Players Only Able to Rent Black Ops Servers

fulano

New member
Oct 14, 2007
1,685
0
0
This is a test by Activision to see if it sticks. They're trying to monetize this thing that used to be for "free" when included. It's their right, of course but, whatever, just wait. In five to eight years time they will have split their consumer base, offering ranked games and other goodies to paying customers, and then offering barebones peanuts to those playing on their own.

Either way, Microsoft did it first with Xbox live where only paying customers get to actually play.

Hopefuly Valve doesn't join the bandwagon but we'll see.
 

Cynical skeptic

New member
Apr 19, 2010
799
0
0
runedeadthA said:
I am curious, can someone tell me How and What the benefits of these servers are supposed to be over normal dedicated?

I don't see why they can't just stick with freakin' normal dedicated servers! -sarcasm- Is it because of all the hackers and cheaters you hear about on Valves servers? -/sarcasm-

*sigh* It's to hard to form community's in games anymore :(
Seems more like its an intentional attempt to sabotage the formation of communities. Counterstrike, for example has had a very strong community for 10 year now... a community that really only plays counterstrike.

Chew on that for a second.

From a business standpoint, that paints developing a community as a risk to be avoided.

Not to mention, the people weakly supporting this don't realize they're making you pay for what you used to get free so they don't have to worry about a "community" burrowing itself into the game like a tick. They want you buying the next game, not playing this one forever.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
13,191
3,653
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
arc1991 said:
I can see a lot of haters coming here and hating the idea.

Personally i welcome it, get a few mates together to all chip in, then you can play with your friends...and only your friends, and it is optional.

i see no problem here really.
It still comes in a pale second place to what we PC gamers are used to: The ability to host our own servers and run whatever rules we choose on them. Though I will grant that it's a fair step foward that Treyarch will also host free servers.

On a side note, the guy in that picture may be in for a world of hurt if he fires that M4A1- it looks like his left middle finger is pressed directly against the bolt (or at least the dust shield- hard to tell).
 

Roboto

New member
Nov 18, 2009
332
0
0
unabomberman said:
This is a test by Activision to see if it sticks. They're trying to monetize this thing that used to be for "free" when included. It's their right, of course but, whatever, just wait. In five to eight years time they will have split their consumer base, offering ranked games and other goodies to paying customers, and then offering barebones peanuts to those playing on their own.

Either way, Microsoft did it first with Xbox live where only paying customers get to actually play.

Hopefuly Valve doesn't join the bandwagon but we'll see.
My biggest concern is that they are trying to gain exclusivity with the server provider. 9/10 players will not realize a difference, even on PC, since dedicated servers will continue to be rented out. Dedicated servers were never free to set up, someone had to foot the cost.

They monopolized who can rent the servers out, though, by making only one company the sole provider. This looks a lot more like Activision getting cash for exclusivity from the server providers to maintain exclusivity.
 

Lord_Panzer

Impractically practical
Feb 6, 2009
1,107
0
0
Isn't this what Battlefield 2 had?
It's been so long since I've played it, I forget.

Anyways, this is better than nothing, but it's still kinda limiting.
 

Onyx Oblivion

Borderlands Addict. Again.
Sep 9, 2008
17,032
0
0
Furburt said:
vallorn said:
ok while its not realy whining its the thinly veiled threats and attack on "Mainstream" gaming that made me wince at it.
I'm not attacking mainstream gaming at all, I'm saying it's in a bad state at the moment.

And seriously, threats? You honestly think that's a legitimate threat? Jesus Christ.
Mainstream PC gaming, at least. Mainstream console gaming is doing fine. I was thinking of saving money when I get my next job to build a gaming PC, but PC gaming is looking worse and worse to me. With the only real support coming from Valve and RTS developers. And I don't even like most of Valve's games or RTSs. Honestly. though...Would it really be worth it at this point? I'm not likely to uses mods, either. I have Oblivon and a PC that can run it decently, and I'm not even bothering to mod that. Basically, I'd be building a PC for Diablo 3. Or other PC exclusives.
 

GothmogII

Possessor Of Hats
Apr 6, 2008
2,215
0
0
Typhusoid said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
Well, it's better than nothing, right?
Its that sort of attitude Activision are trying to encourage. Sure, its better than nothing but just remember that a few years ago this service was expected of every game. For free.

If Activision can successfully get people used to subscription fees in an FPS for things like this, god only knows what MW3 will be like.
Actually, that isn't entirely true, as Roboto mentioned up there, setting up and running a server is not free, but many people who do so allow players to play on them for free and subsist on donations.

I think what this is, is allowing the player to rent a server from Treyarch. Presumably this will include maintenance on Treyarch's part and take a lot of the load of actually running it like a normal server. However, this could be good or bad depending on the quality of the servers you'd be renting. And of course, I'd imagine it would mean less freedom for the server renters.
I actually came in here about to spew fire and brimstone about how this would set a bad precedent if this were a fee to play multiplayer at all, but, this does not seem to be the case.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Why can't they just let us host our own servers? Why can't they just let things be as they were since PC gaming began? Player-hosted servers are fine, and have been working for, what, two decades now? Why do they have to do this? Yes its better than nothing, but its just stupid.
 

Colonel Alzheimer's

New member
Jan 3, 2010
522
0
0
unabomberman said:
Hopefuly Valve doesn't join the bandwagon but we'll see.
The only way Valve would do anything like this is if it came to the point where they could not be profitable without making players spend money for dedicated servers, or maps, or hats or whatever. Valve is very far away from that point right now, but as you say, the industry will be different in 5-8 years. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it, because Valve relies on Valve relies on their customers loving them more than any other company, so any measures they take will be very minor.
 

fulano

New member
Oct 14, 2007
1,685
0
0
Colonel Alzheimer said:
unabomberman said:
Hopefuly Valve doesn't join the bandwagon but we'll see.
The only way Valve would do anything like this is if it came to the point where they could not be profitable without making players spend money for dedicated servers, or maps, or hats or whatever. Valve is very far away from that point right now, but as you say, the industry will be different in 5-8 years. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it, because Valve relies on Valve relies on their customers loving them more than any other company, so any measures they take will be very minor.
No. Valve is a company that exists to make games and make money. As such there is no way to know what they will or will not do. I just hope they stick to doing what they're doing. That's all.
 

Eggsnham

New member
Apr 29, 2009
4,054
0
0
Meh, I don't game on PC anyways, and I agree with a few other people here (emphasis on few) that it's not really a big deal.

*Looks for his flamesuit*
 

Buizel91

Autobot
Aug 25, 2008
5,265
0
0
Charcharo said:
Ya know what activision. I will save my money for STALKER 2 / Metro 2034
Even if you somehow support mods (i dont see this happening) you will charge our souls for it.
Not worth it!
Did you not see that Treyarch are hosting their own for free?

It's Optional!
 

Rednog

New member
Nov 3, 2008
3,567
0
0
Meh, the prices are kinda made me wince. Granted I've never rented a server, I've only hosted my own. But considering communities built around player run servers are helped a ton by people bullshitting on their mics, this game doesn't have a built in voice chat system? WTF? MW2 does, so why is Black Ops taking a step back? So you have to tack on the cost of a teamspeak server? That really isn't super appealing for people who want to have their own servers.

I'm not too worried though, I wouldn't be surprised if someone breaks the game and lets you connect to private servers. And I honestly wouldn't feel bad about it at all. Why pigeon hole the player by forcing them to sign with Gameservers? Me buying the game from Activision/Treyarch is a contract with Activision/Treyarch not gameservers, so they can piss off for all I care.

Edit: My only reason that I feel somewhat strong about this is because most games I play, I play on servers with mods. Counter Strike: WC3 and Superhero mod all the way, I haven't touched the regular version in years. TF2: Fast Respawn, RTD, Level/ability/custom weapon servers.
 

Dobrev

New member
Mar 25, 2009
93
0
0
That's not really a solution is it? As GameServers hold the exclusivity rights you still have no choice if you don't like their service. And if you experience lag, connection or any other issues you still need to get through long waiting times on tech support, wait for fixes, downtime, etc.

No private servers still means you are not buying a game but a service. Now it is just another company that charges you the rent.
 

Colonel Alzheimer's

New member
Jan 3, 2010
522
0
0
unabomberman said:
Colonel Alzheimer said:
unabomberman said:
Hopefuly Valve doesn't join the bandwagon but we'll see.
The only way Valve would do anything like this is if it came to the point where they could not be profitable without making players spend money for dedicated servers, or maps, or hats or whatever. Valve is very far away from that point right now, but as you say, the industry will be different in 5-8 years. However, I wouldn't worry too much about it, because Valve relies on Valve relies on their customers loving them more than any other company, so any measures they take will be very minor.
No. Valve is a company that exists to make games and make money. As such there is no way to know what they will or will not do. I just hope they stick to doing what they're doing. That's all.
While that's true, this and all the free content that they constantly are churning out point to the fact that their business model is based on people liking them. Valve constantly wins favorite developer awards or polls or whatever because they make sure that they get absolutely no bad press, and they work very, very hard to keep up their reputation. Valve's steady stream of awesome games, free content and good press serves one purpose: indoctrinating gamers in to thinking Valve is the best there is, and it would be foolish not to buy their products. Fortunately, this indoctrination has worked out quite well for gamers.