COD4 11 million

[MisterBubbles]

so COD4 has 11 million online users and COD WAW has a lot too So why still no dedicated servers. Activision tight B******S discuss
HAPPY GAMING !!!

[EvilBoris]

Well Imagine those 11milliom people logged in at the same time, with everyone playing in a 16player match it would require 687550 servers all with their own badwidth. That would wipe out all the profit the games made, just to puchase the hardware!

[capcom_suicide]

Well Imagine those 11milliom people logged in at the same time, with everyone playing in a 16player match it would require 687550 servers all with their own badwidth. That would wipe out all the profit the games made, just to puchase the hardware!

Good point EB!

XBL itself (Just logging in, and the backend SQL for that) fell over with the release of COD4.

Having the required Bandwidth & CPU for actual games hosting is something else again.. Not easy!

We finally are getting VDSL2 here, I can choose from 2 packages:

30 mb down / 5 mb up - ?58 a month

or

40 mb down / 20 mb up - ?68 a month

As VDSL2 takes off I am sure that server hosting may ease, as I don't think it is easy for the games devs when they get demand for 3 million concurrent connections....

KZ2 has done a reasonable job hosting servers, but it's not without issues, still doesn't have the Halo3 party system and hasn't had the load of other bigger games.

[Matt]

I can't help but comment when people dismiss the need for dedicated servers. It's only this console generation that has made it acceptable for players to host games rather than the publisher/dev providing the servers and bandwidth at no cost. And to me, that's no acceptable. Dedicated Servers ensure a much better game. Without them, Competitive Gaming has no value.

CoD4 has a lot of players, no doubt. However, that won't be 11million users on at the same time, LOL. That will be total users who have played the game online. Which will include plenty of people like myself who played it quite a bit but no longer have it, multiple people using the same machine, etc.

Also, a large percentage of that 11m will be PC users. They can setup dedicated servers - upload the game package to a host you pay for, and away you go. I don't know if Activision have any dedicated servers setup themselves for PC gamers, I'd imagine they do if anyone can confirm?

What often happens in PC land is you buy a dedicated server (say as a clan) and it can host whatever game you want. I'm surprised a console manufacturer has worked out there's money to be made in doing that - you don't pay per game, you pay say £20 per server and can change what game is on it via an interface.

Though let's not forget, there are plenty of places hosting public PC game servers for free. There must be a business model there to let them do that.

I dare say Counter Strike has far more active players online than CoD4, or at least it has had in the past. Right now looking at GameSpy, HalfLife has 64,312 players online - they'll all be playing CS. CoD4 PC has 21,307.

Dedicated Servers provide a better online gaming experience. Hopefully we'll see more for console gamers in the future. KZ2 is a good example of this, I've never had any real lag or latency issues when playing it, and never blamed the game when I die.

Capcom, yes mate, when we all have 20meg uploads, dedicated servers may be less important. But don't forget, Ping is the most important statistic. Maybe the host on console games should have some ping emulation to even things out

Edit - also in case people get caught up in the numbers game, you do NOT need one dedicate PC/360/PS3 per dedicated server. A server runs the backend code, you could quite happily run multiple dedicate sessions on the same machine negating the need for tens of thousands of dedicate machines. With 21k PC gamers online right now, you wouldn't need 1,300 or whatever PCs

[Leon Retro]

COD4 is an excellent game; definitely my favourite fps this generation. If dedicated servers are much better, I think they should be available. The publisher has grossed a lot of money - and they need to treat their customer base well. Online gaming needs to be as solid as possible.

[MisterBubbles]

yes that what i was try to say say COD4 has sold 7 million that times 40 quid is a lot of moolah but what do we get in return gamed that hardly playable,if K2 can put on dedicated servers im sure COD4 can too Activision have no dedicated on 360 or Ps3 plus you pay 40 quid a year for XBL something free on PC, i cant tell you how many COD4 and COD WAW games have been ruined through lag but hey its our faults aye Boris
HAPPY (lag filled ) GAMING !!!

[Matt]

My two main issues with CoD4 online were the spammy nature of combat, and the KillCam. Now, the KillCam is a wonderful idea - it shows your how you got killed, you can learn from that, and it answers the "WTF happened there!" question. Great idea! Yet in practice, all it does is highlight the woeful inadequacy of the current console online infrastructure. How many times have you emptied a clip in the back of someone, only for them to turn round and kill you. The KillCam comes on and rubs your face in the latency, showing that actually the server had you were facing the opposite direction having a little dance.

Bloody annoying.

I'm not saying Dedicated Servers stop latency problems, but they improve it as they'll tend to have better pings than gamer hosts (obviously they'll invariably be on better internet connections) and also, everyone is on a much more even field.

There can be no argument that because a game is wildly successful, the dev/publisher can't supply dedicated servers. If a game that sells a few million can, a game that sells ten million can. In fact, economy of scale would surely have the cost of dedicated servers lower for such a high number.

[bingo83]

Also, a large percentage of that 11m will be PC users. They can setup dedicated servers - upload the game package to a host you pay for, and away you go. I don't know if Activision have any dedicated servers setup themselves for PC gamers, I'd imagine they do if anyone can confirm?

The figures quoted where for 360 only - 11 million on 360 and 4 million users on PS3. I am sure PC would be somewhere in the middle.

[Matt]

The figures quoted where for 360 only - 11 million on 360 and 4 million users on PS3. I am sure PC would be somewhere in the middle.

Wow. That's a huge number!

Activision have certainly made a mint out of that. Add the figures together from sales and Live subs, they need to talk to MS and setup some servers.

Ideally, you'd have a choice - join a public dedicated server, rent a dedicated server, or just host at home as you can now if you want quick private games. I'm a firm believe in giving the user as much choice as possible

All Ranked games should be on Dedicated Servers though.

[EvilBoris]

This discussion has been had many times before and I too believe that choice is a good thing, what you have to remember is that none of the companies want to turn their consoles into the overly complicated PC gaming experience (I think you'll find they are trying to make it more accessable) but some hidden Backdoor options for Multiplayer servers wouldn't go amiss (ubisoft have done this on a couple of games).

I'd imagine if this was they were commonplace in games you'd still end up with many of the same problems, because most people who are "hardcore" enough to set this up on a console would probably be doing it for their own gain.
They'd still have a large advantage over other players and would be able to manipulate network conditions to their own advantage and who is to say that having a giant list of dedicated servers means that they actually have a connection suitable of hosting the game anyway and what is to say that they haven't got another family member downloading through bittorrent when the server is sitting in a corner being 'dedicated'?
Or what if they then have so many dedicated servers you spend most of the time in a 1/4 filled game waiting for enough people to join your one because the fairly stable number of players are playing in parties in games that are already full?

[Matt]

Er, a dedicated server isn't someone at home with a PC. Well it can be, I've done that before, but only for friends to connect. I used to run a private dedciated Neverwinter Nights server, but that's not what we're talking about.

A dedicated server would have a proper connection to the internet, not DSL based. At least a T1, mayeb a T3, with very low latency. I don't think many people would be in a position to set one of these up at home for "their own gain". LOL Torrenting? I don't think you get Dedicated Servers. I don't mean the Rainbow 6 implementation of someone setting up a dedicated server on their console on a DSL line, though at least that ensures there's no "host" advantage.

"Manipulate network conditions" also isn't relevant.

Firstly, you'd get the devs / publishers, and probably in this case the console manufacturers, setting up dedicated servers. I keep discussing online PC gaming, because that's the blueprint I expected to see on consoles - and yes, I can't recall a PC game I've played online in the last 15 years where the title wasn't supported properly online in such a way. Even old titles still have a small number of dedicated servers running.

Then you'd have companies hiring out servers to clans, as I've said the business model exists and must be profitable because they've been doing that for PC gamers for many, many years. You can set these up to either be private with a password, or public; or any combination.

Then you'd also have the option to host yourself for private games, as you do right now on most console games - you're operating as both the client and server, playing on your own hosted game. Maybe you don't want to play a public game, just want some mates to get together. So you'd run things how you're running them now. In this example, you are NOT a Dedicated Server, obviously.

I don't understand your "1/4 filled games waiting for players" comment - you can get that right now on any game. I don't see the point you're trying to make there at all. That players are playing elsewhere so you're left on your own? Er.... what has that got to do with a server being Dedicated or not??

Sorry man, but "is that none of the companies want to turn their consoles into the overly complicated PC gaming experience" isn't relevant either. A dedicated server would be no different to what you currently have in many games - you can Quick Join, Browse Servers, Join Friends, or even Setup your own game. Just a couple of clicks as the consoles currently have. We're not talking configuring ports or anything.

KZ2 is probably the most obvious example to talk about right now, as most people would have seen it recently. You want to "Host", you setup the game how you want, and that session is ran on a dedicated server. No different to how say you setup a Gears2 game, except the hosting is moved to a dedicated server. It's not a concern for the home user, they don't have to do anything "technical" other than click Start Game.

End of the day, if you enjoy online gaming, you'd get a better game from a dedicated server. Unless you're one of those chumps who hosts every game to give themselves an advantage, dedicated servers enhance the online experience and give everyone a more even playing field.

[Matt]

I'll post this so it's clearer:

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

Listen Server = Client and Host, which is what we see on most console games.

And just for fun, a quick link to a US site showing the costs of a T1 line - as you can see Boris, people wouldn't be setting these up at home for their advantages

http://www.t1shopper.com/

$550 to $1200 a month for a T1 line. T3 is $7,500 to $14,000 a month

[EvilBoris]

The better game environment isn't purely due to the greater bandwidth it's also down to the machine not having to waste precious number crunching power on rendering a pretty game.

You do realize that all the smug smilies and LOL's make you look very arrogant and rude don't you?

[Matt]

I'm not looking to be rude. Arrogant? In what sense? That I know what I'm talking about and pointed out the inaccurate statements you made? Given how incorrect some of your points were, I thought my reply was rather polite. Lots of Smiles to show I was laughing.

Maybe the site should have a Sarcastic Smile so you know when I'm being sarcastic in the future That's not one by the way, that's a genuine smile.

Now, as for saying the better gaming environment isn't purely down to bandwidth, well no. Ping is more important and loads of bandwidth. You only pass along so much. More bandwidth would allow you to increase the frequency of packets, but you also need low packet loss. I often find in these conversations people get Lag and Latency mixed up. Lag is caused by low bandwidth and/or packet loss, Latency by ping.
Not rendering the graphics may be a slight, tiny factor on the gaming experience, but it's fractional. Except possibly on a PS3 game that uses the Cell for some of the graphics. I don't think that even matters though. A Dedicated Server handles some physics, hit detection, maybe AI if it's part of the online game. Nothing usually that processor intensive. Most stuff is still client side - animation, particles, even ragdolls last time I worked on anything.

Servers don't compute an awful lot, if they did, when you host a game on your 360 you'd notice a degraded gaming experience compared to playing as a client.

[EvilBoris]

Isn't there a marginally degraded experience though, the infamous host advantage? The reason I mention the processing speed is that there are a silly amount of variables that you can set for both the server and the hosts (that are configured by each user) in a Source engine server. These settings are configured according to that users connection, it would be a step in the right direction if developers used systems that either autodetected or was at least a little more flexible. I guess one problem is that most home connections fluctuate alot making autodetection hard.