worst case is that they make it so you can get a direct server through IW only or something if they want to maintain control.

"[It] definitely made a big wave, and the response will not be ignored. I'll ensure everyone at IW sees the petitions and responses to it,"

I'm sure this will entail a mass "point-and-laugh" followed by a mass wiping of asses.

Well it's gone now. Fourzerotwo's twitter has no such tweet on it, in fact the newest tweet as of right now is telling us to read a blog on why we shouldn't miss dedicated servers.

PC gamers don't want the XBL way of gaming forced upon them.

i shrugged it off a year or two ago when i realized my new console games were going to have very poor multiplayer setups/options.. but if it happens to pcs gaming is pretty much dead for me

I can see why IW chose to take out dedicated servers and such but I really think it should be an option.

Matchmaking simply isn't for everyone.

lol jim you come across as a jerk... personally i am a console gamer but i still play pc games now and then and i can totally see why people are angry nothing better than logging on to your favorite server where everyone knows your name (insert cheers intro song)
this console war thing has really shed some light on the haters from all platforms i wonder are we all that spoiled?
i remember the days of omg wow you have a sega? that's so coool i got a Nintendo wanna come over and bring your sega so we can play all night
perhaps its the nature of the internet itself, the ability to let anger out with no consequence ?

Jim, let me see if I can explain dedicated servers to you.

Now, on a typical console/matchmaking system a scheme known as Peer2Peer is used where a local "server" is opened up on the hosts machine. Players connect to the host and bounce data off of him and back to themselves. This gives the host a tremendous advantage as he can locally calculate all data for the game while others have to send it over the network.

Now, with dedicated servers, there is a box in a datacenter running code for the game that will run just the networking portion. There is no graphical game being displayed so the box can work on only processing the connected player's data and not running the game at the same time. This evens out the host advantage. One of IW's arguments for their new system is that, apparently, a server browser is too hard for the "average" PC gamer. I cannot even begin to explain this one. It's point and click. Nothing hard there. The typical PC community setup is a server of like-minded players that regularly play together, building a sort of game "home" with the other players. What IW wants to do is almost exactly the same as the Xbox version of CoD 4, with player parties and private matches. As I'm sure you've inferred, this doesn't create the cohesive community we enjoy and pretty much flies in the face of such a concept. To be honest, it's hard to think of the concept of a 'casual' PC FPS gamer. The cost of entry to such a hobby tends to weed out those who aren't themselves dedicated to the game. This is almost exactly what IW seems to be gearing the new system towards. Matchmaking and P2P connections just aren't what PC gaming is about, it's pretty much the opposite. We want our community, our control over the game and how it's played (server options, admins and so forth) and we want to be recognized as non-second class gamers. We absolutely understand that the console market is larger, but we don't like getting sloppy seconds. If you're going to bother putting a game on our platform, we expect it to utilize the best our platform has to offer, and that's dedicated servers and a tight knit community.

Best,

The One Without Remorse

Nerd rage. Delicious, impotent nerd rage. I hope it never ends.

Why is Jim defending the worse option? Didn't he complain for months when Gears 2's "wait 20 minutes, play 10" matchmaking came out?

Damn, I forgot to add this, but with a P2P system the game is limited by the host's Internet connection. A typical domestic Internet connection is NOT setup to handle a large game. This will mean the end of 30+ man games in this game. A dedicated server's network connection is often much better, being that it resides in a datacenter, and this allows the large games that many of us love.

@N0R3M0RS3 I agree with that, but hell I assumed they were lowing the number automatically in light of this information. Like 12 max. I'm also sure their will be some form of bandwidth testing determining how much you can do and how much you can't.

If not then I'm on the dedicated boat as well, honestly it shouldn't be that much I'm sure Activision will farm it off to DemonWare or some other crappy party. Then it's not much better...

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but Infinity Ward's recent response to the outcry for the lack of dedicated servers is a giant middle finger.

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2009/10/20/modern-warfare-2-dedicated-server-response.aspx

I'm so utterly disappointed in IW. From dragging their feet on CoD4's PC mappack (that NVidia had to plunge a damn fork in their ass to release on the PC), to 20% price hike, to the now bungle of dropping dedicated server support.

I'm sorry, I can't in good conscious continue to support IW's games.

I understand their venom. Had it not been for D-server options, I wouldn't be playing RtCW:ET still :D.

Dedicated servers are dying out because connection speeds are catching up. Hosting a game also reduces the douchbag factor that is so easy to encounter on games with straight-up matchmaking.

The appeal of logging on to play with random people is waning. More and more, we see people talking about online co-op being more fun than online multiplayer with matchmaking. And honestly, its true.

MMOs have dedicated servers, but even they had to devise things like instances and more soloable content because... why kids? Because while playing with other people can be fun, being dependent on random people to progress/enjoy is usually what makes these games frustrating, that is, unless you're playing with people you know. Same thing with shooters.

The Diablo III stuff was 100% BS, the StarCraft II thing was a misconception, but this is serious stuff.

They're supposedly doing a lot more than getting rid of dedicated servers.
This what has been announced:
> IW has control of the game
> IWnet servers will host multiplayer
> DLC will be a charged item for PC
> No dedicated servers
> Matchmaking system used to play with similarly ranked players
> VAC instead of PB
> Semi-capable password servers
> Semi-capable ad-hoc servers
> Competitive play is dead
> MW2 mods would not be possible
> Full integration into Steam

The reason we're so attached to dedicated servers is because I can go onto my favourite TF2 server (a game that's still awesome, thanks to free, constant, DLC) and play a game of CTF with a timer in 4 digits (It takes a LONG time to win a match, and there's almost always a good one going), and play a game I know I'll like whenever. Not so with matchmaking. I may get an awesome game, or a mediocre one. I may get shouted at and abused, if that happened in a dedicated server, they'd be kicked off by a friendly admin.

Basically, it adds so much more potential to a game, and that's not even considering modding (which adds even more potential), that I pretty much won't play a game without them. Why should I, when the old games are still just as fun (maybe even MORE fun) as they used to be?

I love my consoles, but I simply cannot imagine a PC game being played by waiting for some service provider to put you in a game. The Call of Duty franchise has been played on the PC, by PC gamers and their "clans" for so long that fans of the series just expect that their community will be able to get a server and set it up exactly the way they want it.

Not to mention that this throws mods out the window completely, which is a HUGE fucking reason to play computer games in the first place.

No mods = Pissed off gamers

I like to poke fun at nerd rage just like the next internet-er; but this topic is sacred to pc gamers

uncool move IW

This is a great example of the fundamental difference between PC gamers and console kiddies. PC games know what they should be getting for their money and they set out to make sure that happens. The console crowd sits back and gulps up overpriced games and map packs and don't have anything to say, but "whens the next 10 dollar 3 new maps pack for us to consume?". I am so happy I am a dedicated PC games and I only play the rare console game (I have a 360 and get my games for free (not pirated) so I can play anything I want).

I am not happy with Avtivision and will not buy MW2 for 60 dollars and with no dedicated servers. They thought they could change the mold and charge us PC gamers more and leave us with the crappy console system of multi player, but its not going to happen.

lol no dedicated servers AND 10 dollars more...

I don't think I can be not buying a game any harder than I am not buying this one.

@Robbo; A top-end PC, yes, but a console-level PC you could probably buy now for about the same as a console. Prices rise fairly sharply towards the top-end, but only people with too much money buy at the top-end.

LAN!
Dedicated Servers!
Same release date!

BLARG!!!

You can easily get a PC that plays console ports at max quality with a good framerate for the price of a PS3/Xbox.