Players Only Able to Rent Black Ops Servers

Recommended Videos

manaman

New member
Sep 2, 2007
3,218
0
0
arc1991 said:
Logan Westbrook said:
Treyarch's Josh Olin says that no one will need to rent a server in order to play online, as Treyarch will be hosting servers that players will be able to connect to for free, but he believes that the partnership will make it easier to handle cheaters and hackers. GameServers CEO David Aninowsky said that his company is committed to providing the best service it can, and that it is putting itself under a lot of pressure so that it exceeds all expectations.
Is everyone missing this paragraph?
No they are not missing it. The point is player hosted servers are gone. Sure you can play online, but if you want the equivalent of a player hosted server then you have to rent one. Why? It's not necessary, they intentionally locked out what was always a option in games to milk more money from people. That's what people don't like.
 

smeghead25

New member
Apr 28, 2009
421
0
0
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.
I'd rather have a LAN thanks. They should have user hosted servers as an option at least.

OT: They should have some user hosted servers as an option though, it is fun to cheat sometimes.
 

ImprovizoR

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,952
0
0
Morons. PC community will make their own servers anyway and they will be completely free. It's not difficult if you already have dedicated servers option. Muahahahaha
 

Unrulyhandbag

New member
Oct 21, 2009
462
0
0
Breaker deGodot said:
Onyx Oblivion said:
Well, it's better than nothing, right?

Edit:

Also, why do PC gamers have this massive sense of entitlement? Not just to dedicated servers, either.

But they feel entitled that all games MUST be better to play on PC than anything else.
Because they (myself included), feel that since the PC was the first great gaming device, it should also be the best nowadays. Silly, but true.
nice edit. short answer: I agree with you that some people are like that and it's bloody childish, however console gamers see that attitude where it simply doesn't exists quite often too.

much longer answer:
There's no such thing as false entitlement if your simply asking for a basic feature that's been around for years false entitlement requires unreasonable expectation.

Games are a crafted product with the only raw materials being man power, imagination and the computers to build upon.

Games are not plants that only grow in the deepest depths of the Amazon are pretty pebbles that can only be found in one tiny vein within a small region of the whole world. they are not by nature rare and unique things with genuine comprises made to get them to market.
They are a product that is designed from start to finish and if you design something why let standards slip? You save money by deciding what is necessary for your new product not by replacing the foundations with cheaper material, for a while console games were treated as though inferior by those making the games with worse network support, ugly interfaces and less complex games. why should PC games be superior? they shouldn't as breaker said it's just silly.
However if the console users won't make a fuss about poor design to their games then when the developers try to put the same short-cuts into PC games of course PC gamers complain. That's going to make them look like complaining sods that want more than console gamers, especially in the eyes of those not used to having such features.

As for the elitists I can see some of their arguments and how they grew to be issues in some minds. But there hasn't been many half arsed console ports in the last few years and I don't think the influence have been that bad.

let's see; off the top of my head the arguments run games got bad interfaces, poor graphics, streamlined, easier, shorter, hold your hand more and lack innovation.

Interfaces started to get console treatment but the rise of HD has largely negated to worst aspects of that and many devs give PC's a separate interface to suit sitting closer to your screen.

Games started coming with lower resolution textures and models than PC's had seen in a couple of years but again the current generation saw that improve and the slight hold back they are creating simply keeps more gaming PC's relevant longer (no bad thing in, my mind and one of the things I hoped xbox's introduction would cause)


Games got streamlined and give you full tutorials which makes things more natural to learn and making the game seem easier as you aren't struggling as often. yes the truly hard games are rare things these days but ridiculous challenge can be a distraction from the medium and often isn't needed.

Sometimes tutorials are bad, say if they embed a particular manner of play in a game about strategy and forethought. You can see this in many RTS games a lot of new players come into multiplayer and start building where they are put in the order the tutorials have told them progressing slowly through the tech trees and wondering why they get hammered. But in general tutorials are a good thing that allows newer gamers to get into the medium.

Games where getting shorter anyway. It costs to make games and it was getting more expensive.

Innovation; there's been innovation, maybe the pace has slowed but changes happen and every industry sees slumps in innovation from time to time. There's plenty of smaller studios for PC that take risks all the time and the best ideas do get used commercially. Example: Narbarcular drop becoming portal.

So while I see where the arguments and resentments come from I don't understand why some swear by them like a personal creed.

If someone were truly a PC elitist they could surely revel in the indie scene that no other platform has (barring the more successful indie games getting launched via psn and xbox live). That and PC gaming still being the bigger platform with a more healthy focus on varied products and more spread sales as a result.
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
GothmogII said:
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.
http://www.gameservers.net

They'll be the ones hosting the servers.
 

DocBalance

New member
Nov 9, 2009
751
0
0
Obvious anti-piracy measure is obvious.

Really, that's what this boils down to. It's yet another anti-piracy policy that might last slightly longer than the atrocity that was Ubi-DRM.
 

Canus

New member
Feb 15, 2010
61
0
0
Looks like Activision is taking after Apple. The fundamental advantage of PC gaming over console gaming has always been choice. Console t- err, "gamers" may be fine with the publishers slapping their hands and saying "no, you'll just fuck it up if you try to host it yourself," but I, for one, can't stand that. No one forces players play on the laggy or buggy servers, but I guess people used to the ecks-bawks can't be bothered to check a server's latency and rates. I've run my own Counterstrike server for clan practice for years now, and while it was initially a bit hard to set up, I appreciate being able to mess with it myself instead of having to do the tech support dance for a week with some probably-overseas outsourced call center. What about all the people who still love 1.6? If Valve ran things like Activision or Microsoft, they'd all be forced to upgrade to Source (for non-CS people, Source is the newer game engine but a lot of people prefer the old one). I paid for the game and if I want to dig my old PC out of storage in 20 years and show my kids how gaming was before we had synapse-jacks in our spines, that should be my right.
 

FlashHero

New member
Apr 3, 2010
382
0
0
So no mods and no room for freedom makes this a bad idea...i bet they have moniters checking to see if each and every copy is legit...which is fair but limiting legit customers for pirates is backwards thinking IMO.
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
I would rather this option was presented along side the option to set up your own server for the people who want to host but don't have the time or money to set up their own server. Lower the prices a bit and it could work really well. Still not buying the game though. Rent at most for me due to the fact that I always prefer CoD on my PC and I am not sure how well my laptop will run it. So I will pay five bucks or whatever to play the campaign then return it when I'm done.
 

The Imp

New member
Nov 9, 2009
170
0
0
Let's see:
1. Option for Activision

Include free Mod/Map Tools, Server Tools, LAN Support = a whole bunch of old school PC gamers, who appreciate the advantages of the system, will buy the game and, maybe, form a community like CS, CSS, TF2 so eventually people will continue to buy the game even 5 years from now.

2. Option for Activision

Kill free Mod/Map Tools = more map packs sold = more money
Kill Server Tools = work out an exclusive contract with a server hoster = more money
Kill LAN Suppert = Make sure nobody is playing the game offline = ultimate copy protection = more sold units = more money

12hrs to 4 Weeks after release: Cracked CoD: BO version hits the torrents, OCHs and FTPs including everything Activision killed for a higher profit = less sold units = less money

Sometimes i think the guys at Activision aren't that smart...
 

Zer_

Rocket Scientist
Feb 7, 2008
2,682
0
0
Canus said:
Zer_ said:
GothmogII said:
*snip*
http://www.gameservers.net

They'll be the ones hosting the servers.
It's http://www.gameservers.com btw. gameservers.net isn't a site.
Yeah I haven't actually been in years. My servers went down a while ago. They used to use the .net domain.
 

Meoith

New member
Jun 18, 2010
42
0
0
Onyx Oblivion said:
Well, it's better than nothing, right?

Edit:

Also, why do PC gamers have this massive sense of entitlement? Not just to dedicated servers, either.

But they feel entitled that all games MUST be better to play on PC than anything else.
Its called trying to get a better deal, this happens in rl every day especially those who want to get richer/save money but for some deluded reason some people think customers who buy games should just be grateful for what they are sold.

If more of you console guys grew a hairy pair you wouldn't be bitching about pc games having more options, you would be instead asking for improvements on the console version as well.
 

Antari

Music Slave
Nov 4, 2009
2,246
0
0
I don't like the path they are taking, but it doesn't matter since I have no plans to buy this game at any point.
 

Aphex Demon

New member
Aug 23, 2010
1,280
0
0
Most people rent servers from an external source anyway, I think the prices are a bit steep though.