Rage may drop support for dedicated servers too, following Activision's precedent.
id Software's John Carmack has said that upcoming shooter
Rage may well follow
Modern Warfare 2's precedent and recede support for dedicated servers too.
Speaking to
Variety, Carmack said that the idea wasn't definite at this point and that the team at id Software would be watching
Modern Warfare 2 carefully to see how well the idea of using listen servers might work.
"
It's not cast in stone yet, but at this point no, we don't think we will have dedicated servers," Carmack said.
"
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."
Of course, the idea may not work out very well for Activision - who are facing stern criticism from PC gamers, 184,000 of which have signed an
online petition campaigning against IWNet, Infinity Ward's system for managing multiplayer.
Many of the complaints stem from the fact that IWNet removes the capability for user-generated content and forcing players to rely on a P2P matchmaking system that may not perform as stably. Yesterday Infinity Ward announced
the maximum number of players had been culled in Modern Warfare 2 as well.
On the plus side, Carmack did say that
Rage was on-track for a 2010 release on PC, Mac, PS3 and Xbox 360.
Let us know your thoughts in
the forums.
That is over a million bucks in sales that they have lost assuming that just 20% of the signers where going to buy before the bad news hit. That's a lot of money for a small company to lose just to cut out a little bit of development time, after all, you guys already invented it before so it's not like you have to reinvent the wheel.
With IW.net, as far as I understand, you create a 'private' server for you and your 'friends' to play on. All well and good, but it doesn't sound too customisable and how do you build up a large public following? You can't, because it's for friends' which implies you already know them. Therefore, as you lose clan members, which happens, you have no real pool of public players wanting to join as you do now.
You will still have clans playing this, but no where near the volume they have now with COD4. I hope ID will see sense after MW2 release and shun the idea.
With IW.net, as far as I understand, you create a 'private' server for you and your 'friends' to play on. All well and good, but it doesn't sound too customisable and how do you build up a large public following? You can't, because it's for friends' which implies you already know them. Therefore, as you lose clan members, which happens, you have no real pool of public players wanting to join as you do now.
QUOTE]
Actual it works more like xbox live, which is a good thing. no cheating, no special abilities, just clean honest fun.
so get over it, because it would be as bad as the cry babies are making out. a bunch of girls the lot of them
You're joking, right?
The options are to put up with it and it will be on every game from here to eternity or not to buy the game in which case even the most pc friendly dev will have pressure put on them by their publisher to not even bother with the pc version since the sales will be low.
We know the sales are generally low because they are missing fundamental points that the consumer requires but the bean counters will chalk it up to piracy or write it off as still being cheaper to not bother with a pc version versus the lost sales.
This is the stupidification of gaming in the pursuit of profits from the legions of casual gamers. Core gamers that supported and created these companies are being ass-****ed and left behind. All bow down to your new Wii Fit playing overlords.
That's the funny thing though, relative to console gamers PC gamers are low but in the absolute they're not. In fact they've continued to grow over the years. Developers have a much wider audience of PC gamers now then when they did back when PC gaming wasn't looked down upon as a bunch of hackers and pirates. But the money is cretainly in consoles right now.
PC gamers are people too! Not just things :(
+1 lol
Unless he's planning something rather advanced, like (blue sky thinking time) some sort of virtual server that dissapears when people exit, but maintains a permement IP address that kicks into a new server when anyone else signs on. Otherwise though, it just doesn't make any sense, surely from the guy who invented Deathmatch he can see that?
You might be a coding genius, but betraying the players that paid you is just stupid.
Given that statement, I think it's a sure thing that he will have dedicated servers because as we all know MW2 is going down like a **** coverd lead baloon and nobody will want to be seen copying anything even close to that mistake.
I signed the petition against IW in the dedi scandal, I idnt think it was a good idea. Carmack said he was thinking about it for Rage, not that a final decision has been made.
Now I know that you are all thinking you are the smartest person in the room (and while you sit there with your blanket with sleeves thinking you are the King of your Castle) just chill out and wait.
Trusting someone like Carmack is always a good idea, since he is usually smarter than everyone else in the room (combined).
Maybe FPSs are moving away form the dedi model to something else. Maybe not, all the sky is falling crap and pointless assertions make posters look stupid, not Carmack.
We shall see.
Yours in Trust of Carmack,
Star*Dagger
P.S. Full disclosure, I know him and know him to be not only a God of PC Gaming, but a great person as well.
Most of the money from an individual sale goes to the shops, not the publishers and developers.
This game is going to sell millions, 180,000 isn't really gonna dent that.
Why alienate the group of users capable of keeping a franchise going for years? Look at EA's multiplayer games outside the Battlefield series. When EA decide to turn the servers off, that's it, game over. Meanwhile, users can host their own BF2 servers and it is still going strong. I've little doubt that people are still buying BF2 from retailers in decent quantities too.
^this x100. people are getting mad over something that may not happen. And until MW2 is released then none of us will know how the multiplayer option will work out.
Meh... I remember when Steam first started and everybody wanted to boycott it over spyware & privacy issues, as well as alledged changes to the multiplayer experience. It didn't happen.
Granted Q4 was pirated into Oblivion (though they contributed to that by being lazy about the story and making the MP QIII with better graphics) so they would have reason to protect their product but they need every single sale they can. Put it this way I was considering a 360 depending on the deal this Christmas but Rage isn't a must-buy title by any stretch, I'd catch up with GTA IV first of all.
On a side note...
Why is PC gaming so unreachable for a lot of people, thereby making PC gaming less rewarding financially to devs/pubs? Even though we all love PCs like our lives depend on them, most people are not like us and don't have inquisitive, PC-literate brains.
Blue screens ... illegal operations ... random disappearing windows ... back-to-desktop crashes ... reboots ... 30 second hangs ... upgrades! A massive part of owning a PC is upgrading the buggers - I love it, you love it, Joe Bloggs down the road hasn't got a friggin clue about it, and likely never will.
We can work these errors/bugs/problems out and fix them, or patch them, and stop it happening again, because we know this PC voodoo-magic stuff and we don't let it beat us, or if we cannot fix it then we'll damn well sort it out however we need to to get to the solution. We all know it's just a matter of time, patience, forum posts, maybe tech helpers located anywhere around the world will eventually answer our prayers or we'll answer theirs to find solutions.
Consolers, even though they are limited to their lack of intuitive controls, lack of decent communication devices and general lack of any friendly social communication devices or features, lack of multi-tasking, lack of work-friendly software (ie. Office, etc), have gaming exactly how they need it - spoon fed to them by simple mechanics, simple gameplay, simple controls.
And to sum up, I guess the devs/pubs are favouring them over us because there are more of them, hence the money is with consoles.
Is the 'PC Gaming Alliance' an impotent task force that has done fk'all for PCs and PC owning families? By now we should have a simpler set of rules for PCs that enable people to negate most, if not all of the errors and problems associated with hardware conficts and upgrading. But instead we are now at a stage where we get daily news stories of PC games being ports from consoles, or lack of dedicated servers ... who would have thought 1 year ago, that companies would be making PC MP games minus dedicated servers?
A quote from: www.pcgamingalliance.org
If it fails and they still stick to the p2p system then they're idiots and will not sell many games in the future. This will cause PC gaming to slow and probably fail altogether.
However, if it's successful and we've all been whining for no reason then all should remain good. Not sure about clans because I've never been in one.
So it's best to see how it goes and then complain because until then, IW will not listen to any of us.