id top dog John Carmack says its upcoming shooter, Rage, is likely to go the way of Modern Warfare 2 and ditch dedicated servers.
The world went ever-so-slightly mental when Infinity Ward confirmed MW2 was throwing out the age-old server system in favour of a new IWNET matchmaking system.
Rage
Official trailer
0:41Fight the prowlers that be!
Rage
Official trailer
0:41Fight the prowlers that be!
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 0 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
But Carmack says Rage will probably go down the same route: "It's not cast in stone yet, but at this point no, we don't think we will have dedicated servers," he told Variety.
"The great thing is we won't have to be a pioneer on that," he added. "We'll see how it works out for everyone else."
I just don't get it. hey why don't you devs just cap the max res to 720p, cut out eax support and force us to use controllers as well. Hey these are an "age-old" way of doing things as well so it must suck.
Yep, and for the first time I genuinely feel that Carmack and iD are true "sellouts". This is all the more reason to push back, and push back h-a-r-d, against the publishers and developers that place a strong emphasis on the MP aspect of their games and then leave the PC crowd high and dry. As many have suspected, Activision may set a dangerous precedent with "MW2"; it makes me all the more determined to continue resisting and I'm glad I blew off Activision/IW and instead chose to part with my money for Valve's "L4D2". I also think DICE's "BBC2" looks rather good, and with their continued support (so far,) of dedicated servers I'll likely buy that game as well.
The bit that worries me most about this is that it rules out mods one of the great reasons for playing games on a PC.
It's all about the bottom line and forcing you to buy from them if you want more. How long before we have to pay for altering any settings?
Bingo. Personally I know how far I'll play along with the clown antics of publishers and developers. Should they cross that line I'll simply walk away from them and spend my money elsewhere - be it gaming related or otherwise. They do not have a monopoly on "fun past times". Apparently it is a lesson some of them need to be reminded of.
Well hopefully IWNET will crash under millions of PC users all trying to access it at once, create a load of complaining, and id will think
"mmm... maybe that's not such a good idea..."
It would be highly fitting. Unfortunate for the PC gamers whom have decided to buy "MW2" in order to play MP, but I would take a particular delight in seeing Activision/IW squirm under the potential intense pressure. Hopefully I'll be proven wrong, but I don't expect Carmack nor iD to support dedicated servers. One more game by one more publisher/developer to add to the black list.
What I do see is the life expectancy of an online game vastly smaller than games before. You can still jump on Quakeworld server, Quake2 and counterstrike years after they were first released. Will MW2 last longer than 10 years? I seriously doubt that.
Wel to be quite frank we are lucky only one developer so far has mentioned more on this subject.
IW and Activision have gone quiet about dedicated servers which is not a good sign probably meaning they will once again say shove it to the pc market. The consolers now wonder why we made such a big fuss about it all.
Until developers start realising we are the ones who pay for their wages and keep them afloat I am done with the ones who will give me underpar games. Rage and MW2 are ones I wont be missing this rate as there are plenty more games out there done by developers who give us the gamers freedom in what we want to do.
@Kimoak: Aye, if these companies expect me to hand over cash for a premium priced game that does not support dedicated servers, then I want a well vetted, tweaked, all but completely bugless game upon launch that lasts at least 10-12 hours if not more to compensate. Having more games where alternative ways of playing a game, along with different endings, would also help prolong it's lifespan.
@AJ: I'm right there with you. "Rage" had me mildly interested. Emphasis on the past tense usage. Sure, I'll read the reviews of it, but it's a long way from there to actually plonking down good money for the game.
I don't know what is involved programming wise in regards to enabling a game to support dedicated servers, yet surely just creating the software in a game so that it can be done by third parties won't be anywhere near as expensive compared to actually running the servers? The publishers/developers would benefit from prolonged online relevance since it would encourage some gamers to buy the game even after the relatively brief shelf life many games have in the "Top Sellers" slots expires. The gaming community would get more entertainment out of the game thanks to modding and vibrant online communties. It would result in a win-win situation for both sides whereby each group gains a greater return on its investment with dedicated server support than without it (presuming the gameplay is actually any good and/or resonates with enough members of the gaming public, but that's another topic entirely).
@KFD: Publishers don't earn money from gamers taking a prolonged interest in their software. They only earn money from the initial sale of the game. By including matchmaking software it means the developer can pull online support for a game when running matchmaking servers no longer becomes financially viable. This also generates further revenue as it forces users to upgrade to the newest version of the game. Activision, like all big publishers are a money making machine. They don't genuinely care about customers enjoyment or welfare, the only important thing is that they have a desirable and profitable product to sell.
@KFD: Publishers don't earn money from gamers taking a prolonged interest in their software. They only earn money from the initial sale of the game. By including matchmaking software it means the developer can pull online support for a game when running matchmaking servers no longer becomes financially viable. This also generates further revenue as it forces users to upgrade to the newest version of the game. Activision, like all big publishers are a money making machine. They don't genuinely care about customers enjoyment or welfare, the only important thing is that they have a desirable and profitable product to sell.
Quite right, Sleepy. However, the point I was making is that if a game remains popular due to third party mods and longevity brought about by online sessions, then it can result in X amount of people purchasing the game on top of the core fans if that is something that appeals to them. On top of that there is the possibility that the game would continue to sell for a longer period of time as gamers whom either hadn't heard of the game or put it off their "To Buy List" might suddenly be tempted at a later date (a la "Oblivion" which has an absolutely staggering amount of mods - not all good, but some of professional quality nonetheless).
I harbour no illusions that companies like Activision and IW are in this business solely out of the love of gaming. I like to think that some of the developers do still enjoy gaming from time to time, but this is a job and it's business which means the bottom line is one of the, if not the, Holy Grail(s) for them. I don't generally have a problem with companies and people wanting to make money; what I do on occasion take issue with is how some of them go about generating said money.
The reason they are going down the console route with online gaming is, so next year when they bring out there next game people will need to move across as IW.NET start shutting down support MW2 and forcing them to buy the next game to play( manyly PC gamers because console games have a short life span).
1. Console = short game life (More money in a short time) 2. PC = long game life (Less money at the start but maybe more money in the long run)
But this is the problem with finance people today they are always looking for the short gain. You see it in all businesses today, quick gain layoff people in stead of putting money away at the start for a rain day. Anyway back to the question at hand.
If you look at Battlefield 2, they have dedicated server support BUT also have a quick game option that will hunt out a server for you (could be the matchmaking option).
What gets me is that gaming is now more about money and less about gaming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The reason they are going down the console route with online gaming is, so next year when they bring out there next game people will need to move across as IW.NET start shutting down support MW2 and forcing them to buy the next game to play( manyly PC gamers because console games have a short life span).
1. Console = short game life (More money in a short time) 2. PC = long game life (Less money at the start but maybe more money in the long run)
But this is the problem with finance people today they are always looking for the short gain. You see it in all businesses today, quick gain layoff people in stead of putting money away at the start for a rain day. Anyway back to the question at hand.
If you look at Battlefield 2, they have dedicated server support BUT also have a quick game option that will hunt out a server for you (could be the matchmaking option).
What gets me is that gaming is now more about money and less about gaming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Agreed. I'm so glad I work for a company that took the long term planning (from a business perspective) when it was founded, and that the founders of the company - one of whom is my boss - continue to maintain this approach. That's not to say that they won't make "business decisions" if push comes to shove, but at least they are flexible.
I actually think this is a good thing for the PC gaming industry (and hopefully the gaming industry as a whole). I can see all the big developers and publishers going down this route which leaves the door wide open for the smaller devs and independents to gain a big advantage. This may well lead to more innovative games and reset the games industry. We have already seen big strides in this on the Wii with Wiiware and on the 360 with community games, which both offer some great little games that seem to have more innovation than most of the full priced games.
Stop complaining so much and just go out there and buy from the smaller companies that are more interested in great games than profit.
You may be on to something there, Leefear. One issue I experience with that though, is that those smaller indie developers need to catch my, and others', attention. This usually means you either need to have solid financial backing to get the message out there, or such a good/revolutionary product that word-of-mouth does the talking for them until it becomes so loud it's hard for game media outlets to ignore. While this is not an impossible feat, it is a difficult one considering the heavy weights that routinely throw their weight around and blitz many customers' attention spans. I'm confident there are numerous indie-like games I haven't even heard of because I do place a good amount of importance on production value which tends to entail having quite a bit of money to successfully execute it. Still, new things arise from the old so you may be right.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
