Some of you may have already seen this, but to bring it to everyone's attention, Battlefield developer, DICE, have somewhat used the backlash against Infinity Ward's
recent announcement of a peer-to-peer solution for multiplayer for the PC version of
Modern Warfare 2 to not only reassert their dedication to the PC platform and its myriad users, but also as another reason it might be worth waiting for the lush
Bad Company 2, due out March next year.
Speaking on the series'
official blog page the developer had this to say; "since Battlefield 1942 DICE has used dedicated servers for all platforms. This formula has worked well, and still works well, for us and for the gaming community. We have stayed true to this practice and will continue this tradition into the upcoming title Battlefield Bad Company 2."
They also follow this up with a bit of shiv into IW's decision, maintaining the strength of DS over P2P with a handy FAQ in tow.
If you haven't seen the stunning Bad Company 2 multiplayer debut
gameplay trailer yet,
hit this link.
Posted 09:56am 28/10/09
Posted 12:22pm 28/10/09
All the more power to them!
Posted 01:14am 29/10/09
Bring on Bad Company 2!
Posted 01:25am 29/10/09
Posted 10:43am 29/10/09
Posted 10:49am 29/10/09
Valve are the only ones putting their money where their mouth is.
Posted 11:21am 30/10/09
Posted 08:08pm 02/11/09
The FAQ only says they have 'trusted partners with datacenters worlwide that you'll be able to rent a dedicated server from...'
If this is the case, then they are truly only cosmetically different to IW.
Posted 08:17pm 02/11/09
But you are spot on; with things like Heroes they are largely just cosmetically different. I personally think it's almost worse than what IW doing.
Posted 08:22pm 02/11/09
Posted 08:31pm 02/11/09
Controlling the software is one way that they (feel that they) can do this. Dice have done it for a while with Battlefield and Splash Damage did it with Enemy Territory: Quake Wars. The idea is that if the dedicated server software is controlled, the stats system can't be gamed so easily.
This, I feel, is true to some extent. People are douchebags and will spend hours trying to hack the traffic between the dedicated server and the stats server in order to 'fake' the information and give themselves forfty million kills and no deaths.
I personally feel that clever software design, solid crypto, regular software updates (which are done ANYWAY) and some remotely decent analytics running on the stats database would be a better solution. I don't have a lot of evidence for this, of course, because noone has tried it yet - but I feel that it is more important for GAMERS to have a wider variety of game servers than it is to have a ruthlessly accurate world ranking system.