normal features in MM(such as grouping up with friends and the like). I trust them.

    Judgement on
    309151-1.png
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Judgement wrote: »



    I'll edit with the article in a minute, but some hackers actually were hacking the game and creating servers that:

    (1) Couldn't be found by Punkbuster,
    (2) Allowed those who pirated the game to play it, and
    (3) Cost IF money because random servers were being created.

    Edit1: Here is one web example of what are referred to as "Cracked Servers". I.e. servers that don't use PB or require CD-keys.

    http://www.epcgaming.com/epcgaming_v2/servers2.php?gameid=16

    Noted.

    So let's assume that this change removes all online piracy(probably not). Will those people then purchase the game thus making Infinity Ward more money. Or is Infinity Ward going to make the same amount of money(maybe less) if the screw the paying gamer?

    YodaTuna on
  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited October 2009
    Malstrom was interesting on the Wii, but has been so utterly, utterly wrong about almost every other subject he's ever written about.

    Let me put a vote in here for: please ignore this fucking guy, he wrote a huge, retarded piece about how McCain was sure to win like a week the 08 election. He's snotty, overreaches, and generally is the definition of crackpot blog trollishness.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited October 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Modders don't have an inherent civil right to mod the game. As in, the developers don't have to provide any support for it.

    IW has straight up, directly said that they're putting the experience of the people that play the game above the experience of the modders. No pussyfooting, passive aggression, they've just said it plain and clear. If you don't like that.. don't buy the game.

    But of course people assume they could just ctrl-c ctrl-v all of Modern Warfare's code over. What the fuck.
    On your second point, there things that are inherently bad about matchmaking and no amount of programming wizardry on IW's part is going to change that fact.

    And those would be?

    Take this example:

    Imagine someone playing online for the first time(we'll say PC). Their friends don't have it yet. They just hop in and try to play online. Now in CoD: MW, They just chose a server. If it sucked, they left and found another. They really liked this second server(no noobs with Marty, LS, GL's), added it to their fav's, and played there for most of their online gaming. With MM, however, he's pretty much stuck with whoever/whatever comes his way, with the rules decided by the game's server randomly(with the exception of gametype...sometimes). They play one game of TDM. Noobs with GL's, Marty, and LS flood it. He leaves, re-enters MM. Same shit, different map.

    This may not always happen, but MM sometimes(even with MANY improvements) fails to deliver an enjoyable experience, or different map(Fuck Zanzibar...).

    Judgement on
    309151-1.png
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Modders don't have an inherent civil right to mod the game. As in, the developers don't have to provide any support for it.

    IW has straight up, directly said that they're putting the experience of the people that play the game above the experience of the modders. No pussyfooting, passive aggression, they've just said it plain and clear. If you don't like that.. don't buy the game.

    But of course people assume they could just ctrl-c ctrl-v all of Modern Warfare's code over. What the fuck.

    I'm not saying they have a right. I'm not arguing it's not IW's game. I'm wondering why the difference of opinion on Tycho's part.

    I'm not sure at your indignation over the last thing I said, it's obviously not as easy as copy paste, but it's obviously the same engine, I doubt it would take a lot of man hours. In fact it would probably take less than the time it took them to create IWNet.

    On your second point, there things that are inherently bad about matchmaking and no amount of programming wizardry on IW's part is going to change that fact.

    And those would be?

    No zero ping. No host dropping. Easier clan play. Playing on servers with rules you like/or with people you like. And again... mods. As far as I'm concerned, matchmaking has no benefits compared to dedicated servers.

    YodaTuna on
  • XaquinXaquin regular Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    No zero ping. No host dropping. Easier clan play. Playing on servers with rules you like/or with people you like. And again... mods. As far as I'm concerned, matchmaking has no benefits compared to dedicated servers.

    no playing with your friends from across the pond or even the country.

    I like that I can still play MW1 with my friends in Japan and Australia.

    Xaquin on
  • JudgementJudgement Registered User
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    Judgement wrote: »



    I'll edit with the article in a minute, but some hackers actually were hacking the game and creating servers that:

    (1) Couldn't be found by Punkbuster,
    (2) Allowed those who pirated the game to play it, and
    (3) Cost IF money because random servers were being created.

    Edit1: Here is one web example of what are referred to as "Cracked Servers". I.e. servers that don't use PB or require CD-keys.

    http://www.epcgaming.com/epcgaming_v2/servers2.php?gameid=16

    Noted.

    So let's assume that this change removes all online piracy(probably not). Will those people then purchase the game thus making Infinity Ward more money. Or is Infinity Ward going to make the same amount of money(maybe less) if the screw the paying gamer?

    It's a gamble, I'll give you that. We won't have absolute values until this game comes out.

    Those who would pirate the game will not be able to flood the servers with bullshit servers that allow these pirated games to work. Thus, IF's online experience will only be ruined (rarely) by hackers rather than frequently. Changing to MM makes hacking a lot harder, because they would be caught faster than with PB, because there is a shit-load to do before someone's CD-Key gets banned.

    Like I said, it is a gamble on their part, but I can hope it will be successful.

    Judgement on
    309151-1.png
  • ColdredColdred Registered User
    edited October 2009
    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/10/modern-warfare-2-the-case-for-the-dedicated-server.ars

    Ars Technica also had a fairly similar article on this, if no-ones mentioned it.

    The Call of Duty 4 interview in the article is quite interesting too. Anyway, this does seem to me to be about control of the IP. Activision/IW doesn't want modders messing with the "brand" and they can sell new game modes as DLC, rather than modding it in for free. Disappointing, but not surprising considering Activision's corporate stance.

    Coldred on
    sig1-1.jpg
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Coldred wrote: »
    http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/10/modern-warfare-2-the-case-for-the-dedicated-server.ars

    Ars Technica also had a fairly similar article on this, if no-ones mentioned it.

    The Call of Duty 4 interview in the article is quite interesting too. Anyway, this does seem to me to be about control of the IP. Activision/IW doesn't want modders messing with the "brand" and they can sell new game modes as DLC, rather than modding it in for free. Disappointing, but not surprising considering Activision's corporate stance.

    I'm more inclined to agree with this reason rather than anything to do with piracy.

    YodaTuna on
  • Hockey JohnstonHockey Johnston Registered User
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, matchmaking has no benefits compared to dedicated servers.

    How about:

    *Matches with small numbers of players
    *Games that focus on partying up with your friends as opposed to an ongoing match that you drop in and out of?

    Which is to say, matchmaking is probably the superior way to go in most kinds of games. There's a very specific and popular section of FPS games that really works best with server browsers, but almost everything else works better with matchmaking IMO.

    Hockey Johnston on
  • XaquinXaquin regular Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, matchmaking has no benefits compared to dedicated servers.

    How about:

    *Matches with small numbers of players
    *Games that focus on partying up with your friends as opposed to an ongoing match that you drop in and out of?

    Which is to say, matchmaking is probably the superior way to go in most kinds of games. There's a very specific and popular section of FPS games that really works best with server browsers, but almost everything else works better with matchmaking IMO.

    how would that be easier with a matchmaking system?

    right now I just look on my server favorites and click to play with my friends. Besides which, those two points would be irrelevant when playing with people cross country. Most people don't have a business class connection or the hardware to make a lag free game of 24+

    Xaquin on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    As far as I'm concerned, matchmaking has no benefits compared to dedicated servers.

    How about:

    *Matches with small numbers of players
    *Games that focus on partying up with your friends as opposed to an ongoing match that you drop in and out of?

    Which is to say, matchmaking is probably the superior way to go in most kinds of games. There's a very specific and popular section of FPS games that really works best with server browsers, but almost everything else works better with matchmaking IMO.

    I don't really see how neither of those can be accomplished with dediated servers, especially the second one, just because matches restart infinitely doesn't have anything to do with your ability to play with friends. While making small matches might be easier with MM, it's nigh impossible to make large matches. Whereas the opposite is not true. If I want to make a match with 36 people in it on a dedicated server, pretty easy and I don't have to worry about gathering 36 people after every single match(If this is even an option in IWNet).

    YodaTuna on
  • Salvation122Salvation122 regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Having been out of the PC FPS multiplayer scene since, I dunno, the HL2 launch, can anyone let me know whether or not there's even a significant performance difference in playing on dedicated servers anymore? Given how powerful modern processors are and how much RAM "hardcore" gamers tend to cram into their towers, I can't imagine it would be night and day.

    Salvation122 on
    sig.png
  • XaquinXaquin regular Right behind you!Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    oh heck where's the article I'm looking for that could explain it way better than me

    edit:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_server

    basic wiki run down, but not what I was looking for.

    Xaquin on
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff regular Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    Modders don't have an inherent civil right to mod the game. As in, the developers don't have to provide any support for it.

    IW has straight up, directly said that they're putting the experience of the people that play the game above the experience of the modders. No pussyfooting, passive aggression, they've just said it plain and clear. If you don't like that.. don't buy the game.

    But of course people assume they could just ctrl-c ctrl-v all of Modern Warfare's code over. What the fuck.

    I'm not saying they have a right. I'm not arguing it's not IW's game. I'm wondering why the difference of opinion on Tycho's part.

    I'm not sure at your indignation over the last thing I said, it's obviously not as easy as copy paste, but it's obviously the same engine, I doubt it would take a lot of man hours. In fact it would probably take less than the time it took them to create IWNet.

    On your second point, there things that are inherently bad about matchmaking and no amount of programming wizardry on IW's part is going to change that fact.

    And those would be?

    No zero ping. No host dropping. Easier clan play. Playing on servers with rules you like/or with people you like. And again... mods. As far as I'm concerned, matchmaking has no benefits compared to dedicated servers.

    Zero ping - sorry, but both dedicated servers and listen servers have latency issues. They both have to deal with the internet. All you're doing with matchmaking is moving the server to one of the players, instead of an ethereal non-existent player. Or you could use matchmaking to match people into matches and then have a dedicated server host the match. Matchmaking does not exclude dedicated servers, by the way.

    Host dropping: Games already have no problem moving the host to another player. When a dedicated server goes down, it just simply goes down. MW1 did not have proper host migration implemented.

    Easier clan play: In Halo, I just bring my clan into a party and go play games. Bam, clan play. Don't see how dedicated servers make that any easier.

    Oh wait, you meant clan vs clan?.. Okay, I invite my clan in and then we invite the other clan in. Bam, clan play.

    Private matches set to your custom rules. Inviting people you like into your party while searching for games. Both solve that problem.

    Mods. 99% of mods are crap or will never actually release, like Black Mesa Source. Oh wait, Paintball mods are so original! Not. 98 of those 99% of mods are just model exports from console games, or yet another fucking Star Wars mod that everyone has had for other games. And a vast majority are made by people with no sense of game design, balance, or skill. I really don't care if they're available or not.

    FyreWulff on
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    Having been out of the PC FPS multiplayer scene since, I dunno, the HL2 launch, can anyone let me know whether or not there's even a significant performance difference in playing on dedicated servers anymore? Given how powerful modern processors are and how much RAM "hardcore" gamers tend to cram into their towers, I can't imagine it would be night and day.

    Hardware probably isn't a problem. Fat internet pipes will be.

    YodaTuna on
  • RohanRohan regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    I stopped caring when I found out it was cheaper to buy a console and forgo the annual purchasing of a new video card.

    You've been buying the wrong graphics cards.

    Rohan on
    ...and I thought of how all those people died, and what a good death that is. That nobody can blame you for it, because everyone else died along with you, and it is the fault of none, save those who did the killing.

    Nothing's forgotten, nothing is ever forgotten
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »

    Zero ping - sorry, but both dedicated servers and listen servers have latency issues. They both have to deal with the internet. All you're doing with matchmaking is moving the server to one of the players, instead of an ethereal non-existent player. Or you could use matchmaking to match people into matches and then have a dedicated server host the match. Matchmaking does not exclude dedicated servers, by the way.

    I doubt IW is going to be setting up their own dedicated servers. One zero ping player is still BS.
    Host dropping: Games already have no problem moving the host to another player. When a dedicated server goes down, it just simply goes down. MW1 did not have proper host migration implemented.

    Yea switch hosts during a game is so much fun. Especially when I have to deal with it on a daily basis. Meanwhile, let me think when the last time a dedicated server went down for me. Probably 3 years ago.
    Easier clan play: In Halo, I just bring my clan into a party and go play games. Bam, clan play. Don't see how dedicated servers make that any easier.

    Oh wait, you meant clan vs clan?.. Okay, I invite my clan in and then we invite the other clan in. Bam, clan play.

    Everyone show up at this server at this time. We can even scrim beforehand and after if we're bored and we don't have to restarted the entire server each time we start a new round!
    Private matches set to your custom rules. Inviting people you like into your party while searching for games. Both solve that problem.

    No. Private matches can be set to IW's custom rules. Not mine.
    Mods. 99% of mods are crap or will never actually release, like Black Mesa Source. Oh wait, Paintball mods are so original! Not. 98 of those 99% of mods are just model exports from console games, or yet another fucking Star Wars mod that everyone has had for other games. And a vast majority are made by people with no sense of game design, balance, or skill. I really don't care if they're available or not.

    And then we miss out on the 1% of mods that are awesome. We would have missed out on counterstrike and desert combat. The idea of L4D is based off the zombie mod for CS.

    YodaTuna on
  • durandal4532durandal4532 regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    My experience personally has never endeared me to server browsing. It takes forever, consistently results in my being unable to play, eventually pushes me to play only the PA servers, because they don't have ridiculous house-rules, and then makes me feel out of place because I only play occasionally and I don't have much of a desire to interact socially on a regular basis with people I meet online.

    Matchmaking is boring, it crimps creativity, and it is the most simple method I've experienced for just getting into a fucking game and playing. I'd love for both options to exist, frankly. I just want to be able to hit "browse" and if I know a big game is going on in the PA servers I'll check in.

    durandal4532 on
    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 regular Registered User regular
    edited October 2009
    YodaTuna wrote: »
    FyreWulff wrote: »

    Zero ping - sorry, but both dedicated servers and listen servers have latency issues. They both have to deal with the internet. All you're doing with matchmaking is moving the server to one of the players, instead of an ethereal non-existent player. Or you could use matchmaking to match people into matches and then have a dedicated server host the match. Matchmaking does not exclude dedicated servers, by the way.

    I doubt IW is going to be setting up their own dedicated servers. One zero ping player is still BS.
    "Hardcore" gamers are almost certainly going to have sub-100 ping rates anyway. The .08 second advantage a host enjoys is, for all practical purposes, non-existant, because it simply isn't a handicap. Period. No, shut up. You are not Flash, you do not react that quickly, you are not being hamstrung.

    Salvation122 on
    sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.