Paragon Fury: Because its been done before, and it didn't work. People stop using the MM because they only want to play thier gametype and map all the time, and thus leave everyone who doesn't agree out in the cold.
So everyone decided that they'd rather play on specific servers than use Matchmaking? Interesting.
Basic point: We PC Gamers pay to NOT use the overcomplex, rigidly enforced hell that is consoles online. We enjoy the freedom to mod. That's not elitism, that's just not wanting to be swamped and numbered.
This is akin to Starcraft's No LAN announcement or any of Kotick's ravings.
zidine100: well you can say goodbye to any type of competitions, playing with freinds, and any mods with keep the game alive (witch usually keeps people playing the game), im sorry but what were they thinking when they came up with this. (sorry for the small rant, i have restrained myself from making it longer.)
This is what I was going to say.
No competitions...Really? MLG,gamebattles? And you create a lobby with friends then go to matchmaking.
Zac_Dai: If you can't use a server browser you probably shouldn't even be using a PC.
And responses like this is why it's very, very hard to feel sorry for PC gamers. I gave up trying when they start trying to tell me that console gaming is a "second-rate experience". Rather have twelve-year old screechers than elitist cunts, myself.
I think this sums up how I feel completely.
Why do PC gamers ALWAYS whine about pretty much everything if they don't get what they want?
Who really cares that it's matchmaking? Matchmaking is perfectly fine. It stops people from getting completely pro at one map and one map only. I think it's a good plan.
If matchmaking is fine why is it that I almost always seem to end up in terrible games whenever I use matchmaking systems? It couldn't be because the algorithm for choosing a game that the machine uses is not so great could it?
Why do ignorant people always claim that taking away control increases accessibility when the exact opposite is true?
Paragon Fury: Considering that matchmaking is generally the superior online system, I don't see why many people are complaining.
It finds the best ping it can, doesn't end (generally) when the host decides to be a dick, creates a variety of map and gametype selections, (which doesn't exist past the first month in server-based games) and with enough work creates a generally fair and balanced gaming enviroment.
The only arguements I see against it are "community" and "player choice". To which I say "@#$% off and take your mods with you" and "Stop being a self-centered prick". Communities still form in MM systems - they're called friend lists. Use'em. And your personal tastes do not give you the right to force them on other people, or to deny them the ability to enjoy their own, which is the only thing server systems do. The only fair thing to do is what MM does - create a varying pool of types and maps, and randomly select a pair each game. Everyone has the same chance to be happy, upset, or come out neutral.
And it believe it or not, it actually forces you to be a better player, because it makes you play with different people, in different settings, instead of repeating the same scenario with the same people over and over.
Aren't you just forcing your preference for matchmaking onto other people while whining that servers do this, despite the fact that you can choose whatever server you want? What makes it impossible to have match making and a server browser?
Because its been done before, and it didn't work. People stop using the MM because they only want to play thier gametype and map all the time, and thus leave everyone who doesn't agree out in the cold.
Its not a question of having it both ways - its a question of making it hurt less for both sides while still maintaining a fair, playable, varied enviroment.
So if most people prefer matchmaking the solution is to take away the option most people prefer to use and replace it with the one they want to use less? That is not forcing something onto everyone else?
Paragon Fury: Considering that matchmaking is generally the superior online system, I don't see why many people are complaining.
It finds the best ping it can, doesn't end (generally) when the host decides to be a dick, creates a variety of map and gametype selections, (which doesn't exist past the first month in server-based games) and with enough work creates a generally fair and balanced gaming enviroment.
The only arguements I see against it are "community" and "player choice". To which I say "@#$% off and take your mods with you" and "Stop being a self-centered prick". Communities still form in MM systems - they're called friend lists. Use'em. And your personal tastes do not give you the right to force them on other people, or to deny them the ability to enjoy their own, which is the only thing server systems do. The only fair thing to do is what MM does - create a varying pool of types and maps, and randomly select a pair each game. Everyone has the same chance to be happy, upset, or come out neutral.
And it believe it or not, it actually forces you to be a better player, because it makes you play with different people, in different settings, instead of repeating the same scenario with the same people over and over.
What is wrong with you? So WE want to have Dedicated and Matchmaking in the game, YOU just want matchmaking and your telling us we're forcing people to play a certain way and denying the right to enjoy their playstyle?
Read what you just put, and say that again with a straight face. Your forcing your personal tastes on us right now by not wanting Dedicated, wheras we want both, which means evyerone gets their personal tastes, where you just want yours, bloody hell, hypocrisy much? With dedicated there is a CHOICE wheras how you want it there isnt, so no we are not forcing our playstyles on people because we want the CHOICE, you ARE.
Mornelithe: Never planned on buying MW2 anyway. Maybe when they reskin it as a WW2 era FPS.
Get outta hyah, I'm terribly tired of WW2 FPS'.
Also, two points to make here. One, PC gamers actually play Modern Warfare? Here was me thinking it was more of a console following. Two, signing a petition won't do anything. At all. But still, bummer - I was buggered to discover L4D had no real integrated browsing feature. Welp, at least console consumers won't be affected by the change.
Anyone too thick to figure out how to select a server from a list a la TF2 is likely too thick to operate a PC or install PC games in the first place.
This article was clearly written by someone with little to no experience with PC gaming.
Your post was written clearly written by someone who judges before they think. Perhaps if you read the posts Mr. Funk has written you will see he has a good amount of PC gaming experience.
I think its a bit short sighted to think that everyone who is unhappy with this change will still buy the game, sure I'm betting some will but I don't plan to.
A lack of Dedicated servers is MUCH more then just a simple change to how you select your online match's.
I really wish that console gamers would figure out that mods, and dedicated servers owned or rented by private individuals could be done and in fact IS BEING DONE on consoles! See here:http://artofwarcentral.com/UT3-PS3-servers.asp
Sebenko: and they want £50 for this worthless piss puddle?
And anyone who says finding a server using a browser must be totally computer illiterate. No, make that completely illiterate. My little brother, an average 13 year old console gamer, managed to work out the server browser with no trouble when he played TF2.
So yeah, even your average 360 gamer whose vocabulary consists entirely of "fag" could work it out.
BonsaiK: Further proof that consoles are a cancer that is destroying gaming.
I like servers because I like to choose where I want to play. I think that's a reasonable thing to want.
Lovely. Gotta be honest, no one really feels for you guys when this is the general response.
I like matchmaking, honestly. Sure, it's nice being able to play with friends on demand, but I can always invite them to a party before we start searching. Takes, what, 30 seconds?
They do well because people are ignorant, and ironically enough some of the biggest online games on consoles do use dedicated servers hosted by the game manufacturer. This has been going on since the PS2 with Socom. Also keep in mind that the practice of selling or renting out servers for console games could be done. User generated mods have been done on consoles (See UT3.) there is no reason for consoles to be stuck with a lesser experience in terms of connection, and user generated content. Are you going to tell me that the lack of user customizable controls in console games is a good thing just because you happen to like the defaults?
yes, if it means I can put in the disk, hit start and be able to join seventeen servers before someone else even has their configured, a majority of console games have a sever filter option that allows you to simply choose what level you want to play on, or what game type. All Im seeing from this is immature complaining. If you can prove to me why a game, where the developer said they were going to treat it as the same on every platform, should have an exception for the pc, then I will admit im wrong, Ill start out with a few I can think of:
Server Communities : A majority of pc games have the dedicated server system, which allows for players to join in games with pre-built communities, not to mention play modded game types and maps. Counter-Point Matchmaking allows you to be able to play with more players instead of the same twenty or thirty, this is how I have made friends on consoles more than PC [with the exception of Arma], this also means that its not stopping you from playing with the same people, as chances are you will be able to player search/game invite your friends, so this argument is losing steam unless your just complaining about not being able to play "yet another zombie" mod.
Dedicated Servers = less ping! : Yes, they do, Im not going to lie about that as I even search for low ping servers in every game I play. Counter-Point Internet Connections : If your afraid of not having a good connection, shouldnt you get a better ISP or even a higher bandwidth? Even with a eight-meg. connection I still have good pings on 87% of all servers I search for. And with/if this game uses the CoD4 matchmaking, it will always choose the person that can continue the match best, so yet again, Im not seeing why this is a big deal.
Dedicated Servers are easier to moderate : Yes, they are, trust me when I say I know the agrivation of being in a server with a Goron or myg0t, though hilarious [thats just me], sometimes I just want to set down and have a good game before going to work. Counter-Point Matchmaking would also mean that a system is in place that tracks players, they can implement a way to report a player [much like VAC] and suspend/ban them from a/the game, OR even give the host the ability to boot players off of the game. Before you cry "ADMIN ABUSE!", you cant tell me in every game available right now with dedicated servers there isnt admin abuse.
In all this is a good move for IW, as now they only have to focus on gameplay dynamics and issues that arrise, though knowing them they are just sitting around grinding to 10th prestige to give us a giant "HA HA!" when the game ships. I never understood why people try to weigh the good and bad points of platform versions of games, yes Valve are PC freaks not releasing anything ever for TF2, yes Bethesda are kinda dicks for not letting PS3 people get DLC, yea the Wii has possibly the funnest console web-browser available, but god knows its a sin against gamers everywhere when the PC version of games get the same treatment as the other versions.
Paragon Fury: Because its been done before, and it didn't work. People stop using the MM because they only want to play thier gametype and map all the time, and thus leave everyone who doesn't agree out in the cold.
So everyone decided that they'd rather play on specific servers than use Matchmaking? Interesting.
It wasn't servers themselves - it was the ability to play only certain maps over and over again, or only a certain gametype. If there had been an MM playlist that did that, that probably would've been more popular. But fortunately, no dev has been stupid enough to try that yet.
The reason MM is better is for one simple reason: Math. Including server lists at all will eventually lead to some players getting screwed out of an enjoyable experience 100% of the time. This is inevitable, and apparent in every game, from BF2 to TF2, that uses sever lists.
With MM, this cannot happen. No one can ever be screwed 100% of the time. Everyone gets to be happy with their selections sometimes, dissappointed at others. It prevents one group of players from exerting their will over another group.
I know people find that a scary concept. But everything one wants, is not something one should get. You, by virtue of yourselfishness, can completely invalid the $30-$60 one has spent on a game because you and your friends have arbitrialy decided that the map and gametype that person likes are "unworthy" of being played. MM ensures everyone gets some happiness out of it, at one time or another.
And stop bringing up the modding thing. Its nigh-pointless, and unmoddable games continue to crush both mods and their base games in players and games played, pretty much squashing the slef-inflated importance of modding.
zidine100: well you can say goodbye to any type of competitions, playing with freinds, and any mods with keep the game alive (witch usually keeps people playing the game), im sorry but what were they thinking when they came up with this. (sorry for the small rant, i have restrained myself from making it longer.)
This is what I was going to say.
No competitions...Really? MLG,gamebattles? And you create a lobby with friends then go to matchmaking.
I may have been out of the loop for a long time in this sort of thing, but how are you going to connect to a lobby without a server browser? (probably stupid question for that im sorry)
and more importantly for the competitions, since you are not allowed your own private servers, how do you propose you stop the matchmaking service from throwing random players into your match completely destroying any game in progress, im talking about clan matches here, and generall competition.
zidine100: well you can say goodbye to any type of competitions, playing with freinds, and any mods with keep the game alive (witch usually keeps people playing the game), im sorry but what were they thinking when they came up with this. (sorry for the small rant, i have restrained myself from making it longer.)
This is what I was going to say.
No competitions...Really? MLG,gamebattles? And you create a lobby with friends then go to matchmaking.
I may have been out of the loop for a long time in this sort of thing, but how are you going to connect to a lobby without a server browser? (probably stupid question for that im sorry)
and more importantly for the competitions, since you are not allowed your own private servers, how do you propose you stop the matchmaking service from throwing random players into your match completely destroying any game in progress, im talking about clan matches here, and generall competition.
1: Party Lobby. Its where your team/friends form up before looking for a game.
2: Private Matches. Seriously, have PC gamers never heard of these? You just make a private match, then invite or give the IP to the people you want to join it.
zidine100: well you can say goodbye to any type of competitions, playing with freinds, and any mods with keep the game alive (witch usually keeps people playing the game), im sorry but what were they thinking when they came up with this. (sorry for the small rant, i have restrained myself from making it longer.)
This is what I was going to say.
No competitions...Really? MLG,gamebattles? And you create a lobby with friends then go to matchmaking.
I may have been out of the loop for a long time in this sort of thing, but how are you going to connect to a lobby without a server browser? (probably stupid question for that im sorry)
and more importantly for the competitions, since you are not allowed your own private servers, how do you propose you stop the matchmaking service from throwing random players into your match completely destroying any game in progress, im talking about clan matches here, and generall competition.
1: Party Lobby. Its where your team/friends form up before looking for a game.
2: Private Matches. Seriously, have PC gamers never heard of these? You just make a private match, then invite or give the IP to the people you want to join it.
I agree with Funk in that the traditional server browser model could use some revamping. The MW1 version wasn't always too intuitive even. Making interfaces accessable to new players is something in every developer's interest. Promoting a difficult mechanic as a wall to keep "n00bs" out doesn't help a gaming community grow and develop.
However, I'm not sure this is the driving force behind this decision. We have seen over the past few years how developers and publishers are trying to find new ways to monetize their games beyond just the initial sales. Many developers have already come under pressure to "MMO-idify" their games, as the potential (or imagined =P ) profits behind monthly income as opposed to a single month of high sales is intoxicating to many. And where this is not possible, (RTS, FPS games) this same concept is nevertheless applied where applicable.
So we have systems like Battle.net and IW.net, even XBox Live. The goal behind these systems is not necessarly to make the multiplayer experience easier (though there is some incentive to do this) but rather to lock-in and funnel a game's playerbase to a single site where it can then be monitized, whether via an access fee or delivering ads. From a business perspective, it makes wonderful sense. Why settle for a few weeks of sales when you can harness the community for the years that they'll be playing your game?
I'm not entirely opposed to this concept so long as it represents a value for the player. But too often we're witnessing traditional freedoms that PC gamers have enjoyed as a result of these changes. There's no technical limitation to why dedicated servers and LAN connections cannot function along side services like Battle and IW.net, and there are many games that exist where both systems function (Supreme Commander's use of GPG.net and LAN play comes to mind.)
It seems all too apparent to me however that this is not a technicial limitation, but a business decision hoisted upon the gaming community. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with where it's going.
zidine100: well you can say goodbye to any type of competitions, playing with freinds, and any mods with keep the game alive (witch usually keeps people playing the game), im sorry but what were they thinking when they came up with this. (sorry for the small rant, i have restrained myself from making it longer.)
This is what I was going to say.
No competitions...Really? MLG,gamebattles? And you create a lobby with friends then go to matchmaking.
I may have been out of the loop for a long time in this sort of thing, but how are you going to connect to a lobby without a server browser? (probably stupid question for that im sorry)
and more importantly for the competitions, since you are not allowed your own private servers, how do you propose you stop the matchmaking service from throwing random players into your match completely destroying any game in progress, im talking about clan matches here, and generall competition.
1: Party Lobby. Its where your team/friends form up before looking for a game.
2: Private Matches. Seriously, have PC gamers never heard of these? You just make a private match, then invite or give the IP to the people you want to join it.
1. Okay, thanks for the info.
2. please excuse my stupidity, but how are you suppost to make private matches, without the ability to make your own servers . Also please note where i specifically said private servers, witch usually equates to private matches in most gaming termanology, no need to be patronising, sorry if i took that the wrong way.
edit: ahh dang, i just noticed dedicated servers, my bad, sorry for the brain fart. And i also didnt relise this was going to be p2p (yes i should have guessed, but damn it i wont!), so you dont actually need the private servers for making the games, yet again, im an idiot.
This is terrible. Yet another consoleization of PC gaming. STAY THE HELL AWAY FROM MY GAMES CONSOLE!
I will not buy MW2 for this reason alone. FUCK YOU INFINITY WARD!
Stop trying to kiss console-tard ass all the fucking time! That goes for all developers who tries and/or will try to do this.
FREEDOM HATING FUCK-WANKS!
digitalman: I agree with Funk in that the traditional server browser model could use some revamping. The MW1 version wasn't always too intuitive even. Making interfaces accessable to new players is something in every developer's interest. Promoting a difficult mechanic as a wall to keep "n00bs" out doesn't help a gaming community grow and develop.
However, I'm not sure this is the driving force behind this decision. We have seen over the past few years how developers and publishers are trying to find new ways to monetize their games beyond just the initial sales. Many developers have already come under pressure to "MMO-idify" their games, as the potential (or imagined =P ) profits behind monthly income as opposed to a single month of high sales is intoxicating to many. And where this is not possible, (RTS, FPS games) this same concept is nevertheless applied where applicable.
So we have systems like Battle.net and IW.net, even XBox Live. The goal behind these systems is not necessarly to make the multiplayer experience easier (though there is some incentive to do this) but rather to lock-in and funnel a game's playerbase to a single site where it can then be monitized, whether via an access fee or delivering ads. From a business perspective, it makes wonderful sense. Why settle for a few weeks of sales when you can harness the community for the years that they'll be playing your game?
I'm not entirely opposed to this concept so long as it represents a value for the player. But too often we're witnessing traditional freedoms that PC gamers have enjoyed as a result of these changes. There's no technical limitation to why dedicated servers and LAN connections cannot function along side services like Battle and IW.net, and there are many games that exist where both systems function (Supreme Commander's use of GPG.net and LAN play comes to mind.)
It seems all too apparent to me however that this is not a technicial limitation, but a business decision hoisted upon the gaming community. Frankly, I'm not comfortable with where it's going.
I like you.
I will tell you kids now "Games for Windows" and "Windows Live" is going to be the worst thing that ever happened to gaming. Trust me on this one. It might be a while before they show their true face but... shit is going to go down and none of us can stop it.
Seriously, that was an horribly lame article. I never thought I would say this about the Escapist. Have the author not read anything that people have been saying? Does he need another magazine to realise that it will ruin communities and private moderation.
Predictable freak out, indeed? Is the author that in love with horrible console systems and lack of freedom? For the first time I'm actually disappointed in this otherwise excellent magazine. Bah!
Why would anyone be happy with being tied on both hands by IW and their system. Dedicated servers are a mainstay of PC gaming.
At first glance, this seemed to be - and on some level, continues to seem to be - a classic example of "They Changed It, Now It Sucks." I could understand the furor over the lack of mods, since mods are always fun, but - of all things - complaining because we're not using traditional server technology? Are all FPS games going to have to have a server browser from now until the end of time? What happens when genuinely better tech comes along?
When better tech comes let's use it. But why use crappy constrictive systems when the current way is a lot better? What happens when IW closes their servers? Matchmaking is genuinely NOT a better technology.
Let's face the music, PC gamers: Server browsers are usually clunky and unintuitive. In trying to teach a (non-PC-gaming) friend how to play TF2, the first twenty or so minutes were just spent on how to sort through and select a server. I know that we PC gamers like to think of ourselves as an exclusive little club of special kids who hold high reign above those console lowlifes, but really? Are people really complaining about a more easily accessible game with modern matchmaking technology?
What people are complaining about is a system that randomly puts you together with potential twats instead of allowing you to frequent well moderated servers. As part of the Escapist you should know how good it is to be able to ban idiots, biggots and racists surely? I for one have no interest in being fucked like the console gamers get. I don't use my PS3 for online for a reason.
Edit: also: look at L4D and the truly crappy matchmaking system!
Yes. The MMO writer for this site sure doesn't think PC gaming matters. :P
My frustration stems from the fact that nobody seems prepared to give them a chance. It's a kneejerk "RABBLE RABBLE IT ISN'T WHAT WE'RE USED TO RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE," and smacks of just being forced out of one's comfort zone. Like I said in the original post - are all FPS games from now until the end of time going to HAVE to have dedicated servers? If IW thinks that it has created a better alternative with its own proprietary system, why fly off the handle before you - or indeed anyone outside the company - knows about it?
I'm not saying that they HAVE perfected a model that outstrips dedicated servers, but sooner or later, someone will. And this outrage at someone trying to change things - with a hugely anticipated title no less - means that fewer people will have the incentive to try. I think it's ultimately more damaging to the PC gaming industry, which is already one of the least accessible in the entire space.
I gave it a chance with a peer-to-peer matchmaking game already. Dawn of War II sprung that crap on me already and from my experience, its been negative. I've stated before that if this lag problem on PC was fixed already than i'd have no problem with its implementation. But i'll be damned to spend $60 and be a ginnie pig to there 'new' peer-to-peer mechanism.
I'll even be fine with a delay on the game for PC, as i've already expect it now a days. (BF1943 for example) but again, i'm not buying this game and its all i can do at this point to make a point.
It may seem like a kneejerk reaction to you but i spoke from personal experience with this system on PC and i do not like it! in the least bit on PC.
p.s. love your MMO articles and vid reviews btw XD
At first glance, this seemed to be - and on some level, continues to seem to be - a classic example of "They Changed It, Now It Sucks." I could understand the furor over the lack of mods, since mods are always fun, but - of all things - complaining because we're not using traditional server technology? Are all FPS games going to have to have a server browser from now until the end of time? What happens when genuinely better tech comes along?
YES.
Because "genuinely better tech" has not come along yet. Why should we downgrade something that's working perfectly fine?
I'm gonna stop you right here because, once again, this post is full to the brim with personal bias.
You say server browsers are "clunky and unintuitive", but how much more fucking intuitive can it GET?
You click a button conveniently named "refresh list" or "get new list" (which, considering there's only one list around, should be self-explanatory), wait a few seconds, and the game gives you the full listing of current servers with their info, and you pick one you want.
How is this confusing? Have you EVER gone to a restaurant of any kind? Even McDonalds. You go in, see the menu, and pick whatever the fuck you feel like eating. Do you think this process could be greatly improved by having the guy behind the register guess what YOU want to eat?
What if next time you walked into a coffee shop or restaurant the waiter just brought you whatever the hell it thought you wanted? No menu, no order. Much simpler in theory.
Or what about going in a clothing shop, with nothing for show, and the guy there just says "you want these pants". And you have to buy the pants. No "What models do you have?". No "Can I see some pants?". No... that's unintuitive. The guy just decides what you should buy based on statistical data. Much better.
If you have a friend that's really having issues figuring out server browsers either you're a horrible teacher or your friend has problems larger than not being able to play a videogame online. The only way technology could get any more intuitive than letting you pick your preference out of a detailed list will only come once we can read and decode brain patterns, so the game can just instantly known which game you want before you have to do anything else. Until then, "quick join" or "matchmaking" buttons are nice, but only as an option... Like when you ask a waiter what he recommends.
Paragon Fury: It wasn't servers themselves - it was the ability to play only certain maps over and over again, or only a certain gametype. If there had been an MM playlist that did that, that probably would've been more popular. But fortunately, no dev has been stupid enough to try that yet.
The reason MM is better is for one simple reason: Math. Including server lists at all will eventually lead to some players getting screwed out of an enjoyable experience 100% of the time. This is inevitable, and apparent in every game, from BF2 to TF2, that uses sever lists.
With MM, this cannot happen. No one can ever be screwed 100% of the time. Everyone gets to be happy with their selections sometimes, dissappointed at others. It prevents one group of players from exerting their will over another group.
Wait...last post you just said people use server lists to join games that play with the settings they like, and then just now you said that players are forced to play settings they don't like. Which is it?
I know people find that a scary concept. But everything one wants, is not something one should get. You, by virtue of yourselfishness, can completely invalid the $30-$60 one has spent on a game because you and your friends have arbitrialy decided that the map and gametype that person likes are "unworthy" of being played. MM ensures everyone gets some happiness out of it, at one time or another.
Yeah, because the veto systems in every mainstream console shooter totally empowers the minority. And I don't know about you, but when half the time MM sticks you with some 11 year old who thinks he can rap, or 16 year old who's entire vocabulary consists of expletives, it ruins the entire game, even on maps and settings I like, and even if it's just one person. At least on every server I frequent, the mods would kick them.
And stop bringing up the modding thing. Its nigh-pointless, and unmoddable games continue to crush both mods and their base games in players and games played, pretty much squashing the slef-inflated importance of modding.
Don't tell that to Valve employees.
EDIT: Wait, unmoddable? I've yet to see a PC game come out that hasn't been modded. MW2 is going to be no exception. If people can find a way to mod KOTOR, they can find a way to mod this. The only difference is that this is the first game I've ever heard of that forbids custom online matches with mods.
They do well because people are ignorant, and ironically enough some of the biggest online games on consoles do use dedicated servers hosted by the game manufacturer. This has been going on since the PS2 with Socom. Also keep in mind that the practice of selling or renting out servers for console games could be done. User generated mods have been done on consoles (See UT3.) there is no reason for consoles to be stuck with a lesser experience in terms of connection, and user generated content. Are you going to tell me that the lack of user customizable controls in console games is a good thing just because you happen to like the defaults?
yes, if it means I can put in the disk, hit start and be able to join seventeen servers before someone else even has their configured, a majority of console games have a sever filter option that allows you to simply choose what level you want to play on, or what game type. All Im seeing from this is immature complaining. If you can prove to me why a game, where the developer said they were going to treat it as the same on every platform, should have an exception for the pc, then I will admit im wrong, Ill start out with a few I can think of:
Server Communities : A majority of pc games have the dedicated server system, which allows for players to join in games with pre-built communities, not to mention play modded game types and maps. Counter-Point Matchmaking allows you to be able to play with more players instead of the same twenty or thirty, this is how I have made friends on consoles more than PC [with the exception of Arma], this also means that its not stopping you from playing with the same people, as chances are you will be able to player search/game invite your friends, so this argument is losing steam unless your just complaining about not being able to play "yet another zombie" mod.
Dedicated Servers = less ping! : Yes, they do, Im not going to lie about that as I even search for low ping servers in every game I play. Counter-Point Internet Connections : If your afraid of not having a good connection, shouldnt you get a better ISP or even a higher bandwidth? Even with a eight-meg. connection I still have good pings on 87% of all servers I search for. And with/if this game uses the CoD4 matchmaking, it will always choose the person that can continue the match best, so yet again, Im not seeing why this is a big deal.
Dedicated Servers are easier to moderate : Yes, they are, trust me when I say I know the agrivation of being in a server with a Goron or myg0t, though hilarious [thats just me], sometimes I just want to set down and have a good game before going to work. Counter-Point Matchmaking would also mean that a system is in place that tracks players, they can implement a way to report a player [much like VAC] and suspend/ban them from a/the game, OR even give the host the ability to boot players off of the game. Before you cry "ADMIN ABUSE!", you cant tell me in every game available right now with dedicated servers there isnt admin abuse.
In all this is a good move for IW, as now they only have to focus on gameplay dynamics and issues that arrise, though knowing them they are just sitting around grinding to 10th prestige to give us a giant "HA HA!" when the game ships. I never understood why people try to weigh the good and bad points of platform versions of games, yes Valve are PC freaks not releasing anything ever for TF2, yes Bethesda are kinda dicks for not letting PS3 people get DLC, yea the Wii has possibly the funnest console web-browser available, but god knows its a sin against gamers everywhere when the PC version of games get the same treatment as the other versions.
So what prevents you from selecting match making if you want it, and someone else choosing a server if they like? Because you want to play a certain way and you are so immature that you revel in people getting shafted because you get shafted with the console version (Despite there being nothing stopping the manufacturer from allowing mods or private servers. Aside from network policies dictated by the console manufacturer.) everyone else should suffer? Everyone should play the way you play?
Ps. You know one of the most critically acclaimed games this generation on consoles boasts mods. It's called Little Big Planet. One of it's biggest draws is the user developed content! So it's quite obvious people will in fact utilize mods if they are available whether they be maps, or more in depth conversions.
CantFaketheFunk: I know that we PC gamers like to think of ourselves as an exclusive little club of special kids who hold high reign above those console lowlifes, but really? Are people really complaining about a more easily accessible game with modern matchmaking technology?
When you put it like that it sounds like the console players are the more intelligent people. PC gamers, is it really that bad? Can you not just accept change when it hits you, or are you going to complain about it every time it happens?
Already had a bit of a rant over this, but it's fucking stupid.
They have only taken dedicated servers away because they are going to charge for DLC. If they gave us dedi servers we could have new maps fine without having to pay.
In the long run they are going to be paying to keep servers up to host every game played, surly that will cost them more money over time??
CantFaketheFunk: I know that we PC gamers like to think of ourselves as an exclusive little club of special kids who hold high reign above those console lowlifes, but really? Are people really complaining about a more easily accessible game with modern matchmaking technology?
When you put it like that it sounds like the console players are the more intelligent people. PC gamers, is it really that bad? Can you not just accept change when it hits you, or are you going to complain about it every time it happens?
Edit: The mods I can understand though.
That other people lay down and die, does not make them right. It would be like taking away keyboard customization, and then trying to tell people it's not that bad because most console games don't allow the person actually playing the game to set the controls up in a way that is comfortable for them! Accepting something like that wouldn't make people smart, just like accepting this will not.
Every where i read up on this issue i get the same feeling that the Press as a whole just likes to side with the industry big wigs. No thought that perhaps the gamers (in general not just PC) may have a legitimate complaint at the moment. Its all about the $$ and i really just wish someone at IW and Activision would just come right out and say "Its Cheaper doing it this way and more money for us" instead of these excuses: IW & Activision's response
i dont see how the casual and moderate players would even come into this discussion as they dont play games like this on PC <.< they have consoles to play it on >.>
also wtf do they mean that more ppl are left out doing it the old way and the disparities in skill lvl. Holy crap god forbid u play some1 who is good at the game. *facepalms
CantFaketheFunk: I know that we PC gamers like to think of ourselves as an exclusive little club of special kids who hold high reign above those console lowlifes, but really? Are people really complaining about a more easily accessible game with modern matchmaking technology?
When you put it like that it sounds like the console players are the more intelligent people. PC gamers, is it really that bad? Can you not just accept change when it hits you, or are you going to complain about it every time it happens?
Edit: The mods I can understand though.
I don't think it's an issue of PC gamers accepting change, but rather one of having choices removed. I agree that it would be nice to make it easier for online multiplayer with services like IW.net, (see my post above) and I'm actually interested in seeing what benefits they can deliver. However, when other methods of connecting are removed, I'm inclined to believe that this is not a technical decision, but rather a business and marketing one.
There's been a imbalance for a while between the PC and console platforms, especially with regards to content delivery, advertising, and how that it monitized. I think what PC gamers are fearing (and is not getting adaquately discussed) is that the usual open platform of multiplayer gaming is slowly being modified to more closely resemble the closed-model that is console gaming.
shadow skill: So what prevents you from selecting match making if you want it, and someone else choosing a server if they like? Because you want to play a certain way and you are so immature that you revel in people getting shafted because you get shafted with the console version (Despite there being nothing stopping the manufacturer from allowing mods or private servers. Aside from network policies dictated by the console manufacturer.) everyone else should suffer? Everyone should play the way you play?
Ps. You know one of the most critically acclaimed games this generation on consoles boasts mods. It's called Little Big Planet. One of it's biggest draws is the user developed content! So it's quite obvious people will in fact utilize mods if they are available whether they be maps, or more in depth conversions.
the same could be used against this outrage, because the pc gamers are used to dedicated servers, we HAVE to have them on the pc version?
Im still not seeing your point. This public temper tantrum [which it is nothing more] is because IW are removing something they had before, what if there were pc gamers who didnt like the dedicated server option, or even less how a majority of the servers operated, they should just sit down and shut up? what about the gamers who think this is a good idea and are willing to try it out, I guess they dont matter at all, do they.
why dont the pro-dedicated servers look at it this way, stay on Modern Warfare 1, the rest of us will play Modern Warfare 2 and be happy.
shadow skill: That other people lay down and die, does not make them right. It would be like taking away keyboard customization, and then trying to tell people it's not that bad because most console games don't allow the person actually playing the game to set the controls up in a way that is comfortable for them!
But they aren't taking way the customization, they're just switching up the servers. If you go back into the comments with no real bias towards servers you PC gamers are just whining. Not a very progressive bunch are you?
The dedicated servers are nice to have yes, but for a game like MW2 having matchmaking servers like the ones on consoles will be better for it. Why? Well because it'll help ease in newcomers instead of alienate them. If PC servers alienate users it's just going to kill PC gaming. Consoles are liked because of their ease of play so beginning gamers have and easy time of jumping in. So (again) is it that bad that MW2 is trying to make the PC more approachable by taking away the servers and putting in different ones? NO. PC gaming needs more people to help it grow, or consoles will take more and more of your consumer base. I'm sorry but that's probably a hard truth that you'll just have to swallow.
Like I said earlier though I can understand how taking away mods is irritating.
So everyone decided that they'd rather play on specific servers than use Matchmaking? Interesting.