Modern Warfare 2 Server Response

[News Reader]

Modern Warfare 2 Server Response
Game Informer were first in line with the responses from Infinity Ward, with this peculiarly unpleasant article by Adam Biessener. The Game Informer writer says of the general outcry about the news that MW2 would not support dedicated servers for online play: "Predictably, nerds across world took to the Internet with a wailing and a [...]

Author: Jim Rossignol
Category: RockPaperShotgun Activision infinity ward modern warfare 2
Publish Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:00:19 +0000



Game Informer were first in line with the responses from Infinity Ward, with this peculiarly unpleasant article by Adam Biessener. The Game Informer writer says of the general outcry about the news that MW2 would not support dedicated servers for online play: "Predictably, nerds across world took to the Internet with a wailing and a gnashing of teeth that would make the Left 4 Dead community proud." Or perhaps we - nerds or otherwise - were justifiably upset about a change to a proven way of doing things, a change no-one seems confident will be to our advantage. The article goes on to quote Infinity Ward's Jason West saying ""We're just prioritizing the player experience above the modders and the tuners... we thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game."

There's a more detailed breakdown of what IW are proposing over on Robert Bowling's blog, which makes for a clearer response. I'm a little dubious about the anti-cheating claim, however, since dedicated server admins have gone a long way to self-policing the community, and I feel like IW's claim that they'll be able to deal with it might be a little bold.

Related stories:

• -More Modern Warfare 2 Multiplayer Footage
  
  -No Dedicated Servers for MW2?
  
  -Modern Warfare 2: The Enfootaging

Posted by rossignol. |
77 comments |
Donate or subscribe to RPS |
Post tags: Activision, infinity ward, modern warfare 2

This article is from Rock, Paper, Shotgun. If you're reading it on any other website, they're stealing it from us without permission.



Read more... - Read comments...

Source: Rock, Paper, Shotgun

[fabyak]

[Grimmie]

Cool story, bro.

[Dog Pants]

we thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game

Wait, what was already happening? Are the COD4, COD2 and UO servers full of people who hate the game?

[deject]

Wait, what was already happening? Are the COD4, COD2 and UO servers full of people who hate the game?

That's their story as far as COD4 is concerned.

To be honest, the only real negative (or at least one that isn't countered by an IWNET feature) is losing the ability to have community based and supported servers. Friends lists and player parties make up for some of that, but it's still not quite the same thing. I still will probably get MW2, but unless I can get it for less than $50 I'll be playing one of the other games on my plate. Hell, BEEF:BC2 is coming to PC, and it's supposedly not a console port.

[buzzmong]

Hmm, I wonder what Activision are doing at the moment.

I suspect they'll have noticed the massive amounts of bad press, and I also suspect that lots of people will be asking questions if IW have kept the whole thing quiet internally.

[Roman Totale]

Apparently I am a "hardcore minority gamer" for preferring to choose and play on a specific server. This is because I can navigate a server browser instead of just pressing 'Play Now!'.

Seriously, has IW been taken over by complete fucking imbeciles? They claim that the "majority" of gamers don't understand how to use the current system - fucking bollocks. At first I thought this was just a PR fuckup, but it looks more and more likely they just don't want to develop for the PC anymore.

Either that or some bigwig somewhere has cottoned on to the fact that the games industry is one of the few places actually raking the money during the recession. So they say "here you go, this is your allotted fun time - we will tell where you can and can't play, don't colour outside the lines, and play the way we want you to - no unauthorised fun allowed.

Cunts. I'll bifurcate their faces with an axe.

[HereComesPete]

To be honest, the only real negative (or at least one that isn't countered by an IWNET feature) is losing the ability to have community based and supported servers.

Really? The whole thing, including the laughable and rage inducing response from activision is the negative as far as I'm concerned.

Who are we going to blame? The 'hardcore elite', the same people who supported us in the early days with buying and playing old cod.

Who are we trying to encourage? The non-leet casual gamers. Who rarely play anyway and won't buy it if easily swayed by their more hardcore friends who tell them it's shit.



What about the slap in the face to the modders? The people who helped keep them going in the early days.

What about the fact that pc players will be testing a beta in terms of IW.net matchmaking, for more money and less choice than the last game?

The fact that they will charge for dlc and then move the servers over to the map packs and horse anyone else out? Then they'll push out another modern warfare and move that onto the servers so you'll never get a game with MW2.

The whole thing is a fucking shambles and I can't believe you'd willingly pay up to $50 for it.

I think the best I can hope for is to it, enjoy SP for a few hours and then forget about it.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

what he said.

[amblin]

.

[TezzRexx]

all of the above. Sweep for single player, leave it.

[deject]

I honestly think everyone is make a far bigger deal about this than is warranted. That said, I buy multiplayer games to play with friends, and since most of the people I know are not getting MW2 now it has dropped very far down the priority list.

[Dog Pants]

Well it's bound to cause a big reaction. Personally the price had put me off to begin with so I'm not particularly bothered, but I do think it's a bad move on their part and I hope that if they do release it in such a state and it fails it will act as a warning to other developers.

[Dr. kitteny berk]

I honestly think everyone is make a far bigger deal about this than is warranted. That said, I buy multiplayer games to play with friends, and since most of the people I know are not getting MW2 now it has dropped very far down the priority list.

I think you're missing the major point.

No. Dedicated. Servers.

and it seems, only listen servers.

Do you want to play on a game hosted on someone's ADSL and gaming machine? How many times have you started a game, then realised you have torrents running? or that someone else on your connection is running torrents?

I generally work on the basis that for decent gaming you need 1mbit (each way) on a server for 6 players, beyond that it can get a bit laggy.

How fair can a game be when there's always one player running at 0ms? it's not a huge amount, but it can be enough.

So, in summary:

Poor servers, not configured for game hosting.
Insufficient bandwidth (also low quality bandwidth).
Player with a 30-50ms advantage over everyone.
Support for maybe 10 people total on most home lines.

[Gunslinger42]

I honestly think everyone is make a far bigger deal about this than is warranted. That said, I buy multiplayer games to play with friends, and since most of the people I know are not getting MW2 now it has dropped very far down the priority list.

The fact that they decided to charge more for it had already angered some and made others a bit less interested, then when they start stripping out such common and evidently desired functionality (especially when that functionality is what fosters gaming communities popping up) then it's understandable that so many 5punkers (and many other players in general) got pissed off and finally said "ok, fuck it. I'm not buying"

[spoodie]

<img src="http://spoodie.com/gallery/main.php?g2_ ... alNumber=1">

[fabyak]

[TezzRexx]

[Dr. kitteny berk]

[Stoat]

Infinity Ward server browser code, b.2003 - d.2009, unchanged.