IW Pulls Unbelievable Move and Removes Dedicated Servers and Mods From MW2 (PC)
Submitted by Oculus on Mon, 10/19/2009 - 2:35pm.
http://games.on.net/article/7188/Modern_Warfare_2_shock_No_servers_or_mods_for_PC_version
I don't participate in boycotts for the sake of boycotting, but when the big players in the industry start to all push in a direction that is directly contrary to what the consumer demands, I may at least take another look at what the competition has to offer. I also have a strong feeling that IW will reverse their stance on this sometime after launch, and after they've sold a lot of copies on the 360 and PS3.
Game companies lately are under strong influence to degrade the PC release's functionality and resort to staggered launches to thwart day 1 piracy and encourage purchase of console games. PC gamers have felt the sting lately in a few titles due to intrusive DRM, bad console ports, 360 style matchmaking, disabled LAN play (...Blizzard, ahem), and a few other upper management type of game design decisions.
360 owners, don't think that this doesn't affect you. If PC gaming is nerfed to the point of no competition, expect to see your wallet drained in coming top publisher releases in the years to come and expect less competitiveness in the market overall as a whole. Ever wondered why we haven't seen 40 person dedicated servers available for the 360 or why Microsoft has actively blocked console MMO's from going forward?
What do you think of Infinity Wards decision?
Narc, thanks for the detailed post, here's a counter point to some of your arguments. Hopefully they will be taken in a friendly tone because this kind of discourse about gaming is pure awesome.
Always :)
I take the perspective of a consumer. The consumer on the PC platform has a more customizable experience. I have more choice over what I get to do with the product that I purchase from the developer. In fact, this eventually could dive deeper into a conversation about consumer choice and the consumer's ability to truly own and modify the product that they've purchased (ie open source), but hopefully we can keep it in the frame of popular "computer gaming" in general, which is by and large closed source.
"Choice" is a funny thing. If you ask people if it is better to have a choice than not have a choice, they will nearly always reply that yes, it is. Some consumers do make decisions specifically designed to maximize the number of choices open to them at any given time.
However, this does not apply to all consumers, perhaps not even to a majority of them, and sometimes leads to products (especially products with interfaces) that work less than optimally because of the sheer number of different scenarios that need to be accommodated.
You bring in open source and that's also a subject near and dear to my own heart. I am not a programmer per se but I utilize a number of open source products and even customize them for my own use. However, without trying to be elitist about it I think it's necessary to acknowledge that not every user has an ideological agenda, and not every user prioritizes maximizing choice.
Sometimes I disagree with them, but sometimes I don't. When choosing vendors I tend to avoid ones (like Microsoft) that promote lock-in and engage in rent-seeking behaviors with little benefit to client (like seat licenses for using software, per-client licenses for servers, especially).
However, gaming is a different kind of activity, a social activity. I myself lack the mathematical chops to demonstrate it, but I have a deep suspicion that if one's objective is, within a given time period, to maximize the number of player-minutes that meet most (but not necessarily all) player preferences, a system like Halo's matchmmaking performs far better than a server browser, and it is exactly the minimization of individual user choice that enables this efficiency.
I've often used a playground metaphor to describe this. For any group of a given size on a playground, you may have enough players to field two teams for any number of games, but not more than one. If you leave the selection up to a strictly democratic vote-- essentially the way a server browser works, where each invididual "votes" by deciding to enter a server-- you may end up with insufficient players to field more than one side in any individual game.
While the plural of anecdote is not data, my own personal experience with server-based games, going back to the Quake 1 era, largely vindicates this perspective. Perhaps gamers who primarily use PCs are so inured to these issues that they no longer see them. What I remember mostly are servers that were up and down on strange schedules; servers that were empty, servers with nonresponsive admins, servers with strange rulesets and incomprehensible map rotations, servers run by cheaters, and the like. Finding a good server with a good connection and a good admin was the exception, not the rule.
The odd thing is that while the proponents of server browsers use individual choice as their banner, the democratic nature of the server browser system essentially promotes tyranny of the masses and marginalizes those users with eclectic tastes. Less popular maps and gametypes benefit from the playlist system, as do the players who prefer them, because aside from the veto, mainstream players are unable to completely avoid those marginal maps and gametypes. Essentially the system is befriending those who like less popular maps and less popular gametypes by ensuring that at least once in awhile, they will get played. They might get vetoed sometimes, but you can only pull that trick once per round, and there's no guarantee that you won't get either the same map or the same gametype next time.
Of course, you can always drop, but that's not exactly sporting, is it?
Ah, but you have forgotten the most important aspect that admins can control: who they get to play with on a regular basis. This is what multiplayer gaming is all about and one where xbox live fails miserably. We are dealing with top down vs. distributed styles of controlling human interaction, and I trust myself and my group of friends far more than I trust some executive across the country controlling who I game with on a regular basis. An admin is watching nearly 100% of normal gaming time on popular dedicated servers, and any griefing is immediately dealt with by a swift banning. If someone doesn't like their policies, then move on to one of the other 5,000 available dedi's, or create your own "griefing" server if you feel so inclined.
I'm really not sure how you can say XBL fails miserably on this count. The system allows you to avoid players, allows you to file feedback, and allows you to report unacceptable behavior. It allows you to mute individual players or the whole opposing side. (When I do play, I play with Team Voice only on as a default, which I think is sensible.)
Your preference for maximizing control by being a local server admin may be good for you. It may be good for most (at best) of the players on a server you administrate. After all, if it wasn't, they'd leave. However it is an inefficient way of maximizing preferred player-minutes over a large population, because a consistent supply of quality servers and admins cannot be guaranteed.
I'll remove some essential points of agreement here.
[snip]
I'm really biting my tongue here when I say I agree with this statement, but it is akin to saying that I agree that the sky is likely blue. Client server architectures are, by nature, weighted in numbers on the client side.
And peer to peer networks are not. While Halo on XBL is not, from a strict networking perspective, a peer to peer network-- not, say, the way a token ring network is, or the way the old Bolo multiplayer game worked on the Mac-- from the perspective of parties, matchmaking, and playlists, that's the way it works. "Servers" are not dedicated boxes with dedicated admins, they are clients with temporary privileged positions (with regards to connectivity) and no privileged position with regard to administrative functions, as the service handles those in matchmmaking.
[On MS modifying Windows to remove support for gaming]
Actually, no they couldn't. Unless somehow the anti-trust act dies between now and the enactment of any policy that could do such a thing.. ie modifying directx and alienating every graphics hardware manufacturers that have already bent over backwards to Microsoft's powerhouse authority, even then, OpenGL would serve as a release valve that could even simultaneously thrust Linux into a position of dominance in PC gaming.
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act (as weak as it is these days) isn't relevant here at all. That relates to an abusive practice undertaken by a monopoly, often with regards to leveraging a monopoly position in one market (like operating systems) into creating a monopoly in another (like, application software).
Microsoft could cancel support of DirectX on Windows tomorrow, leaving the 360 as the only platform to develop new DirectX applications on, without running afoul of anti-trust regulations at all. It might run them afoul of existing agreements with PC vendors, GPU vendors, and games publishers, and it might end up not being a smart thing to do. However, if the advantages of doing so were attractive enough, they could and most likely would do it.
I've been a big supporter of OpenGL over the years, going back to an epic argument with an ex-Apple employee on comp.sys.mac.games over Apple's QuickDraw 3D. However, the idea that Microsoft pushing gaming off the desktop and onto the console (assuming they are doing so, which frankly I see no sign of, really) would result in a windfall for OpenGL and Linux (or even the Mac) is... well, humorous.
So no, they couldn't, and they wouldn't. Even something as "basic" as artificial process prioritization would backfire in such a tremendous fashion that there is no way that PC gaming could be feasibly destroyed other than to do it through market forces such as publisher collaboration and degrading game functionality just enough to push consumers over to the controlled platform which is what I think is happening here.
I mean this in the friendliest possible way, but to be honest, that sounds a bit like paranoid delusion. I suppose few companies are as deserving of that kind of attention than Microsoft-- I'll grant that.
However, I don't see adopting the matchmaking method a "degradation" of PC game functionality. It is a change in functionality that benefits some portions of the population at the expense of others. The question is merely about whether the population bemoaning the server browser and threatening boycotts is the broad majority or a vocal minority.
they tried to bring the console and PC experiences closer with Live for Windows and found the community (developers and gamers alike) less than receptive.
Completely agree here. Games for Windows live is an attempt at attracting consumers, rather than forcing them. Microsoft likely wants gamers to use their "platform" in a software sense, rather than a hardware sense. If they can get users to accept a higher level "platform" then that platform can be delivered on any hardware possible, making for a higher overall distribution. I like live as a platform in general, but I have to say that they have a ways to go before I accept it as the default gaming platform over just the base level Windows operating system.
It's a chicken and egg problem. As you point out, you won't adopt it until it reaches a certain level of functionality. Developers, also, won't likely want to support it until it reaches a certain level of popularity. So there it ends. Giving incentives to developers to adopt different network models is a way to short-circuit that system. You don't like it, admittedly, because it strikes you as a force majeure: it takes away your choice. Microsoft, the developer, and certain others will likely say that while some of your choice is curtailed, there are benefits for the platform, for the stakeholders, for the developers, and ultimately for gaming as a pastime. However, as you distrust all those people, as well as gamers outside your circle, you are unwilling to give up those immediate choices for the promise of benefits later. It's a very understandable position.
[snip Eve Online joke]
You are speaking as if these two pieces of functionality are somehow mutually exclusive to the point where you must remove one to get the other, when the fact of the matter is that they solve different problems quite differently. I think there is room for both since the group of players is large enough on both sides to satisfy the functionality. The true fact is that one is removed to ensure compliance with the other.
Because they are. Bungie thinks so, that's why H3 has no custom game browser. They know that the system works best when maximizing the pools of available players. Too many playlists, and the system breaks down. A server browser is essentially a system where every concurrent game exists in its own playlist. The existence of such a system, even if it were only popular with a minority of players, would so sap the playerbase available for the traditional system that it would begin to work much less efficiently. The number of playlists would have to be reduced in response, which would likely lead to more players turning to the server browser for games that they used to be able to find in a playlist.
The server browser is essentially like a strategy in a game theory exerise that, while it is less morally attractive, quickly takes over a population and becomes dominant, because although it fails to maximize the good for all players as a group, it allows and encourages each individual player to seek his own maximum good at the expense of others. The server browser turns the game of matchmaking itself from a non-zero-sum game, where everyone can win enough of the time, at the expense of the bank, to a zero sum game, where local admins control everything and the only way to influence things is to leave the server and/or run your own.
(Very much like some of the more negative aspects of Open Source development in that respect.)
and the PC side (with the definite exception of Steam and the possible exception of most MMOs) lacks many of the community features that console owners are starting to take for granted as part of the experience.
I have to raise a red flag here. Reversed, this would be the equivalent of saying that "the console (with the exception of xbox live) completely lacks online functionality that we've come to expect on the PC". In gaming terms it's redonk past the point of redonkulous. You can't exclude all examples that disprove a point, in order to prove a point. Much less, even if we got rid of steam, we still have many other distribution consolidation platforms on the PC as well as hundreds of other third party applications that can do everything we ever wanted. Now that doesn't take away from the 360's user interface genius, or Xbox live's fantastic simplicity.
Hmm. Perhaps I haven't made myself clear.
When a platform has a single administrator, many things are possible. Matchmaking, playlists, unified friend lists, achievements, etc etc. These are not possible when the platform has many stakeholders, as traditional PC online gaming has-- where the developer, the publisher, your ISP, and individual server administrators are all separate actors pursuing their own agendas. This ecosystem does not generate the features above because there is no incentive to generate it from any of the individual parties, and any third party attempting to offer something similar has to deal individually with many stakeholders in order to come to agreement on how the system will work.
What I am saying is that the future of online PC gaming looks more like MMOs and Steam (and by extension, like XBL) than it does like traditional server-based gaming of the Quake and CounterStrike eras. That interface is a product of the ecosystem from which it arose, just like Halo matchmaking and XBL are products of the ecosystem from which it arose-- an ecosystem which has one dominant stakeholder (Microsoft) which is able to define absolutely the parameters of how system components interact-- much the way Apple is able to control the user experience on its devices because it both designs hardware, develops the operating systems, and also distributes applications.
I am saying that in order to continue to expand, in order to credibly compete for publisher and developer resources with the console ecosystem, the PC ecosystem is going to have to become much more like the console ecosystem of today than it is today, or than it has been in the past. Steam is the best example of this. Like XBL, it is subscription-based. Like XBL, it has a single dominant stakeholder (Valve) but also works with third parties who must operate according to Valve's requirements (much to the chagrin of Randy Pitchford, for instance.) It provides both online play and digital distribution, and discourages piracy while offering many of the features that XBL does (friends lists, achievements, etc). The server browser was the last relic of the old system. It is now being swept away. It should come as a surprise to no one. I think it is natural, inevitable, and ultimately beneficial.
As a final rejoinder, which is both shorter and more caustic than my own missive, but I think addresses the issues just as well:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/10/26/babicide/
-----
Rampant for over seven years.
Submitted by narcogen on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 3:18am.
@Narcogen: Yeah, I don't like it. :)
I was talking to a random worker today. He loves Halo. Buys a lot of video games. Has an XBL account. But rarely plays Halo MP. I think MM works well for someone like that and with a low gamerscore. MM is simple and usually works. It's more complicated to get set up in the PC environment. [That said, I know someone with the resources of a Bungie has the skills to build a PC dedicated server environment that would be a huge upgrade over what we have now.] Once Bungie tries to start marrying me up with people of similar gamerscore, the W/L ratio goes to 50%. Halo is most fun when I can roll over the newbies. When I start losing half of my games, I play less Halo. That's probably OK with MS and BUNGIE. They've already sold me the software and services.
I just feel restricted in MM and on XBL. I desire the openness of the PC dedicated servers.
I think it's the same reason we don't often post to our B.net chapters but regularly post to our self-hosted custom-made websites.
Submitted by rapture on Tue, 10/27/2009 - 6:10pm.
@Narcogen: Yeah, I don't like it. :)
I was talking to a random worker today. He loves Halo. Buys a lot of video games. Has an XBL account. But rarely plays Halo MP. I think MM works well for someone like that and with a low gamerscore. MM is simple and usually works.
I'd love to see a distribution curve on gamerscores. I tend to think that even my own quite "low" score (7-8k) might fall above the median. Which means that those above 10, 20, or 30k are so far above the mean-- so different from the average subscriber-- that using the needs and wants of users in that band might prove detrimental to the service as a whole.
I know that seems counterintuitive, but it's important to understand that it really isn't. Those who use the service think they know it best and think they know what is best for it. What they really know is what is best for them.
It's more complicated to get set up in the PC environment. [That said, I know someone with the resources of a Bungie has the skills to build a PC dedicated server environment that would be a huge upgrade over what we have now.]
I find that interesting. Matchmaking, as an idea, came out of Bungie. Maybe they made it because they think that the server model is fundamentally broken, and that it is not a question of improving it?
As a broad theoretical question, what kind of system that would still be a server browser would be "better" than the server browsers that are already out there? What, in your opinion, is the best server browser, and in what way does it not demonstrate the negative characteristics of server browsers that led to the creation of matchmaking?
Once Bungie tries to start marrying me up with people of similar gamerscore, the W/L ratio goes to 50%. Halo is most fun when I can roll over the newbies. When I start losing half of my games, I play less Halo.
I've said this before on this very same topic, and usually it just causes more arguments... but don't you see that as sort of obnoxious and antisocial behavior?
That's probably OK with MS and BUNGIE. They've already sold me the software and services.
That's sort of cynical. After all, if you end up playing so little Halo, or so little XBL in general that you stop subscribing, MS and Bungie aren't making money off that. I think what they've calculated is that for the entire community, losing the elite players who want to beat up on noobs costs less than losing the noobs who don't want to get beat up by elite players.
You're right, the system is not set up to allow for this sort of behavior, and it's entirely right that it be set up that way. It's set up to create matches that are as competitive as possible to allow people to improve while still having chances to win in as high a percentage of their games as possible-- not for any subgroup of players but for all players.
It's also arranged for people to be able to play with people they know.
It's not geared up for what you want to do-- which is ambush unsuspecting lower-skilled players. You're certainly not going to be able to make those people your friends, and TruSkill isn't going to match you up with them.
Why do you want to do that?
I just feel restricted in MM and on XBL. I desire the openness of the PC dedicated servers.
I think it's the same reason we don't often post to our B.net chapters but regularly post to our self-hosted custom-made websites.
Eh... that's a separate (but related) topic for another time, I suspect. Don't get me started :)
Rampant for over seven years.
Submitted by narcogen on Wed, 10/28/2009 - 1:36am.
It's good to see solid discussion going on here. I don't know where to begin, so I'll be obnoxious and cherry pick from your argument, narcogen (you have some great points that I won't argue with).
I am saying that in order to continue to expand, in order to credibly compete for publisher and developer resources with the console ecosystem, the PC ecosystem is going to have to become much more like the console ecosystem of today than it is today, or than it has been in the past. Steam is the best example of this. Like XBL, it is subscription-based. Like XBL, it has a single dominant stakeholder (Valve) but also works with third parties who must operate according to Valve's requirements (much to the chagrin of Randy Pitchford, for instance.) It provides both online play and digital distribution, and discourages piracy while offering many of the features that XBL does (friends lists, achievements, etc). The server browser was the last relic of the old system. It is now being swept away. It should come as a surprise to no one. I think it is natural, inevitable, and ultimately beneficial.
Subscription based? Ignore this if I'm incorrect, but it sounds like you're implying there's a fee involved with having a Steam account like Xbox Live's Gold subscription -- there isn't. No person with a Steam account pays any money to maintain the ability to play games on it or something (although I do believe there might be some games on Steam in which another developer besides Valve require a monthly fee or something of the like). Something like Gametap involves a subscription fee where you have access to a wide variety of titles while paying at a fixed rate every month. Steam is not that.
Again, ignore this if I'm making false assumptions, but from what you've stated, it appears that you don't realize that most of Valve's major multiplayer franchises (Team Fortress, Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat) still have server browsers and many people are more than willing to pay for their own dedicated servers where communities are built and interact; is it really an outdated relic?
If there's one bad thing about the removal of dedicated servers from MW2 is that it puts the nail in the coffin for competitive gaming. Yes, the competitive community is only a microcosm in the greater pool of pubbers, but competitive gameplay in COD4 could not be as geared towards skill-based, balanced multiplayer without people holding private dedicated servers and changing or adding upon the existing game. Your response to this will depend on whether or not you care for competitive gaming or not and if you agree or disagree with how the game should be played. From what I've seen of MW2, it's already going to be a huge noobfest accommodated for the majority of casual players (this is also another topic worth discussing another time) -- care to show me how this wouldn't significantly hinder competitive play?
Submitted by Master Kim on Mon, 11/02/2009 - 4:47am.
Just a couple of comments.
Yes, I know that Steam and XBL are not identical. However, whereas most classic server browsers were essentially anonymous-- you put in whatever identifying information you liked, and bans were handed out (or not) on a server-by-server basis.
Steam always knows who you are, regardless of title, and your access is controlled. Steam knows you're a legit purchaser and then gives you multiplayer access. Each individual Steam title may use server browsers, but Steam also has a universal friends list, like XBL does, so if there's a friend playing game X you can go join then, yes? (I am not a Steam user, I am gleaning this from The Intarwebs, not personal experience).
Do I care about competitive gaming? That depends what you mean. Do you mean pro or semipro gaming? No, not in the least, except as a subject of idle contemplation.
If you mean, people who consider themselves "hardcore" and refer to other games as "noobfests" when they feel they can look down on the rest of the playerbase as insufficiently skilled, compared to them-- no, I don't generally have an interest in that, either.
As to whether it's a relic-- I do think so. I think it's an edge case, the same way that the interests of pro athletes do not, by and large, coincide with the interests of those who play pickup games. XBL and Steam are pickup games. The play is supposed to be the thing, and to allow it to be driven by those who style themselves professionals is, I think, not in the interest of network operators, of developers, or of publishers, by and large.
Rampant for over seven years.
Submitted by narcogen on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 6:16am.
Just a couple of comments.
You and I are not on the same page; I was not aware you were referring to older games in which there were no persistent profile for players.
Yes, I know that Steam and XBL are not identical. However, whereas most classic server browsers were essentially anonymous-- you put in whatever identifying information you liked, and bans were handed out (or not) on a server-by-server basis.
Steam always knows who you are, regardless of title, and your access is controlled. Steam knows you're a legit purchaser and then gives you multiplayer access. Each individual Steam title may use server browsers, but Steam also has a universal friends list, like XBL does, so if there's a friend playing game X you can go join then, yes? (I am not a Steam user, I am gleaning this from The Intarwebs, not personal experience).
You are correct (except although Steam has gone great lengths to stop piracy, I don't think it's impossible to find a cracked version of say, CS:S, and play online) for the most part, but it still involves players browsing through a list to find dedicated servers that many people pay money for. Although what you said about Steam is true, I think you should play games on Steam and see for yourself what it's like.
Do I care about competitive gaming? That depends what you mean. Do you mean pro or semipro gaming? No, not in the least, except as a subject of idle contemplation.
Define your terms -- what do you mean by "pro" and "semipro"? Ah, I should define my terms first before I ask you to do the same.
If you mean, people who consider themselves "hardcore" and refer to other games as "noobfests" when they feel they can look down on the rest of the playerbase as insufficiently skilled, compared to them-- no, I don't generally have an interest in that, either.
No, because I'm not talking about people, but the format by which these "hardcore" players play. From what you've been saying, you seem unfamiliar. Does CEVO, CAL, TWL mean anything to you? These are leagues where clans (a clan being a group of like-minded individuals who enjoy stiff competition and playing to the best of their ability in an organized team) compete against each other in games, usually through a competitive format. This format that I'm speaking of involves altering the game content, usually with significant changes to the gameplay to suit it better for balanced, skill-based multiplayer.
There are many examples I could mention. One is the removal of random chance factors. Team Fortress 2 (I'm assuming you don't play) sports an interesting gameplay mechanic for a first-person shooter: Critical Hits. The majority of weapons have the chance to deal a significantly higher amount of damage than they normally do. For example, as a Soldier, I might be firing rockets that deal around one hundred points of damage on a direct hit. I will have a 2% chance to deal a Critical Hit, so occasionally one rocket fired will deal 270 damage on a direct hit (this percentage can build up, but trust me, it's quite significant).
All competitive formats disable Critical Hits, because at any time a random grenade, bullet, or rocket can end up being a Critical Hit and the round can be decided by sheer chance -- a player can die when he would have otherwise lived because his opponent got lucky.
Other examples include prohibiting or removing weapons. Throughout the Halo series, the Needler has been deemed non-viable for a competitive weapon. It is either removed from the map settings or ignored if it isn't, because it's either underpowered and impractical or powerful yet inconsistent. Same goes for the Energy Sword.
In Halo 2 and Halo 3, competitive settings usually meant BR starts, because it was a superior starting weapon that gave players, provided they were skilled enough, something to fight back against the opposing team if they acquired power weapons. In public matchmaking, if a competent team somehow got the power weapons (i.e. they spawned closer) and held them, it would be impossibly difficult to fight back with only the SMG at spawn (this probably applies more to H2 than H3).
In all shooters, some maps may be excluded from play because there's environmental hazards (giant exploding reactors, an avalanche that could occur at any time, a pit that occasionally sucks players into it, etc.) or one team's spawn position is more advantageous than the other's.
To reiterate, the competitive format is a different way to play a game that accommodates serious gamers who want to play in a way that requires of them to play to the best of their ability in coordination with like-minded peers against another team of skilled, organized players. Man, I could go on forever.
Now, what would happen if we removed dedicated servers? No control over the server config, which is what competitive players need access to in order to alter the settings for the competitive format.
Also, host advantage sucks -- I'm going to assume you know what that is and you can figure out for yourself how detrimental to competitive play.
As to whether it's a relic-- I do think so. I think it's an edge case, the same way that the interests of pro athletes do not, by and large, coincide with the interests of those who play pickup games. XBL and Steam are pickup games.
"Pickup game" is not an appropriate term, please use "casual games" or "pub games." Pickup games usually refer to pugs, that is, when a bunch of players, regardless of clan association, form into two teams and play in the competitive format I just mentioned. Steam and Xbox Live are indeed platforms that are geared to please the majority of casual players as opposed to the smaller group of competitive players (still a significant percentage of the community though, I think).
The play is supposed to be the thing, and to allow it to be driven by those who style themselves professionals is, I think, not in the interest of network operators, of developers, or of publishers, by and large.
So the minority loses out in favor of the majority, since the developers and publishers cater to your average casual player (again, I'm referring to the smaller community of competitive players, not to the even smaller community of professional competitors, perhaps I should not have described the former as a "microcosm"). Sucks.
Rampant for over seven years.
Just to remind you, it's not just the competitive community that suffers, but also the majority of PC gamers in general who prefer dedicated servers.
Submitted by Master Kim on Tue, 11/03/2009 - 10:10pm.
Just to try and keep things short:
By pro or semipro I would mean paid or sponsored definitely, and quite possibly those who pay for tournament play.
CEVO, CAL, TWL? No, never heard of them.
I'm not convinced that "pickup" is inappropriate. It is an ad hoc collection of players who happen to show up in a certain place at a certain time. It's just that in this case, the "certain place" is a particular title on a particular system. (Or in the case of Halo, a particular playlist). I've played lots of physical games referred to as "pickup" games and none are competitive. They are all casual by definition.
Assume I know what host advantage is? Thanks a lot, I appreciate that.
Minority loses out to the majority... yes, by definition. This is a mass medium. I think it's just the flip side of saying that the server browser is an anachronism. It was the central interface for a hobby that was centered on technophiles. Gaming isn't anymore.
Every minority tries to do what you're doing-- claiming that you're more important than your numbers. If the pro gamers are a minority among the competitive gamers, who are a minority among all the PC gamers, who are a minority compared to the console gamers... is it honestly reasonable to continue to expect that the interface for game functions will remain the same as it has because this insular minority wants it so, and makes dire predictions about the consequences if it is changed?
I'm not actually convinced the majority of PC gamers prefer dedicated servers. I'm convinced a vocal minority do, and that there is a wide gap between them and the rest of the world that is widening. It's going to come to pass that the core of that hobby becomes ossified while the rest of the world moves on and from time to time gets told to get off the lawn. Not that I can't identify with that, myself.
Call me skeptical, and add John Carmack to the list of people who think the server browser is a relic-- they're watching what happens with MW2 to decide if Rage will get one. He says it's looking now like it won't.
If I had to guess what will happen, sales of MW2 will be down slightly from expectations. If that's all it is, I expect many more PC developers will eventually go this route to handle multiplayer, as it presents a number of advantages. If the situation is worse than that, perhaps it will prompt IW to reexamine the viability of the platform for their investment, and spark another round of "is PC gaming dead" nonsense.
Of course, maybe PC gaming, as incarnated by the most vocal of the proponents of its rigid, traditional forms, would rather see it die than change into anything else. We'll see.
Rampant for over seven years.
Submitted by narcogen on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 6:27am.
Good discussion guys. Narc makes good points and he espouses the point of view that many people in the gaming industry currently have toward PC gaming. Like it or not, we are in for a long haul if you want freedom to pick what gametype you want to play and to be able to play it with people you know. With matchmaking, we are going to play the games that the game developers want us to play with who they want us to play. I don't like it. There's nothing I can do about it.
Certainly the most popular modern multiplayer titles have dedicated servers. The original Counter-Strike and Quake still thrive. Would they continue to thrive if there were no dedicated servers? I would guess not. I would guess that Valve and iD would want to promote their latest and greatest game in legacy games to encourage us to buy the new games. They'll want to have full control over in-game advertisements. So, I'm saying that Halo 3 is a huge interactive billboard to sell more downloadable content (which, does anyone ever remember paying for downloadable content in the major multiplayer PC games?). It is also giant billboard to get us to go play other Halo games by the publisher. And we'll start seeing more Coca Cola ads on the streets of Mobossa eventually.
I think getting rid of dedicated servers means that the gaming industry will be able to control more of the IP and in the end they'll be able to make more money from us. That's why they are doing it.
I care about dedicated servers. For me, it makes the gaming experience so much more enjoyable. But I think the game devs believe that the majority of gamers don't care or won't notice.
[Do you think MySpace would have gotten as popular as it has if they limited the number of friends you could have to 100?]
Devs don't always know what is best. Bungie got it wrong with Halo MP. They said that they didn't expect Halo 1's multi-player to be such a hit. And look what it is. Their whole series is built around internet connectivity and the multiplayer experience. And the fans are who made Halo MP popular. We even went out of our way to connect 4 XBOX's to standard definition TV's and play in what, 320 x 240 frames, all night long. The fans even made the XBOX Connect internet tunnel. And they hosted their own tournaments without buy in from the publish or dev. It was the fans that helped Bungie see the light. And it's the fans that pay $50 a year for access to Xbox LIVE.
Console gaming has evolved so much, particularly the Xbox LIVE platform, that a group of us on this forum could have a simple Xbox LIVE Arcade title up and running on their network in a few months. Console gaming is getting a lot better. It is pulling PC gamers away from their games because LIVE and its games have so much to offer.
By why won't Microsoft let developers program keyboard and mouse features into their games? Why has Games for Windows - LIVE flopped so hard? Why don't we have more cross-platform titles? And why is PC gaming talked about as if they are in the minority when if you consider all of the interactive multimedia experiences we have - we realize that more of it happens on a computer than on a console?
Submitted by rapture on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 7:42pm.
First day out, aimbots and wall hacks.
And PC players can't ban them from their games because there are no dedicated servers. Who would have thought the cheaters would prove my point for me. ROFL.
Submitted by Oculus on Wed, 11/11/2009 - 11:29am.
CEVO, CAL, TWL? No, never heard of them.
Yes, so now I understand that you're not familiar with CP play.
I'm not convinced that "pickup" is inappropriate. It is an ad hoc collection of players who happen to show up in a certain place at a certain time. It's just that in this case, the "certain place" is a particular title on a particular system. (Or in the case of Halo, a particular playlist). I've played lots of physical games referred to as "pickup" games and none are competitive. They are all casual by definition.
Aight dawg, I'm just saying, in the competitive community usually people mean something else by "pug." However, a pug is more than a match where you hook up with strangers; usually, they're friends, clan mates, friends of friends, community members in that server or whatever, but it's not correct to compare them with matchmaking and playing with total strangers.
Assume I know what host advantage is? Thanks a lot, I appreciate that.
I'm sorry, did I offend you? I didn't mean anything by that; I assumed you've had significant playtime with Halo 2 and Halo 3 and are familiar with what I'm talking about; I shall expound on why host advantage sucks.
Being host gives you a significant unfair advantage over other players because your actions are determined in-game much quicker than others and you don't experience lag whatsoever -- dedicated servers act as hosts so nobody else has this unfair advantage. That's a big one.
Every minority tries to do what you're doing-- claiming that you're more important than your numbers.
...I don't think I'm part of a minority, and now I see where our view points are at a significant dissonance.
If the pro gamers are a minority among the competitive gamers, who are a minority among all the PC gamers, who are a minority compared to the console gamers... is it honestly reasonable to continue to expect that the interface for game functions will remain the same as it has because this insular minority wants it so, and makes dire predictions about the consequences if it is changed?
My emphasis is less on the pro gamers, more so on the competitive. I don't consider PC gamers to be a "minority" compared to the console gamers; at least, I don't understand why what happens on the console has to affect and change something on the PC, namely dedicated servers.
I'm not actually convinced the majority of PC gamers prefer dedicated servers. I'm convinced a vocal minority do, and that there is a wide gap between them and the rest of the world that is widening.
Now you've brought an interesting point, because I'm convinced that the majority of PC gamers prefer dedicated servers. I wasn't aware you thought a "vocal minority" did. My argument would be different if I didn't think so. Yeah, I disagree.
It's going to come to pass that the core of that hobby becomes ossified while the rest of the world moves on and from time to time gets told to get off the lawn. Not that I can't identify with that, myself.
Is change really the only constant? ):
If I had to guess what will happen, sales of MW2 will be down slightly from expectations. If that's all it is, I expect many more PC developers will eventually go this route to handle multiplayer, as it presents a number of advantages
Interesting hypothesis. We'll see.
If the situation is worse than that, perhaps it will prompt IW to reexamine the viability of the platform for their investment, and spark another round of "is PC gaming dead" nonsense.
):
Of course, maybe PC gaming, as incarnated by the most vocal of the proponents of its rigid, traditional forms, would rather see it die than change into anything else. We'll see.
Certainly the most popular modern multiplayer titles have dedicated servers. The original Counter-Strike and Quake still thrive. Would they continue to thrive if there were no dedicated servers? I would guess not. I would guess that Valve and iD would want to promote their latest and greatest game in legacy games to encourage us to buy the new games. They'll want to have full control over in-game advertisements. So, I'm saying that Halo 3 is a huge interactive billboard to sell more downloadable content (which, does anyone ever remember paying for downloadable content in the major multiplayer PC games?). It is also giant billboard to get us to go play other Halo games by the publisher. And we'll start seeing more Coca Cola ads on the streets of Mobossa eventually.
I like the points you mentioned about in-game advertisements (although keep in mind people who play CS see advertisement banners on the walls for The Orange Box and L4D).
I also neglected to mention the problem with cheaters, as Oculus reminded me. It's hard for me to imagine a more effective deterrent or remedy against cheaters than a competent admin banning them from a server.
This dude hit all the strong points in a neat presentation on YouTube.
Submitted by Master Kim on Sun, 11/15/2009 - 5:46pm.
Post new comment
I don't get why they're crimping dedicated server support. How does that make sense?
From the little I know about PC gaming, it seems that dedicated servers and mods are what make it great. Don't understand why they'd kick you in the nuts like that.
This is terrible. This is part of a bigger agenda to kill PC gaming. If they kill PC gaming, MSSONYNINTENDO make so much more money.
Mike is right. Expect to pay more money in the future. Console gamers already pay more for console games than the same game on PC.
More proof that us gamers have no voice. We now sit back and wait for MSSONYNINTENDO to tell us how and what to game.
Dedicated servers are a big deal. At a recent time, it was true that Counter-Strike had more people play it than all of the HALO franchise. Call of Duty PC was close if not ahead of all HALO games as well. This was because of dedicated servers. Killing it in what would have been one of the most popular PC games is a major blow.
They are obviously wanting to boost console sales. They probably have very good business reasons for doing this. Perhaps to prove a point with a publisher to get more funding. Or to boost some stat that will affect stock price.
Eff!
This move does make sense for a lot of reasons that don't seem to make sense to PC gamers because they're on the other side of the table and either don't, or can't imagine what it's like to be on the other side.
Look at what MS and Bungie have with Halo matchmaking. They have a channel that provides both online play and delivers content, so it generates both subscription revenue and sales from expansions.
It also gives them direct feedback on the activity of their entire online playbase, and lets them make-- and enforce-- decisions they make based on that feedback. It also means the ability to have leaderboards and player statistics that are directly comparable from player to player because they are all within the same playerbase and operating under the same sets of rules in the same environments.
It allows them to very nearly completely eliminate piracy as a factor on the online service-- or, at least, to ensure that those who do pirate the game do not have access to the majority of the online playerbase.
Allowing for private servers eliminates nearly all of those advantages, and in return offers individual choice for players and server admins-- despite the fact that it may well be possible that a large majority of admins and players prefer the same maps and modes anyway and are gaining no practical advantage from that freedom-- but they feel as if they are because nobody forced them to make those choices. That, and since (presumably) nobody is playing on host, nobody has host advantage.
If the developer is only making a server binary available, then eliminating it, all they gain are the resources necessary to maintain the codebase, which are probably minimal. If they are hosting free servers for the game itself, then they save the cost of operating those, which may well be substantial.
Now for the myths.
"Dedicated servers and mods are what make it great." Everybody thinks that the reason they like a thing is the reason everybody else likes it, too, but sometimes it's not the case. I'm guessing developers know how many clients they have in the field, as well as how many servers. It's very likely that far more people simply operate clients, and that a vocal minority run servers. Switching to a peer to peer system increases the number of actual physical potential hosts (now every client is a potential host) while turning over the keys to how those clients interact with those hosts to the developer, which helps eliminate cheating.
"This is part of an agenda to kill PC gaming." This is actually pretty ludicrous. If there's a wide-ranging agenda to "kill PC gaming" it could be achieved quite simply, by developers simply not releasing PC versions. The intermediary step of crippling them hardly seems necessary. As Microsoft makes the planet's dominant OS as well as a console system, and the alternative platforms (Mac OSX and Linux) are neither particularly popular nor particularly well-suited to gaming, they could easily and in one fell swoop modify their OS in a way to be hostile to PC gaming, or simply stop supporting developers of PC games. Instead, they tried to bring the console and PC experiences closer with Live for Windows and found the community (developers and gamers alike) less than receptive.
"Expect to pay more money in the future." I honestly don't see the connection here. The tail is not going to wag this dog. Console titles cost what they cost because people are willing to pay for it. The console experience, by and large, including XBL, delivers the kind of experience I want to have: seated on the couch, 100" screen, surround sound. If I'm going to be hunched over a keyboard it's going to be because I'm working. (Yes, I used to play Eve Online. Yes, that's also work.)
If anything, PC games are cheaper because they are chasing a smaller audience and are competing with one another. The idea that the PC version and Xbox versions of the same game are competing with each other, and that the price of the console version would rise specifically because the PC version is missing some features (features that the console version doesn't have anyway) really doesn't make a lot of sense. Again, if that was the idea, they'd simply not publish a PC version at all. The minute it looks to publishers like the percentage of people who would buy an Xbox game for which there is no PC version, times the per unit margin, is greater than the total take on the cheaper PC version, will be the day they stop making it.
Right now the PC and console experiences are too different to be managed with the same tools, and the PC side (with the definite exception of Steam and the possible exception of most MMOs) lacks many of the community features that console owners are starting to take for granted as part of the experience.
Rap, I don't think this is about gamers not having a voice. In fact, active PC gamers (and console gamers alike) have a disproportionately loud voice, especially on issues like this. A vocal and passionate minority leads developers and publishers to believe that the product will collapse if the hardcore aren't catered to. Most of the time, it simply isn't so.
I'd be willing to wager that most PC gamers don't use mods or run their own servers. As long as taking away those two doesn't actually reduce the chances for the majority to play, it'll be an improvement. For every gamer who screams when their server browser is taken away, there will be five who cheer silently when they can just push a button and be in a game in a few minutes and not need to worry about whether the admin of the server they're on is playing fair or not. Sort of like how Halo works.
"Counter-Strike had more people play it than all of the HALO franchise." Which means exactly zero. If the developer is lucky, they bought the game at the start. If they aren't, it's been pirated. In either case, the developer gets exactly nothing from these people whether they continue to play or not. If they are maintaining some of the servers themselves, then it's actually a drag on the developer. It's an ego stroke and nothing else. That and $1.99 will get you a cup of coffee.
How is killing this feature a major blow to anything? It's a minor public relations gaffe, but to be honest, only if they cave. If they stick by their guns and their projections work out, such that it doesn't really affect sales at all, then the paper tiger will be tamed.
If they're smart, they'll treat this the way Valve treated the L4D2 "boycott"-- with a similar result.
Rampant for over seven years.
Great post, Narc.
I abhor Halo 3 matchmaking. I play less Halo because of it. I rarely get to play with my friends because we have a hard time finding each other, my buddy list is full of friends (who may or may not be Halo players), and finding games takes a long time and is based on what Bungie wants me to play. I see this as limiting while others see it as a worthy service.
The dedicated server (say HPC) allowed me to have about 200 active gamers that, well while I only knew them through their in-game avatar, they were a part of the community I was a part of. WE controlled the playlists and maps. We found gamers that liked what we liked and they were always online to play - for free, I will add.
I want to be able to tailor Xbox LIVE in the same fashion. I think it would be more pleasing for me and others.
Taking that level of control and customization away from PC gamers who are used to it will not sell MORE copies of CoD:MW2 because they will not like the new system as much. And if they sell fewer copies of one of the most popular franchises of late, why would they continue to support it in the future and aren't OTHER game devs going to notice. I think so. I think other devs will look at MW2 and they'll be discouraged to make a PC game.
I agree that Bungie has done great things for gaming; particularly in my life. XBOX Live is what it is largely because of them. But they haven't done anything for PC gaming. They could revolutionize it just like they did on XBOX Live. After all, they were a part of the Games for Windows - LIVE initiative with Halo 2 (PC).
---
I actually believe PC gaming is alive and well. The greatest video game in the world is a real-time strategy role-playing game called THE INTERNET. We all have online avatars reflecting some part of us. We are concerned about our online communications and how we present ourselves.
Facebook, MySpace, Twitter are PC games.
Fantasy Football would be the world's largest PC game of all time if it were considered a PC game. And I'd bet it makes more money per year than ANY video game.
Games like Facebook Scrabble and Yahoo! Games like Poker and Billiards are legit games, but aren't considered PC games. However, such simple games are no doubt claimed by MSSONYNINTENDO as Arcade games. They'll claim those type of games as successes and throw those stats in a PowerPoint presentation in a heartbeat.
But alas, we are talking about 3D shooters for the most part. And what PC gamers really want is support from the major devs like BUNGIE and INFINITY WARD. IW slaps PC gamers in the face if their alternative matchmaking system isn't superior to what the community was already accustomed to creating. This is not good for PC gaming and I just don't think this thrend will be good for the end users; only the stock holders.
Narc, thanks for the detailed post, here's a counter point to some of your arguments. Hopefully they will be taken in a friendly tone because this kind of discourse about gaming is pure awesome.
I take the perspective of a consumer. The consumer on the PC platform has a more customizable experience. I have more choice over what I get to do with the product that I purchase from the developer. In fact, this eventually could dive deeper into a conversation about consumer choice and the consumer's ability to truly own and modify the product that they've purchased (ie open source), but hopefully we can keep it in the frame of popular "computer gaming" in general, which is by and large closed source.
Ah, but you have forgotten the most important aspect that admins can control: who they get to play with on a regular basis. This is what multiplayer gaming is all about and one where xbox live fails miserably. We are dealing with top down vs. distributed styles of controlling human interaction, and I trust myself and my group of friends far more than I trust some executive across the country controlling who I game with on a regular basis. An admin is watching nearly 100% of normal gaming time on popular dedicated servers, and any griefing is immediately dealt with by a swift banning. If someone doesn't like their policies, then move on to one of the other 5,000 available dedi's, or create your own "griefing" server if you feel so inclined.
I'd even argue that they get back absolutely zero resources since the server code is very likely very similar whether they release the binary to the public or not. There's still developers out there writing code for MW2 servers, it's just that their binaries are no longer released.
I'm really biting my tongue here when I say I agree with this statement, but it is akin to saying that I agree that the sky is likely blue. Client server architectures are, by nature, weighted in numbers on the client side.
Actually, no they couldn't. Unless somehow the anti-trust act dies between now and the enactment of any policy that could do such a thing.. ie modifying directx and alienating every graphics hardware manufacturers that have already bent over backwards to Microsoft's powerhouse authority, even then, OpenGL would serve as a release valve that could even simultaneously thrust Linux into a position of dominance in PC gaming. So no, they couldn't, and they wouldn't. Even something as "basic" as artificial process prioritization would backfire in such a tremendous fashion that there is no way that PC gaming could be feasibly destroyed other than to do it through market forces such as publisher collaboration and degrading game functionality just enough to push consumers over to the controlled platform which is what I think is happening here.
Completely agree here. Games for Windows live is an attempt at attracting consumers, rather than forcing them. Microsoft likely wants gamers to use their "platform" in a software sense, rather than a hardware sense. If they can get users to accept a higher level "platform" then that platform can be delivered on any hardware possible, making for a higher overall distribution. I like live as a platform in general, but I have to say that they have a ways to go before I accept it as the default gaming platform over just the base level Windows operating system.
Serious LOL. Yes Eve Online is work, somehow addictive, but in the end it's just work that amounts to nothing. I agree that I like the experience of 1 button push gaming on my couch, that is the bread and butter of xbox live and the 360 right now. In regards to paying more, yes, if the market demands xbox live compatibility then expect the authorities of that platform to set the price in order to distribute on that platform. They do own it after all. They don't own 3rd party applications that can be distributed "freely" without their consent on their operating system. Think of Apple's dominating control over iPhone apps lately. Anything that threatens their dominance in user space is dealt with by a swift ban.
You are speaking as if these two pieces of functionality are somehow mutually exclusive to the point where you must remove one to get the other, when the fact of the matter is that they solve different problems quite differently. I think there is room for both since the group of players is large enough on both sides to satisfy the functionality. The true fact is that one is removed to ensure compliance with the other.
I have to raise a red flag here. Reversed, this would be the equivalent of saying that "the console (with the exception of xbox live) completely lacks online functionality that we've come to expect on the PC". In gaming terms it's redonk past the point of redonkulous. You can't exclude all examples that disprove a point, in order to prove a point. Much less, even if we got rid of steam, we still have many other distribution consolidation platforms on the PC as well as hundreds of other third party applications that can do everything we ever wanted. Now that doesn't take away from the 360's user interface genius, or Xbox live's fantastic simplicity.
I'm talking about market forces here, rather than individual sales of a single title. MW2 no doubt will sell well on the console, but I'm more interested in how this affects future triple A titles and the idea of PC gaming as a customizable experience rather than a mirror of the limited functionality on a currently top-down controlled architecture. If all the top titles start dropping customizability, then we're left as consumers with whatever we can beg microsoft to implement on live.
Developers/Publishers, by nature, have to play majority politics because that's how they recoup expenses and turn profit. I understand that this is a profit decision rather than a "This is really better for you gamers" decision. But I don't have to like it, and suspect that some others won't like it either.
Thanks :)
There are some problems that neither system can really address. Which ones apply to your particular situation will likely affect your opinion of the system, but that is often unhelpful when trying to evaluate the applicability of the system to a large audience.
I agree that the player limit is an obstacle in some cases. You say you've got a full list (so do I, and I rarely play!) and many of them aren't active Halo players. However that already identifies you as an edge case on the network, as the average number of friends on all accounts is much lower. I think MS will, at some point, either on the 360 or on a later device, raise this limit.
Conceivably, if you had unlimited friends list space this part of the system would pose no obstacle to finding your friends. Presumably it poses no obstacle to people who are below the 100 friend limit, and thus have every friend who they could play with on their list. Certainly finding a friend who is online in a game, or even in a different game or doing something else (watching a movie) is far easier on XBL. Doing so in a server browser based game depends on external systems (email, IM, etc).
The dedicated server (say HPC) allowed me to have about 200 active gamers that, well while I only knew them through their in-game avatar, they were a part of the community I was a part of. WE controlled the playlists and maps. We found gamers that liked what we liked and they were always online to play - for free, I will add.
I want to be able to tailor Xbox LIVE in the same fashion. I think it would be more pleasing for me and others.
Yes, but my point is that the majority of gamers neither need nor want that. The fact that the most popular games on XBL are those that support matchmaking and not server browsing is, I think, at least a partial endorsement of this perspective. When you add in the things that the server browser doesn't support, I think it's obvious to the platform maintainers and the developers is that this is the best way for all parties and for the majority of players. The obstacle is the vocal minority who think that their priorities represent the majority because the majority is silent.
No, it most likely won't, at least not in the short term. Nor do I think it has to. Nor do I think that the stakeholders think it will. I think they consider it a tumultuous but ultimately necessary transition, much like Apple's transition from PPC to Intel, or the upcoming transition from physical media to digital distribution. The task will be to minimize the disruption, not to eliminate it.
If PC games that adopt this model are able at least to survive-- if not necessarily thrive-- then I think the advantages will come to outweigh the disadvantages for more and more developers until this model becomes the norm.
I agree that Bungie has done great things for gaming; particularly in my life. XBOX Live is what it is largely because of them. But they haven't done anything for PC gaming. They could revolutionize it just like they did on XBOX Live. After all, they were a part of the Games for Windows - LIVE initiative with Halo 2 (PC).
Sounds to me like that's exactly what is happening, and you don't like it. Doesn't Halo matchmaking look to you like the next step in the evolution of Myth multiplayer on Bungie.net? That was basically a compromise between the two models, but I think it was obviously headed in that direction. That model had some (but not all) of the convenience of the new system, with most of the local control. But Myth also had no dedicated servers, and Bungie (as well as later metaserver adminstrators) could control what kinds of activities were allowed in certain "rooms"-- ranked vs non-ranked, etc etc. They were essentially playlists.
The matchmmaking model needs the largest possible player populations to work. That's why H3 has no custom game browser. The two systems essentially cannot coexist.
-------
Rampant for over seven years.