28 Replies Latest reply: Oct 19, 2012 11:08 PM by starbuckfrack RSS

Should all platforms get dedicated servers?

Ss78_

After recently watching a video about the PC version getting dedicated servers for ranked games. Trying to adapt to the problematic time I've had with MW3 due to having a low latency connection and host disadvantage. ( 50/50 fibre to the home is the lowest package available to me) I really am struggling to find concrete reasons for not having dedicated servers on the consoles too. If it stays the same either the host has an advantage or disadvantage as there seems to be no way back to what we thought was fine in the older titles. Yes better matchmaking will help, but even then there's still disparity between connections.

 

Any views on this subject?

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?

    its too expensive. it can be done on pc because i believe it has the lowest populaiton of gamers out of the 3 systems. activision like most other companies cares more about cash than gameplay.

    • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
      warzh311ion

      Sullivan speaks the thruth. It is a bottom line thing. Also, Dedicated servers do not always equal no lag, better connections. BF3 has dedies and lag/connection issues.

    • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
      Ss78_

      I don't accept the too expensive argument as this is a billion dollar franchise we're talking about. I'd need to see the math to believe that. Let's hope they care about keeping their cashflow by giving us good gameplay.

       

      @warzh311ion

       

      Not that I've played BF3 much myself but when I did play at least it didn't penalize me for being host. Just like people couldn't rage at me for having a host advantage.

       

      Maybe I'm missing something as to why the peer hosting is the preferred choice.

      • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?

        Ss78_ wrote:

         

        I don't accept the too expensive argument as this is a billion dollar franchise we're talking about. I'd need to see the math to believe that. Let's hope they care about keeping their cashflow by giving us good gameplay.

         

        ok. you dont have to like it but thats the reason. it would cost them millions a month. billion dollar company or not, no servers is a smart business descision.

      • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
        starbuckfrack

        Ss78_ wrote:

         

        I don't accept the too expensive argument as this is a billion dollar franchise we're talking about. I'd need to see the math to believe that. Let's hope they care about keeping their cashflow by giving us good gameplay.

         

        @warzh311ion

         

        Not that I've played BF3 much myself but when I did play at least it didn't penalize me for being host. Just like people couldn't rage at me for having a host advantage.

         

        Maybe I'm missing something as to why the peer hosting is the preferred choice.

        Why do they have to give you good gameplay when the gameplay they have now is acceptable for them.

         

        This isnt about what YOU want. It is about what the corporation wants.

         

        You can still cancel your game preorder you know. Problem is that you will still buy it and 6 months from now complain they still dont have dedicated servers.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    QwertyBoredom

    @warzh311ion Iv played loads of BF3 (on PC) and iv never had any noticeable LAG, but this might just be that I play on PC and actually use the server browser to make sure im playing on a UK server.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    Foxhound-Pro

    We've had this discussion before many, many times.

     

    Here's a quote from Mark Rubin of Infinity Ward that touches on the idea opinion and thoughts I have on this situation. Sources and link will be provided below.

     

    Please note that this article is a year old.

     

    According to Rubin:

    It’s easy for someone to say, ‘I want servers on console’. I don’t think everyone understands exactly what they are asking for. What that would mean, would be opening up data centers in every single city across the world because this is such a huge game of 30 million plus people. We have more than 33 million people playing Modern Warfare 2 all over the world and even more play Black Ops.

    There is a statistic which states that one in every four households in the UK own a version of Modern Warfare 2. Similarly, one in eight households owns a copy of Black Ops in the United States and sales in this region broke 13.7 million copies at the beginning of March, 2011. Rubin provided even more detail about the situation which really put things in perspective.

    So now we have to open up data centers in every city in the world, that has severs. And we are not talking five or six severs, and we aren’t even talking ten to twenty servers. We are talking about more severs than all of World of Warcraft in every little data station. Each one can only have three to four games on it at a time, at most. It just becomes this nightmare of trying to spend four billion dollars on trying to create a server structure.

     

    If we were a small game, servers on console might be something more achievable. We might be able to do a west coast server, central server and east coast server and that might be fine. But for us, if we actually did that, if I put a server in each region and you are somewhere in between you are going to connect to that sever and have horrible latency. In our game latency is important and you should be matchmaking with people close to you. So the actual thing here is that our style on console works better than dedicated servers from a latency standpoint. We know this is true; we have tested it from a numbers standpoint. The reality is that people think that is what they want, but they don’t understand the actual challenges.

     

    Source: Dedicated Servers for console, Spawn System, Knifing, and more.

    Site: Digital Warfare 24/7

     

    As I said, that touches on my opinion. It would be expensive and would put some players at a disadvantage depending on how far away from the dedicated server they are.

     

    Here's a quote from Vonderhaar. Please note that this is two years old.

     

    Hi,

     

    Please read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_server

     

    Call of Duty 1, Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty: Big Red One, Modern Warfare 1, World at War, Modern Warfare 2, and Black Ops are all Listen Servers (for consoles) and not Peer to Peer topologies.

     

    The only truly peer to peer game (using a literal definition) in the franchise was Call of Duty 3.

     

    This can never be "fixed" because of this little thing called the "Internet" and how it works.

     

    What we can and try to do is:

     

    -minimize the upstream bandwidth required to play

    -use the best networking prediction we can

    -continue to have the Local Search only option

    -improve the algorithm for how we choose the host

    -continue to work with Microsoft on how they do Matchmaking

     

    ...among other things.

     

    The common assumption that Dedicated Servers (instead of Listen Servers) will somehow solve all problems is not accurate. It's grossly over-stated as a cure-all. It causes new and different problems.

     

    What many people don't understand is that (on the 360) you have to bounce and authentic all "Live" traffic through what is known as the xLSP gateway/proxy. In the simplest sense, it's a type of Virtual Private Network (VPN) between us and Microsoft.

     

    All of the World at War stat servers (for example) run behind one. So does the infastucture telling you how may players are online; or the machine you get the Playlist from (etc, etc).

     

    Reporting stats to a database server is one thing; sending game traffic through the gateway/proxy is an entirely different beast which will increase latency.

     

    xLSP has policy guidelines and restrictions. The bottom line is that it both lets us offer a lot of stuff to you that Live itself doesn't offer (or has made generic to work with "any game" whereas we want to do something that works awesome for Call of Duty), but it doesn't exactly give us complete flexibility to do whatever we want either.

     

    In Summary:

     

    The game is not Peer to Peer.

     

    Listen Servers, Dedicated Servers, and Peer to Peer games can never be truly "fixed." They can just be designed and developed to work better on the Internet.

     

    Dedicated servers (for consoles) are not a cure-all.

     

    We are MP developers and gamers, thus aware of what it is like to play MP games on the Internet. Including this one.

     

    David 'Vahn' Vonderhaar

    Source: Original Post

     

    Just posting all of this for the sake of discussion.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?

    I think the game systems should have the best way possible for connection wise.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    starbuckfrack

    Ss78_ wrote:

     

    After recently watching a video about the PC version getting dedicated servers for ranked games. Trying to adapt to the problematic time I've had with MW3 due to having a low latency connection and host disadvantage. ( 50/50 fibre to the home is the lowest package available to me) I really am struggling to find concrete reasons for not having dedicated servers on the consoles too. If it stays the same either the host has an advantage or disadvantage as there seems to be no way back to what we thought was fine in the older titles. Yes better matchmaking will help, but even then there's still disparity between connections.

     

    Any views on this subject?

    Yeah.

     

    PC COD always get dedicated servers.

     

    Console versions never will.

     

    You notice the console versions never got one in almost 9 years right. Because Activision , who owns the game rights , doesnt want to SPEND money on Dedicated servers for COD games.

     

    And thanks Foxy for posting that. Now I got a bookmark

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    dandandandaman

    To be honest though if they could find a way around it I would be happy to pay more even a lot more.  Forget the care package version make a no lag version and Id be willing to pay the same amount.

    • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
      Ss78_

      I'm sure you're not alone I would too. If it's not financially viable due to the popularity then fair enough.

       

      Not sure if Moore's law applies to the server clusters out there and whether in the future it will be more viable. Maybe a silent gambling partnership could anti up for real e-sports betting guaranteeing their return investment. Who knows.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?

    Obviously "they should", as the biggest game company in the world... And if anyone here says they shouldn't, they have become so much of a fanboy that they don't care about what theirselves want anymore. That's when you know you have a problem... At least put dedicated servers up for 1 playlist, a clan playlist or something. This company is absolutely ridiculous. Microsoft released that new game "Happy Wars" the other day, and it's a FREE GAME and it has dedicated servers for all players around the world, so Activision can do it for COD. I think another reason they don't want to do dedicated servers is because they release another game every single year, the game is dead too fast. Most game with dedicated servers expect to have a 2+ lifespan, COD is just DLC on a disc every year.

    • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
      maccabi

      astrodude1 wrote:

       

      Obviously "they should", as the biggest game company in the world... And if anyone here says they shouldn't, they have become so much of a fanboy that they don't care about what theirselves want anymore. That's when you know you have a problem... At least put dedicated servers up for 1 playlist, a clan playlist or something. This company is absolutely ridiculous. Microsoft released that new game "Happy Wars" the other day, and it's a FREE GAME and it has dedicated servers for all players around the world, so Activision can do it for COD. I think another reason they don't want to do dedicated servers is because they release another game every single year, the game is dead too fast. Most game with dedicated servers expect to have a 2+ lifespan, COD is just DLC on a disc every year.

      they shouldnt, not because im a fanboi but because I have comment sense

    • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
      warzh311ion

      Did you even read foxy's post? Just because some little free game got dedies does not make it fesable that COD should have them also.

       

      Maybe if COD had a smaller community, like BF3, then yes. But as it stands too many people play this game to have this work. Even on one play list. Even if they did dedies in each city, how would that help? I don't know about you but my FL contains people from many different countries.

       

      Let's do some math here:

       

      Game = 12/16 players ( we wil say 12)

      Server = 5 games = 60 players/server

      If they put 20 server in each major city (we will just do us) = 1200/city

      Let say they deploy in 60 citys = 72000 players

      Copies of MW3 sold in US = around 13,000,000

      Players left out? = 12,928,000

       

      So haow many servers would they need to support everyone?

      216,667 just in the US

       

      Cost?

      At 1200 a server = $260,000,400

       

      Should it be done?

       

      No

      • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
        maccabi

        warzh311ion wrote:

         

        Did you even read foxy's post? Just because some little free game got dedies does not make it fesable that COD should have them also.

         

        Maybe if COD had a smaller community, like BF3, then yes. But as it stands too many people play this game to have this work. Even on one play list. Even if they did dedies in each city, how would that help? I don't know about you but my FL contains people from many different countries.

         

        Let's do some math here:

         

        Game = 12/16 players ( we wil say 12)

        Server = 5 games = 60 players/server

        If they put 20 server in each major city (we will just do us) = 1200/city

        Let say they deploy in 60 citys = 72000 players

        Copies of MW3 sold in US = around 13,000,000

        Players left out? = 12,928,000

         

        So haow many servers would they need to support everyone?

        216,667 just in the US

         

        Cost?

        At 1200 a server = $260,000,400

         

        Should it be done?

         

        No

        Easier way... each server farm would basically need the entire infrastructure of world of warcraft in it.

        min for usa would be three server farms , europe and uk 3..

    • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
      Foxhound-Pro

      astrodude1 wrote:

       

      Obviously "they should", as the biggest game company in the world... And if anyone here says they shouldn't, they have become so much of a fanboy that they don't care about what theirselves want anymore. That's when you know you have a problem... At least put dedicated servers up for 1 playlist, a clan playlist or something. This company is absolutely ridiculous. Microsoft released that new game "Happy Wars" the other day, and it's a FREE GAME and it has dedicated servers for all players around the world, so Activision can do it for COD. I think another reason they don't want to do dedicated servers is because they release another game every single year, the game is dead too fast. Most game with dedicated servers expect to have a 2+ lifespan, COD is just DLC on a disc every year.

       

      It's possible to hold different opinions without being a fanboy or being illogical. Arguments against dedicated servers have always been sound for the most part. So you're generalization and assumption do no justice and provoke no constructive response. You've essentially become a point of conflict. Try not to post like that.

       

      Next time try: "I don't understand why someone wouldn't want dedicated servers." - At least that way someone could engage and explain more than putting up with your ignorance.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    starbuckfrack

    This was more meant to astroboy1, sorry for the mispost.

     

    Simple solution.

     

    Its another year they dont have Dedicated Servers. And thats because that is the companies choice due to the fact it is their game.

     

    Its not the fact that we are fanboys of anything. Its just plain fact. They said they dont want dedicated servers for COD AGAIN. Doesnt make us fanboys because we are telling you a fact. and that fact is the owner of the game said no. Some people are allowed to disagree with you but that doesnt make us fanboys.

     

    Even if they said some kind of excuse why they didnt make the game with dedicated servers the fact is that the owner of the game said NO. Doesnt matter what anyone of us say, whether is a technical answer or not. They owner of the game said no dedicated servers.

     

    You again have a choice, buy the game and accept it , or just kee your money in your wallet. Its been said every year for about 9 years, you want to make a stand and show you want dedicated servers then do not buy the game. But instead you guys who want them STILL purchase the game year after year.

    • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
      Ss78_

      I'm not sure why you replied again to me as you already made your standpoint of your opinion on what you think clear with your last post. Let it go m8. Maybe you were replying to someone else and if that's the case fine.

      • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
        Foxhound-Pro

        Ss78_ wrote:

         

        I'm not sure why you replied again to me as you already made your standpoint of your opinion on what you think clear with your last post. Let it go m8. Maybe you were replying to someone else and if that's the case fine.

        You're the OP so if he replies to the thread in general, without replying to someone, then it is labeled to you.

         

        He was replying to someone I did.

         

        Edit: That's why all non-directed posts in the MW3 TU/HF notes are addressed to candyslexia.

      • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
        starbuckfrack

        Ss78_ wrote:

         

        I'm not sure why you replied again to me as you already made your standpoint of your opinion on what you think clear with your last post. Let it go m8. Maybe you were replying to someone else and if that's the case fine.

        It was a general post to some of the later responses , like the "fanboy" post.

         

        Sorry for the wrong assumption, but I was on the way out the door when I responded mostly to the fanboy post.

         

        My bad

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    Jackky360

    If it reduces lag, yes.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    biron_w

    If they sort out the netcode/match making/host selection then there really shouldn't be a need for Dedicated Servers.

    People didn't ask for them with COD4/WAW/MW2 because the games ran fine,for the most part,without them.

    It's only since MW3 came out that people are asking for them because theere are serious issues with that game.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    QwertyBoredom

    In an ideal world yes of course dedicated servers are much better on the whole than this P2P system that is currently used but as its already been said it would cost too much money for what good it would do (its all about pro and cons) and at the end of the day Activision IS a company and there primary objective IS to make the largest profit possible this is kinda what capitalism is about.

  • Re: Should all platforms get dedicated servers?
    nicedrewishfela

    I think Macc, Starbuck, and especially Foxhound summed it up perfectly. There is no reason for this thread to continue after they so aptly explained why Dedis aren't the answer.

     

    I think the devs are ultimately more knowledgable than all of us, and they are going to do what is best for the majority of the community. If Dedis were feasible and in the best interest of the game, they would use them.

     

    All we can hope is that the Netcoding is strong. Online games will always have some degree of lag issues until everyone in the world is on one big giant LAN. The CoD community is so large and diverse that you are bound to get some folks with poor internet service, and will always have to deal with players from a variety of countries and locales around the world. If the game is strong, these issues will be minimal.