Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling has outlined the company's plans for Modern Warfare 2's PC multiplayer in response to the controversy over its plan to drop support for dedicated multiplayer servers.
In case you missed the sound and fury over Infinity Ward's surprising decision to drop traditional dedicated server-based-multiplayer in the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 in favor of a console-esque peer-to-peer matchmaking service, uh... here you go.
Community Manager Robert "Fourzerotwo" Bowling, the same person who broke the news, made a post to his blog outlining the company's plans in an attempt to dispel the "questions, assumptions, and speculation" that have swarmed up around the title since the announcement. First off, outlined Bowling, he didn't think this was indicative of Infinity Ward merely being lazy when it came to PC development - in actuality, he said, it was the opposite:
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is actually the biggest investment Infinity Ward has ever made into the PC version of our games. It's also the most feature-rich PC version we've ever made. IWNET takes the benefits of dedicated servers and allows them to be utilized and accessed by every player, out of the box, while removing the barrier to entry for players unaware of how to maintain a server on their own.
Bowling outlines some interesting point in favor of the IWNET system - private matches, friends lists, stronger support against cheaters and others who aren't playing by the rules - but somehow I don't feel like this is going to really change anyone's mind. It seems very console-ish, and while some don't have a problem with it, the people who do have a problem will probably continue to be irritated by the whole mess.
Given the resemblance to another PC multiplayer controversy from earlier in the year, it almost makes me wonder: If gamers could choose either "Full LAN support in StarCraft II" or "Dedicated servers in Modern Warfare 2" - but not both - which would they pick?
Yes, it works better the way its been done on PC for years, and most PC gamers have by now encountered the match making system and don't like it or want it - if they want to make the best experience for us, why not listen to us?
I not to upset about the dedicated servers, all I want to know is 'will my ping be under 70?' as Im in ireland (eg: the arse end of europe) Im a bit worried. As long as its better than the console version Im happy.
Because I'll be getting MW2 second hand for my 360. ;)
Still, even though I'm not getting MW2 for the PC this seems like a dick move by Infinity Ward, why not offer both dedicated servers and let people who want to host their own servers have that option too? Give people the best of both worlds. Oh he says "Remove the barrier for players unaware of how to maintain their own servers" but...uh, a lot of people already know how to do that. PC Gamers have been doing it for a long time. A very long time. We're not incompetent, or incapable and a hell of a lot of PC gamers are really quite tech savvy.
Also: They really think that there won't be cheats on their official IWNET servers? I lol'd. There are cheaters everywhere. I have yet to find a game which hasn't been hacked even slightly and if people could name one I would be impressed.
Frapple: I really want to meet these people who have trouble navigating a server browser.
Surely natural selection should have done it's thing by now.
Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
You never will, Frapple. They either don't exist, or their computers are broken, they have absolutely no reason why, and they can't afford to pay Geek Squad to fix it for them.
Frapple: I really want to meet these people who have trouble navigating a server browser.
Surely natural selection should have done it's thing by now.
Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
You can't, Funk. You cannot make PC gaming a simplistic plug-and-play experience where everything works every single time. There's too many little pieces of a moving puzzle when it comes to PCs. If they have trouble with something as simple as a server browser, they are going to be hopelessly lost in the sauce when something big hits them.
This is more about controlling the product and the consumer base than any malarkey IW will tell us about "making things simple". If a consumer wants a simple, easy-to-use version of MW2, then purchase it for a console.
Frapple: I really want to meet these people who have trouble navigating a server browser.
Surely natural selection should have done it's thing by now.
Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
You can't, Funk. You cannot make PC gaming a simplistic plug-and-play experience where everything works every single time. There's too many little pieces of a moving puzzle when it comes to PCs. If they have trouble with something as simple as a server browser, they are going to be hopelessly lost in the sauce when something big hits them.
Which is why PC gaming is frustrating to many.
I like TF2. I want to enjoy TF2 with a buddy of mine who now lives on the opposite side of the country, and whose last foray into PC gaming was... uh, possibly the original StarCraft. If we were playing on the 360, it'd be as easy as putting the disc in and playing together. But we don't want to play on the 360, we want to play on the PC. I think IW taking steps to make the PC gaming process as painless as possible is a good thing.
No, they can't fix everything, but that's no excuse to not try to make things easier. It's like saying "Well, my home will never be 100% clean, so I might as well not do the laundry."
They really are trying to kill the online for the PC version, I would but dollars to doughnuts that the PC version sells the least amount of copies because of this.
That's the one thing us PC gamers like, Dedicated servers and our own hosting options. Makes the game more fun for us.
As a regular player of both matchmaking on consoles, and server browsing on PC, I have to say that dedicated servers are far superior, and I am very disappointed in their response.
They claim to have invested a bunch of new things in the PC, but the features I saw were nothing that isn't already on consoles. The features they claim make their matchmaking better than their server browsing are petty (who wants to spend an entire 30 agonizing seconds looking for a game?) or nothing new (You can play private matches with your friends! You just have to set up the server every time you want to play now instead of having it there for you.)
Then there's still the issue of no custom content being allowed in matchmaking. I don't remember them even addressing that. The only custom rules will be the ones straight out of the box, which will cripple the community.
I'm glad they tried to address our concerns, but as for now it's still off my shopping list.
CantFaketheFunk: Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
This argument is baloney. Those who are intimidated by a server browser are more likely to not enter PC gaming because they would also be intimidated by PC's.
The idea that they need to branch out from the core crowd is also baloney. You're looking at such a small piece of the pie and all you do is alienate your core user base. A perfect example of this is L4D. I >still< despise getting a game going because it lacks a functional in game server browser*.
To assume that there is a even a minor demographic just chomping at the bits ready to play MW2 on PC and then choosing not to because there is a server browser is just absurd, especially considering that "PC's are intimidating" to those who are "intimidated by server browsers".
All this is is a slap in the face to your core demographic ~ the ones who DO buy your product. This is the sort of thing that makes me, someone who might have bought it at some point, just not buy it.
Frapple: I really want to meet these people who have trouble navigating a server browser.
Surely natural selection should have done it's thing by now.
Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
You can't, Funk. You cannot make PC gaming a simplistic plug-and-play experience where everything works every single time. There's too many little pieces of a moving puzzle when it comes to PCs. If they have trouble with something as simple as a server browser, they are going to be hopelessly lost in the sauce when something big hits them.
Which is why PC gaming is frustrating to many.
I like TF2. I want to enjoy TF2 with a buddy of mine who now lives on the opposite side of the country, and whose last foray into PC gaming was... uh, possibly the original StarCraft. If we were playing on the 360, it'd be as easy as putting the disc in and playing together. But we don't want to play on the 360, we want to play on the PC. I think IW taking steps to make the PC gaming process as painless as possible is a good thing.
No, they can't fix everything, but that's no excuse to not try to make things easier. It's like saying "Well, my home will never be 100% clean, so I might as well not do the laundry."
It's fine to make it more accessible and easier to get to but is there a reason for the lack of possibility for people who do know how to host their own servers? As I understand it, there won't be that possibility at all. Ever. People will instead have to rely entirely on IWNET. This is what gets me. Why not impliment both possibilities?
You get your IWNET for people who want matchmaking, friends list, 'cheat free' servers and all that jazz, and then you've got the Player Hosted Servers for people who want the freedom to set up what they want, when they want, how they want. Surely (he says, not knowing what is going through Infinity Wards minds) that is the best option available as it caters to the most people and thus doesn't turn off the current PC Gaming crowd while still appealing to those who might prefer an easier setup system?
Full LAN support on Starcraft II. Because what they offer is NOT LAN, it's something else. Why not give the option for dedicated servers? Seriously, they are underestimating people's intellect too much.
Btw, is it just me or every game published by Activision must have one or more controversies attached to it? Guitar Hero 5: The Kurt Cobain thingy. In addition, some bundle packages included the World Tour guitar rather than the new one. Starcraft II: Lack of LAN support. Diablo III: Supposedly colourful, WoW-influenced art design. Modern Warfare 2: First the price increase on UK, now this.
I would choose not to play either. I am at the point almost of saying "fuck it" to anything not made by Valve, the only name besides Bethesda I find reputable in the industry today.
It's also the most feature-rich PC version we've ever made.
this is the funniest part of the whole quote, how can it be as feature rich if it doesn't support dedicated servers? sorry but if an older version has a dedicated server and this one doesn't, the older one is more feature rich
Frapple: I really want to meet these people who have trouble navigating a server browser.
Surely natural selection should have done it's thing by now.
Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
sorry to say this but the people who have trouble navigating server browsers and such are idiots and can't read or even know what they are doing. i've been playing fps games since the days of quake AND i could figure out their server browsers
if you can't read and comprehend what's on the screen then frankly you should be going to school for reading AND computers because in this day and age you're illiterate
Frapple: I really want to meet these people who have trouble navigating a server browser.
Surely natural selection should have done it's thing by now.
Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
You can't, Funk. You cannot make PC gaming a simplistic plug-and-play experience where everything works every single time. There's too many little pieces of a moving puzzle when it comes to PCs. If they have trouble with something as simple as a server browser, they are going to be hopelessly lost in the sauce when something big hits them.
Which is why PC gaming is frustrating to many.
I like TF2. I want to enjoy TF2 with a buddy of mine who now lives on the opposite side of the country, and whose last foray into PC gaming was... uh, possibly the original StarCraft. If we were playing on the 360, it'd be as easy as putting the disc in and playing together. But we don't want to play on the 360, we want to play on the PC. I think IW taking steps to make the PC gaming process as painless as possible is a good thing.
No, they can't fix everything, but that's no excuse to not try to make things easier. It's like saying "Well, my home will never be 100% clean, so I might as well not do the laundry."
Maybe it's great for people trying to get into the PC community, but that's no reason to piss off their existing customers. There's no reason they can't simplify the game finding process while keeping dedicated servers. A "Play Now" button is all it would take to ease the process of joining the game while catering to their entire existing community. And every other touted matchmaking feature is nothing you can't do with dedicated servers.
Frapple: I really want to meet these people who have trouble navigating a server browser.
Surely natural selection should have done it's thing by now.
Here's the thing. The people who have trouble navigating a server browser are people who don't play PC games because the complexity - whether actual or merely just an appearance - is overwhelming and intimidating. It's a barrier that needs to be overcome to start branching out from the "core" crowd - which is something that I think many developers are trying to do.
You can't, Funk. You cannot make PC gaming a simplistic plug-and-play experience where everything works every single time. There's too many little pieces of a moving puzzle when it comes to PCs. If they have trouble with something as simple as a server browser, they are going to be hopelessly lost in the sauce when something big hits them.
Which is why PC gaming is frustrating to many.
I like TF2. I want to enjoy TF2 with a buddy of mine who now lives on the opposite side of the country, and whose last foray into PC gaming was... uh, possibly the original StarCraft. If we were playing on the 360, it'd be as easy as putting the disc in and playing together. But we don't want to play on the 360, we want to play on the PC. I think IW taking steps to make the PC gaming process as painless as possible is a good thing.
No, they can't fix everything, but that's no excuse to not try to make things easier. It's like saying "Well, my home will never be 100% clean, so I might as well not do the laundry."
Here's an idea. Why don't you teach him how to install TF2, how to navigate the servers? etc. You have Facebook, you have MSN, hell, you even have Myspace to contact him, or pick up the phone, or send a text, you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Teach him what you know, then you can enjoy playing against each other. If he's not willing to learn, or you're not willing(or too lazy)to teach him then you'll just have to do with playing over the 360. It astounds me how others need to lower the bar for other slower people who can't be assed to learn for a few seconds. That's not fair on the PC crowd, the ones who have had to learn all of this and then have our experience "dumbed" down because John Doe can't click a simple button saying "Join".
CantFaketheFunk: ...I think IW taking steps to make the PC gaming process as painless as possible is a good thing...
Perhaps, but for those of us who are already PC gamers, (i.e. the target market for this game), that stuff (server lists, etc) is as natural as walking or writing. They are getting pissed because the game becomes more accessible to other people (read: has no effect on them) at the expense of things like server-wide communities, frikkin' mods, the ability to start up your own dedicated server, and much, much better mod/admin tools. (read: makes the game worse for everyone).
Basically, the PC gamers. the ones crying out, are the ones getting the short end of the stick.
DogofRaw: I not to upset about the dedicated servers, all I want to know is 'will my ping be under 70?' as Im in ireland (eg: the arse end of europe) Im a bit worried. As long as its better than the console version Im happy.
"as long as its better than the console version?" what is that supposed to mean?
Btw, is it just me or every game published by Activision must have one or more controversies attached to it?
Starcraft II: Lack of LAN support. Diablo III: Supposedly colourful, WoW-influenced art design.
Blizzard works entirely autonomously from Activision. Also, Diablo 3 needs more goddamn rainbows.
Really? They might be saying they are working autonomously, but I'm pretty sure that Kottick has something to do with the whole Starcraft II marketplace thing. Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows, it's not like Blizzard would admit it if it was true.
Georgeman: Full LAN support on Starcraft II. Because what they offer is NOT LAN, it's something else. Why not give the option for dedicated servers? Seriously, they are underestimating people's intellect too much.
Btw, is it just me or every game published by Activision must have one or more controversies attached to it? Guitar Hero 5: The Kurt Cobain thingy. In addition, some bundle packages included the World Tour guitar rather than the new one. Starcraft II: Lack of LAN support. Diablo III: Supposedly colourful, WoW-influenced art design. Modern Warfare 2: First the price increase on UK, now this.
Neither D3 nor SC2 are published by Activision, btw. Blizz self-publishes.
Edit: D'oh, beaten to it.
And no, I'm 98% sure Kotick had no say in the SC2 thing.
DogofRaw: I not to upset about the dedicated servers, all I want to know is 'will my ping be under 70?' as Im in ireland (eg: the arse end of europe) Im a bit worried. As long as its better than the console version Im happy.
"as long as its better than the console version?" what is that supposed to mean?
It's supposed to mean that he feels a sense of superiority towards those peasant folk who only play on consoles.
I still doubt this will seriously affect the sales of MW2.
DogofRaw: I not to upset about the dedicated servers, all I want to know is 'will my ping be under 70?' as Im in ireland (eg: the arse end of europe) Im a bit worried. As long as its better than the console version Im happy.
"as long as its better than the console version?" what is that supposed to mean?
It's supposed to mean that he feels a sense of superiority towards those peasant folk who only play on consoles.
I still doubt this will seriously affect the sales of MW2.
Or it might mean he wants the PC Price Hike to actually give him a better quality game since he's paying more for it?
DogofRaw: I not to upset about the dedicated servers, all I want to know is 'will my ping be under 70?' as Im in ireland (eg: the arse end of europe) Im a bit worried. As long as its better than the console version Im happy.
"as long as its better than the console version?" what is that supposed to mean?
It's supposed to mean that he feels a sense of superiority towards those peasant folk who only play on consoles.
I still doubt this will seriously affect the sales of MW2.
i am an as you say peasent folk and i find that offensive, and funny
Georgeman: Full LAN support on Starcraft II. Because what they offer is NOT LAN, it's something else. Why not give the option for dedicated servers? Seriously, they are underestimating people's intellect too much.
Btw, is it just me or every game published by Activision must have one or more controversies attached to it? Guitar Hero 5: The Kurt Cobain thingy. In addition, some bundle packages included the World Tour guitar rather than the new one. Starcraft II: Lack of LAN support. Diablo III: Supposedly colourful, WoW-influenced art design. Modern Warfare 2: First the price increase on UK, now this.
Neither D3 nor SC2 are published by Activision, btw. Blizz self-publishes.
Edit: D'oh, beaten to it.
And no, I'm 98% sure Kotick had no say in the SC2 thing.
Ok, goes to show that I don't know everything. Apparently a combination of past midnight time, acting before thinking and my general annoyance about the Starcraft II lack of LAN support does this.
P.s. I don't like Starcraft all that much. It's just that the omission of something that made the original Starcraft popular in the first place is baffling to say the least. It would be like Mario Kart without local multiplayer. Why am I so peeved? Because, other companies could follow suit. It would be... crap.
Extra Punctuation
MovieBob: Intermission
Experienced Points
First Person
Exploding Barrels
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Special Attack
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist News Wrap - Premium
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Mahalo
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Space Janitors
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
The Retro Show
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
Max Payne 3 Review
Company of Heroes 2
XCOM Enemy Unknown
Black Ops 2
Diablo 3 Review
TERA Review
Firefall Beta Preview
Starhawk Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Infinity Ward Responds to Modern Warfare 2 Controversy
Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling has outlined the company's plans for Modern Warfare 2's PC multiplayer in response to the controversy over its plan to drop support for dedicated multiplayer servers.
In case you missed the sound and fury over Infinity Ward's surprising decision to drop traditional dedicated server-based-multiplayer in the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 in favor of a console-esque peer-to-peer matchmaking service, uh... here you go.
Community Manager Robert "Fourzerotwo" Bowling, the same person who broke the news, made a post to his blog outlining the company's plans in an attempt to dispel the "questions, assumptions, and speculation" that have swarmed up around the title since the announcement. First off, outlined Bowling, he didn't think this was indicative of Infinity Ward merely being lazy when it came to PC development - in actuality, he said, it was the opposite:
Bowling outlines some interesting point in favor of the IWNET system - private matches, friends lists, stronger support against cheaters and others who aren't playing by the rules - but somehow I don't feel like this is going to really change anyone's mind. It seems very console-ish, and while some don't have a problem with it, the people who do have a problem will probably continue to be irritated by the whole mess.
Given the resemblance to another PC multiplayer controversy from earlier in the year, it almost makes me wonder: If gamers could choose either "Full LAN support in StarCraft II" or "Dedicated servers in Modern Warfare 2" - but not both - which would they pick?
Permalink