CoD: MW2 will NOT have dedicated servers for the PC

[Maniacal]

However, in a recent podcast, he also revealed (at the 1:41 mark) that the PC version will not have dedicated servers, nor will it support user-created mods like the original.

Instead Infinity Ward will be using a propriety matchmaking network called IWnet that runs along side Steam to do all matchmaking so that it will "allow matchmaking for our PC users as well, just like you have on a console that’s built in on Xbox Live and PSN."

Sources:
http://worthplaying.com/article/2009/10/18/news/69454/
http://www.destructoid.com/mw2-not-delayed-on-pc-will-not-have-dedicated-servers-152335.phtml

http://www.modernwarfare2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=123824&sid=4843b583334fcb26e5d09b1c5c86d939

Main thread on IW's forums about the lack of dedicated servers, plus every single other thread in the PC section is about the same issue.
===
So apparently there will be NO support for dedicated servers (like how pretty much every single multiplayer FPS game uses) instead there will be a console-esque matchmaking service? What the bloody HELL is this crap?

 

[Metromonkey]

I can't see how anybody at Infinity Ward saw this as a good idea. All it does is cement it as a console port and make PC users unhappy.

 

[e350tb]

I think they've just shot the PC version in the foot, and I only play single-player at this point in time.

 

[Jos Ballenbak]

WTH!?

Have they all become mindless zombies?????

 

[tycoonist]

call of duty has always been better on console anyway

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

MW2 has gone from an insta-buy to a case of 'screw dat' for me, if this is the case. If I pick it up, it will probably only be at a knock-down price and only really for the SP, as the MP will certainly be a lame duck without proper server support.

Hopefully this is just miscommunication, but it doesn't especially look that way. It's a shame as I'm sure the game itself is great, but the multiplayer aspect is going to be pretty hobbled if this is true.

The petition that's been going around for dedicated servers has more than 70,000 signatures at the moment. I stuck a signature onto it, although more out of hope than expectation that it will actually do anything:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw

There's no reason not to add a signature really, it only takes thirty seconds and at least it sends some kind of message to the devs / publishers, who must surely be aware of it by this point.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Even Hitler is pissed about this news!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vOMuAhz6rE

 

[Kozmos]

Maybe if your IQ is 85.

They are doing this for two reasons:

To curb piracy...in a very failtacular manner.

To cash in on DLC which will have to be bought via this IWnet thingy.

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

Another one of those edited clips, along the same lines as the Hitler one:

http://www.grapheine.com/bombaytv/movie-uk-d247752b3936b67d88d8f53e66be67d5.html

 

[Maniacal]

call of duty has always been better on console anyway

Not really no. Maybe CoD4 wasn't bad on the console, but keyboard + mouse > x-box 360 or PS3 controller (unless you plug in a keyboard and mouse but very few people do that and is not the norm).

The Call of Duty series gained popularity on the PC and ports to console of the first two games were meh. I never really hard about them and don't know anyone who has played them. Call of Duty 3 sounded pretty mediocre too. IIRC those were made by Treyarch.

Besides, it doesn't matter if it's good on console or not, that is NOT the debate, the taking away of a standard feature for multiplayer FPS games and only have this matchmaking thing with no support at all for dedicated servers (which provide a stable and generally more reliable experience than matchmaking systems, which have run into many problems).

I'll be surprised if the multiplayer matchmaking system works for the first week or more, with over 2.2 million pre-orders, that is going to place an extremely heavy demand on IWNet.

 

[tycoonist]

Not really no. Maybe CoD4 wasn't bad on the console, but keyboard + mouse > x-box 360 or PS3 controller (unless you plug in a keyboard and mouse but very few people do that and is not the norm).

The Call of Duty series gained popularity on the PC and ports to console of the first two games were meh. I never really hard about them and don't know anyone who has played them. Call of Duty 3 sounded pretty mediocre too. IIRC those were made by Treyarch.

Besides, it doesn't matter if it's good on console or not, that is NOT the debate, the taking away of a standard feature for multiplayer FPS games and only have this matchmaking thing with no support at all for dedicated servers (which provide a stable and generally more reliable experience than matchmaking systems, which have run into many problems).

OK my bad. i really only meant cod4 and 5. which i really do find more fun on console. i have cod4 on the pc, and played it loads, but i love the ps3 version much more. the aiming difficulty is part of the fun for me, it has a higher learning curve. whereas on the pc, it is just another point and click fps for me. for me, pc is best for twitch gaming/stuff which needs real team work (like tf2). cod4 was neither of those things, much better on the console.

i know aiming is easier with the mouse, but that definitely does not make it a better game. and i know i could easily whip my console self if i played myself on the pc (if that makes any sense ) but i'd still rather play on console. cod4 on pc quickly got very samey, whereas on console i kept progressively getting better. on pc, i reached my ability ceiling very quickly. on console, i am at (on average) about a 2:1 kd, and i feel i can still get better.

i dont know much about how servers are normally run, though i can see this being annoying at the very least. however, i maintain that it is just one of the games which is better on consoles. for 99% of people, performance will be better if nothing else. some games are better on consoles, some on pc (anyone who bought tf2 on console was clearly screwed over massively)

 

[Metromonkey]

Maybe if your IQ is 85.

They are doing this for two reasons:

To curb piracy...in a very failtacular manner.

To cash in on DLC which will have to be bought via this IWnet thingy.

There are other ways they could have done these without removing the use of dedicated servers. Making it a steam exclusive is one way. Besides people are still going to pirate the game just for the singleplayer.

 

[Maniacal]

Being on steam will NOT stop piracy of singleplayer, and there are not a lot of pirate-friendly cracked servers for games either, which also have just as much if not more maintenance required.

 

[Hammurabi II]

MW2 has gone from an insta-buy to a case of 'screw dat' for me, if this is the case. If I pick it up, it will probably only be at a knock-down price and only really for the SP, as the MP will certainly be a lame duck without proper server support.

Hopefully this is just miscommunication, but it doesn't especially look that way. It's a shame as I'm sure the game itself is great, but the multiplayer aspect is going to be pretty hobbled if this is true.

The petition that's been going around for dedicated servers has more than 70,000 signatures at the moment. I stuck a signature onto it, although more out of hope than expectation that it will actually do anything:

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?dedis4mw

There's no reason not to add a signature really, it only takes thirty seconds and at least it sends some kind of message to the devs / publishers, who must surely be aware of it by this point.

Yeah I feel the same way. Went from practically a day 1 buy to...meh....when it gets alot cheaper. Very disappointed. And yeah I signed the petition out of desperation as well lol.

 

[Kozmos]

They've just given a reply with some info on IWnet to respond to the outrage....and it was the most horrendous pile of spoon fed I have read in the last two years. I'd say whoever wrote it writes speeches for politicians. I am so pissed off. There will be no dedicated servers...cancel your preorders, forget about the game and look forward to Bad Company 2 or BF3. IW can kiss my ass.

 

[Rub'Rum]

omgwtfbbq. Where the hell are we going with this *@#^#@*&.

Edit: And they increased the price for it too, a few months ago didn't they? Like, by 10$. It'll be a 60$ on the PC (and a whopping 70$ on consoles).

Let me get the vaseline.

 

[Maniacal]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/103/1036859p1.html

Link to article.

I've never EVER run into a hacker in ANY CoD game I've played. And VAC while effective does NOT stop hackers either nor even seems to be effective in discouraging those who do hack either, no anti-hack system is.

Party System: Since when did your group of friends in an FPS become an rpg Party? At least the steam community will be useful. However, how exactly is it better for clan use over a the clan having their own server to practice in?

Matchmaking: I choose servers based off who plays on them and the community feel to them (except in some mods with few active servers, and even then I still have preferences). I also do not want to just play with people my skill level, how the hell are you supposed to get better if you fight people the game "thinks" are at your skill (and what probably lame mathematical equation will they be using to determine that? And what if my friends and I goof off for a match or I am just having an off day? Will my rank drop a lot and I'll be stuck with players not as good the next time I play? (More of a concern for players who prefer 'pro' and competitive high skilled gameplay...)).

Finding the best ping and stuff is nice enough but I honestly don't really care and rarely play on west coast servers (partly due to a lack of them but mostly because people I want to play with or more people are on the east coast servers).

I like how they said "this allows you to play custom games right out of the box without the need to install mods", wait, so previous games HAD to be modded to be playable? What the hell is he trying to say.

And they still havn't said anything about where the servers are and how many... I remember with CoD4 easily finding 20,000 servers in a single search (most empty of course but still). How do they plan to handle the millions of people all playing the game after launch when most games suffer major problems with that on their similar networks? Even x-box live goes down during holidays.

EDIT:

MUCH better post on the official forums about it that makes some more sense, and actually explains the party system.
http://www.infinityward.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=128182

 

[tycoonist]

i have seen loads of hackers on cod4 on pc... i wanna know where you play!

i actually think the same skill thing is good. of course you will improve - nobody gets better by playing worse people, and nobody get better if there getting sniped at long range by some pro every time either. i should think that if you goof off for a bit, it won't dramatically affect your "skill level", and if you have an off day, then maybe your skill level should drop. you're only as good as your worst day, in my opinion. plus if your ranking did drop substantially enough for you to be left with worse players, you'd be back on top in no time cause you'd be better than them right? right? i sure as hell wish i could play with more players my standard on console cod4, slaying morons isn't that fun.

modded cod4 was rubbish, from what i saw of it. i didn't like any of the maps, and the other mods were always just inferior to what was in many ways a pretty perfect game already. so i dont care about not having any modding ability.

oh and if you bought an xbox, then you should suffer the consequences. and xbox live is one of them.

 

[Munch]

This is a terrible decision.

No player-based administration of servers? One of the best things about CoD4 dedicated servers is that you have a wealth of choice and variety. If you think martyrdom is a ******** perk that ruins the game, you will find plenty of servers that are moderated by clans who kick people for using it, or who kick people for sending abusive chat messages, etc. But under this new system there won't be any player-based moderation of servers. Good luck getting a good game anywhere.

Automatic moderation of servers is bound to fail. Punkbuster is good but it cannot help but stay one step behind the dedicated cheaters out there. I was briefly in a CoD4 clan and it took a dedicated effort of the membership to make sure that people weren't hacking, as new hacks that are undetectable without actually spectating the player keep appearing. This didn't happen often though, and it was a big thing, a ceremonial scalp even, to find a hacker. When they were found, we submitted the evidence to the punkbuster central admin and they imposed a worldwide ban, and it was good.

No browsable list of servers? I don't understand why having a server list that you browse to find a game to join is made out to be such a bad thing! It's not rocket science; you can filter servers of a certain kind, find a game that suits you and has a good ping, and if you like the atmosphere there you can favourite it and come back another time. This works fine as it is and I have several CoD4 servers on my favourites list that I know are run by people who care about the game experience. Servers where you know anyone who acts like a prick is going to get kicked or banned. So much for that.

Peer-to-peer style hosting of games? So the guy who hosts has about zero ping, and is practically legally cheating. Stupid idea.

i have seen loads of hackers on cod4 on pc... i wanna know where you play!

Are you serious? I rarely ever see hackers. Maybe you are playing on punkbuster-disabled servers?

 

[tycoonist]

punkbuster is really rubbish... VAC is way better (thats not even to VACs credit though, punkbuster is such fail)