Post by trog @ 11:10am 06/09/10 | 49 Comments
GameServers.com Exclusive: ConfirmedMere words cannot describe what a terrible idea this is for a dedicated server-based game.
We have partnered with GameServers.com as the exclusive provider of dedicated servers for Call of Duty: Black Ops. Every dedicated server for this title will be running on top quality hardware and infrastructure with excellent bandwidth. There will be a ton of official servers at launch for everyone to play on for free. If you want to run your own server you will be able to rent one at a great price (which will never go higher than $0.99/slot). They are actively adding new server locations and staffing up to meet global demand. If you don’t see your location you can suggest it here: http://www.gameservers.com/blackops/
The entire reason you would make a game with dedicated servers is to allow as many people as possible to provide servers for your game, all over the world. Their actual announcement post actually admits that they don't have all locations covered - only ten countries are listed in their promotional page. Australia is one of them, though given the fact that most other new, popular titles require almost all of Australia's ISPs/GSPs to run servers to meet demand, I am skeptical that they will have sufficient capacity.
This is, in my humble opinion, a real kick in the crotch for any gamer that has been looking forward to this game. It will massively reduce the number of servers available on launch. It will mean no choice in which GSP community you play on. It will mean no competition in terms of renting your own game servers. It takes the main feature that makes the dedicated server model work so well - server accessibility to anyone, anywhere that can run a server - and strips it from you.
Latest Comments
49 Comments
Show
Follow Us
Advertisement
Log In
Posted 11:12am 06/9/10
Posted 11:13am 06/9/10
Posted 11:14am 06/9/10
Posted 11:16am 06/9/10
Posted 11:19am 06/9/10
sadly they will still sell millions of copies
last edited by ravn0s at 11:19:58 06/Sep/10
Posted 11:21am 06/9/10
Posted 11:24am 06/9/10
Posted 11:25am 06/9/10
Posted 11:29am 06/9/10
You honestly can't think of a reason why this has happened?
Posted 11:29am 06/9/10
Australia has always been a great testbed for dedicated servers. We're so far away, our ISP model is so weird, and our country is so big that it means having local dedicated servers is pretty much of the utmost importance when it comes to playing multiplayer games like this one.
We have only ever wanted a completely fair playing field for dedicated servers. I am personally opposed to the idea of the 'ranked server programme' that things like Battlefield and ET:QW use, even though it is better for us, commercially, as we are one of the few providers - because I strongly feel that programmes like that result in reduction of choice for gamers.
However, compared to the ranked server programme, this system for Black Ops is basically catastrophic for everyone. There is no way one single provider, no matter how big, will have enough servers world wide for a remotely popular FPS game at launch. Australians will cop it worse than everyone, because of the comparatively high cost of hosting services - something which is typically absorbed by ISPs when it comes to dedicated server based games.
I am a firm believer in the dedicated server model because I genuinely feel it is the best thing for gamers. It means you can play where you want, when you want. In a truly open model, it means you can run your own server and do whatever you want with it. It means that even if the company that started it gets bored of providing official services, there's almost always a way for you to play that game - as long as the server software is available, someone can run a server for it.
Black Ops will have massively reduced accessibility to gamers as a result of this move - particularly in Australia. I strongly advise you to take this into account before you make any purchasing decisions for this game.
Posted 11:29am 06/9/10
Posted 11:35am 06/9/10
I think the preferred model should be authorised dedicated servers - i.e., licensed with a serial which is tested online. If they out-sourced the auth process to a single, third party entity then I could understand that.
Posted 12:11pm 06/9/10
All good! :D
Finally kicking/banning, f*** i hate how you can't do that in mw2
Posted 12:38pm 06/9/10
Posted 12:42pm 06/9/10
epic disappointment
Posted 12:45pm 06/9/10
You can't just have everyone able to run ranked servers, because that makes it impossible to police the people that will be cheating the persistent features of the game -- cheaters boosting their character stats and unlocking everything in their own servers, then joining public ones and spoiling the experience for other players.
Posted 12:52pm 06/9/10
Posted 01:09pm 06/9/10
Posted 01:15pm 06/9/10
Posted 01:21pm 06/9/10
Fail of Duty: S*** Ops
Posted 01:22pm 06/9/10
Posted 01:24pm 06/9/10
Posted 01:31pm 06/9/10
companies are gettin so greedy and money hungry these days.
Posted 02:31pm 06/9/10
Posted 02:50pm 06/9/10
Posted 03:13pm 06/9/10
Posted 04:23pm 06/9/10
Posted 04:33pm 06/9/10
Not buying.
Posted 04:57pm 06/9/10
Even if mods will still work, this really sucks. I just can't see how this company will be able to host the 10000+ servers that CoD4 had up in its prime, and that this game could have had too. At least it made my decision easier: previously the side of me that hates Activision with a passion was waging war against the side that says this could actually be a good game. The latter side has gone.
Posted 05:35pm 06/9/10
Its prolly more like 2 physical machines for 14 game servers. If that.
Posted 06:19pm 06/9/10
Posted 06:32pm 06/9/10
Yeah I said that about modern warfare 2 but ended up buying it anyway but after only playing that for a couple of months I think I really will give this one a miss. Bad company 2 still has my attention at the moment and when that gets boring I fall back to trusty old modern warfare (1).
Posted 08:03pm 06/9/10
Considering I haven't directly admitted anything and couldn't have possibly pirated anything as it doesn't yet exist to pirate. I think I am fairly safe. I pay for games that deserve to be payed for, even donate. This doesn't deserve it.
Posted 08:20pm 06/9/10
Paid.
Posted 08:40pm 06/9/10
Posted 08:42pm 06/9/10
Oh true.
Posted 10:08pm 06/9/10
Posted 10:23pm 06/9/10
Posted 06:13am 07/9/10
I hope everyone who decided on this move dies in a horrific car fire...
Posted 08:18am 07/9/10
Posted 06:14pm 07/9/10
They come out saying all the right things then pull this one on us.
So they expect me to pay premo price for the game and my server is going to be in Sydney(Adelaide based)
, then $40 worth of map packs later server support will mysteriously drop off when the follow up COD title hits the shelf.
MOH better be good cos I need a change from COD4.
Posted 07:32pm 07/9/10
Why would they announce mod support etc and then f*** over the servers.
Posted 07:52pm 07/9/10
No wonder I have never heard of them.
Oh well looks like I have saved my self another $80 on an Activision game.
Its a shame cos they put so much work into them.
Posted 10:00pm 07/9/10
"They are actively adding new server locations and staffing up to meet global demand"
They would want to.
I looked up the Sydney server stats and they have a grand total of 78 players there on 9
different games. Nearly half are playing CS 1.6.
As a comparison at the same time Internode's Games on net have 1317 playing at the moment.
241 are playing the old COD4 alone and they once accommodated 2959 out of a possible 4222 players.
Multiply that by all the other major game servers and you get something more like what would be needed
at the initial release of Black Ops
Posted 10:39pm 07/9/10
My prediction is this: Basically as an Australian PC gamer with Black Ops in week one, you're now either going to be (a) waiting in a join queue for a GameServers.com server to play on OR (b) you'll be connecting to a US/EU one with completely worthless latency OR (c) they'll still have some non-dedicated connection method with matchmaking like MW2 to fill in the gaps.
There's also the wildcard option (d) where hardly anyone buys it because they're all educated consumers so this one provider are able to actually meet demand - odds on that happening though?
Which one of those would you prefer (trick question).
GLHF
Posted 06:39pm 09/9/10
Posted 12:53am 17/9/10
They are less consistent than......well..........inconsistency!
I refuse to buy another Activision game while Kotick has any position within that company.
Posted 01:17am 17/9/10
F*** the COD series.
Posted 05:08pm 21/1/11