Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
First Person Shooters (Games) Games

John Carmack Says No Dedicated Servers For Rage 162

Posted by Soulskill
from the will-you-rage-over-rage dept.
AndrewDBarker writes "Modern Warfare 2 will use a matchmaking setup powered by IWNet for online play (as we've discussed). It's too early to say what Rage will use, but Carmack indicated he believed the servers are something of a remnant of the early days of PC gaming. That said, he realizes the affinity many PC gamers have for them — and is glad Rage won't be leading the charge away from them. 'The great thing is we won't have to be a pioneer on that,' he says. 'We'll see how it works out for everyone else.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

John Carmack Says No Dedicated Servers For Rage

Comments Filter:
  • by Martin Blank (154261) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @01:25AM (#30012714) Journal

    But given the mess that has grown up around MW2, it should be pretty clear that the attempt to leave dedicated servers behind is not being taken well. The mechanism in use there seems destined to cause problems for users, and the fluidity available from dedicated servers can't be easily replaced by any system that has users hosting servers. It may be that hordes of virtual servers are the future of dedicated servers, but that's still a far better option than things like a five-second pause while the players' systems figure out who is taking over next.

    If there's anyone that I trust to come up with a workable technical solution, it's John Carmack, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a good idea.

    • by msimm (580077)
      Battlefield Heroes uses a similar setup and for the most part servers are a nebulous thing the match making servers put you on. Because for the most part real people don't run the servers admins are less common. There's less incentive to rent a servers (through approved resellers) because the communities that usually grow up around more active servers or more skilled players don't really form. My friends might be good but when we join a game it could be just about anywhere, if we even bother to join. One wa
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sp1nny (1350037)
        The question is, why not add support for both matchmaking and dedicated servers with a browser? I would imagine it's not *that* difficult to program in a server browser as well, seeing as how companies have been doing it for more than a decade. It might require some more resources, but dedicated servers will almost always offer a better experience than a listen server and that's why it's worth it. Whatever benefits matchmaking may bring to the table are also available for the end user.
      • by Hadlock (143607) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @03:04AM (#30013008) Homepage Journal

        It's worth pointing out that the RAGE demo at QUAKECON was done on a 360 controller. That should be a pretty strong sign that this is a console port design decision, that will ultimately affect the PC port. Let's take a look at console games with PC ports that use the "no dedicated server" model!
         
        The downside to no dedicated servers is that you lose the community aspect, community organization becomes MUCH harder, and the game doesn't live on as long. See also: Left 4 Dead. Great concept, but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it. Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall, but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server. Incredibly frustrating, and I'm not really sure game/community mechanics have progressed far enough to allow the community/communities to grow up around the game that you want to push further away from dedicated servers. The one console game that I saw with a decent community setup was SOCOM 3 for the PS2; it had clans and messageboards, a messaging system and a somewhat steam-like buddy system/join buddy's game function.
         
        Case in point: Rage is a console game, with console server matching system. The fact that it's coming out for the PC means that it's simply going to be a piss-poor PC port of a console game, and last time I checked, PC-ports of console games were fucking terrible (see also: Borderlands).

        • I see your Borderlands and raise you a Dragon Age: Origins
        • See: Left 4 Dead. Great concept, but almost impossible to get dedicated servers running for it. Or you can look at the recently released-for-PC game Borderlands - what a clusterfuck; the community eventually figured out what ports to unblock on their firewall, but even now people are having problems getting people to connect to their game/server.

          We have an INX dedicated server we can switch between Left 4 Dead and the Left 4 Dead 2 demo. Actually using it is a pain in the arse though. We haven't used the feature of associating it to our steam group since they added it, because it didn't support grouping up in a lobby and choosing gamemode, level, characters etc before playing. You had to restart the server to change gamemodes! Setting a search key and force_dedicated_servers list seem to work though, so we've been using that.

          For Borderlands, only t

        • Is I'd think you'd want to go the other way. Not just have dedicated servers, but allow for dedicated servers for consoles too. UT3 does just that, you can get a server that runs on PCs, but is designed to serve the PS3 version of the game. So you can have dedicated servers even for console games. Great idea IMO. You allow for peer to peer games, but support dedicated servers for all platforms. That way people can play how they like. Also dedicated servers are clearly loved by a non-trivial amount of people

  • A remnant? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Shadow of Eternity (795165) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @01:25AM (#30012716)

    I wouldn't call ~200,000 people a day between only three games from ONE COMPANY when the most populous of those three games averages ~80-90K a day peak users despite being about 5 years old a remnant of the early days of PC gaming. I'd call that proof of how important dedicated servers and proper mod support are.

    • Re:A remnant? (Score:5, Informative)

      by VGPowerlord (621254) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @01:36AM (#30012742)

      Since you didn't say which company, I'll point out that you're referring to Valve's Steam Stats [steampowered.com] for Counter-Strike: Source, Counter-Strike, and Team Fortress 2.

      I'll also point out that those numbers are the number of concurrent players, not the number of total players.

      • Re:A remnant? (Score:4, Informative)

        by lga (172042) * on Saturday November 07, 2009 @08:46AM (#30014012) Homepage Journal

        I run a Half Life 2: Deathmatch server [inx-gaming.co.uk]. Looking at the Steam stats, only 2,100 people have played it today. If I look at my stats site [inx-gaming.co.uk], though, I can see over 3,100 people have passed through my server in the past month! Now either every single person that plays deathmatch has used my server, or the number of deathmatch players is a hell of a lot higher than daily peaks would suggest.

        I will also say that without the community generated by having enthusiasts run their own servers, many people wouldn't bother to play the game.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Amazing. They do not learn from success and call it remnant of the early days of PC gaming like it is a bad thing. Carmack and the other out of touch with reality greedy people that is.

      I have been playing games since C64. I never once bought a game in my life. You just copied tapes, floppy disk etc from a friend of a friend.

      Then Orange Box with TF2 came along. Bought and paid for it once. Still playing regularly several hours a week after 2 years. Dedicated Servers. Great community. Strong competitive scene

      • Re:A remnant? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07, 2009 @05:22AM (#30013282)

        They don't want people like you as customers. They want people that toss a game after one month and go buy the next big shit. They want to limit a game's life span by being able to shut of things like multiplayer. They're not making money when you are playing something you already paid for.

    • Re:A remnant? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hairyfeet (841228) <bassbeast1968 AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday November 07, 2009 @05:22AM (#30013280) Journal

      I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and mods so they can shove DLC down our throats. All my favorite games were made favorites NOT by the designers, but by the communities and mods that built up around them and gave me MORE for my money and extended my fun, not screwing me over so they can "maximize profit potential".

      No mods? No money from me. No dedicated servers? Again no money from me. If we PC gamers get together and make damned sure that any game that screws us over rots on the shelves, while buying up the ones that treat us right, maybe then we won't end up in x360 hell, which is what they seem to be pushing us towards. I don't want a damned 360, thanks ever so much!

      • by Deosyne (92713)

        Yeah, on one hand I still want to support titles which provide fun single player gameplay, even if they rape the online experience (see Modern Warfare 2; at least; I'm presuming that the single player experience will be solid and that it didn't go to consoleville as well). On the other, I would almost like to try driving games that do this shit off of our platform, except that considering what a bastard child that PC SKUs are already treated as, I'm concerned that the majority of the publishers will just sa

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          But if you support those that have single player "even if they rape the online experience" then that will just prove to the publishers they should make the PC even more of a "walled garden o' poo" for games. Remember most of these PHBs frankly don't give a shit if you can actually have fun with their game or not, it is all about "maximizing profit potential" and other buzzword bingo bullshit.

          They want to turn the PC into an x360 because they think that will kill piracy and let them shove DLC down your thro

      • >I think it is just more proof that they are doing their best to kill the communities and mods

        They can't be that stupid? Valve make a shit-load of money of Counter-strike(:source) and Day of Defeat:source, which all started out as mods (I was only an avid video gamer for a while so I'm sure there are lots more examples). Additionaly many people only buy thier latest game for the mods and to play with the community that has moved to them (i only got hl2, to play dod:s, to play dod with the clans i knew)

        • by hairyfeet (841228)

          Don't forget we are talking about PHBs here, so yes, they could be THAT stupid. Hell I would argue that mods can even make a stinkbomb into something worth playing, if you would like an example the Delta Force series of games. By themselves they are your typical bargain basement trash, with lousy AI and even worse weapon balance, but they have TONS [dfbarracks.com] of mods out there for the Delta Force series that turn what was a pile o' poo into an actually enjoyable game, both offline and on. Try "Shock N Awe" or "Black O

  • Simply about piracy (Score:4, Informative)

    by assemblerex (1275164) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @01:34AM (#30012736)
    They could give a damn about matchmaking. It's a trojan horse.
    They want everyone to use matchmaking, which really means they want everyone to use an authentication system.
    • by Kaboom13 (235759) <kaboom108@@@bellsouth...net> on Saturday November 07, 2009 @09:03AM (#30014080)

      Authentication and dedicated servers are not mutually exclusive, every game I can think of since Quake 3 (and probably earlier) has authenticated the player against a master server before letting them join. While possible to run hacked servers, it generally requires everyone involved to have the hacked client, and they have always been few in number and full of hackers and such to make a guaranteed shitty player experience. This is about selling DLC, plain and simple. I know that this decision is going to cost them my sale for MW2 and Rage. I bought the first Modern Warfare and loved it and was already sold on the second one when they announced this nonsense. They've lost my sale, and it will probably be blamed on piracy and used as an excuse to shove more drm and more DLC down our throats. Speaking of DLC, it has also cost Bioware a sale of Dragon Age, I was actually credit card in hand ready to buy it when I found out about the 3 or 4 different "editions" with different amounts of content, and even the most expensive one still doesn't get you all the content, theres more DLC to buy. It's ridiculous! Why buy and navigate the DLC maze they have created when I can pirate and have all the content and all the DLC and all the pre-oder "rewards" without jumping through hoops?

    • by CaseM (746707)

      I'd argue this is less about piracy and more about upselling DLC to the PC crowd, which they can't currently do as easily as they'd like when gamers have dedicated servers and mod tools to extend the life of the game.

  • by PhrostyMcByte (589271) <phrosty@gmail.com> on Saturday November 07, 2009 @02:11AM (#30012836) Homepage

    A lot of today's FPSes seem to prefer a ping of less than 100ms. Many of them become very frustrating to play at 150ms -- I can only assume this is due to whatever cheat protection they use forcing them to use less and less lag compensation, and forcing them to run less of the simulation locally.

    I live on the west coast, and a lot of the people I play with live on the east coast. So when we have the option of buying a server, we get one somewhere in the middle so that we all have pings in the 50-100ms range instead of the 150-200ms range. Taking this option away will really, really suck.

  • by Myrcutio (1006333) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @02:17AM (#30012854)
    My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2 and rail-instagib CTF with those laser hooks they had. It was punishingly brutal back then, you could die 3 times in less than a second on some servers, and hackers could run rampant until an admin banned his ass. It was all worth it once you got that midair lag-shot on the top player on the server. These were all community supported mods running on dedicated servers. No servers, no mods, no community. This will only end in tears, or pirates, or both.
    • by Dahamma (304068)

      It's not that sad. IMO id hasn't made a game worth playing *since* Quake 2.

      Luckily Carmack still makes great engines for studios with actual design skill to use. His "games" have basically become demos for the engines, though...

      • Become demos? Even the original Quake was mainly an engine demo. The single player game was painfully dull. In multiplayer it was quite fun, but there were lots of mods that were better. And multiplayer worked fine with the demo, you just didn't get the lightning gun (which was rubbish anyway) and a lot of mods worked fine with the demo too. The only reason that I bought Quake was a lot of maps for Team Fortress used resources from the full game so they wouldn't work with the demo...
        • i really liked the single player for the first Quake, complete with nine inch nails and all. Have to keep these things on context though, considering that FPS's were in their infancy at the time. Quake to Bioshock is like the difference between cave paintings and high italian renaissance art.
    • by Zak3056 (69287)

      My earliest experience with gaming was staying up until the wee hours of the morning playing Action quake2

      Lights... Camera... Action!!

      Man, that brings back memories. AQ2 was awesome, and likely the inspiration for many of the things we take for granted in current FPS games.

      No servers, no mods, no community. This will only end in tears, or pirates, or both.

      I can't help but agree with this completely.

  • by Asmor (775910) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @02:36AM (#30012914) Homepage

    Anyone remember the days before dedicated gaming and reliable, integrated server browsers? Remember not too long ago when Gamespy was just being started and provided the revolutionary service or helping people connect to servers, but had to be run outside the game and started the game?

    Think back even further. Remember trying to set up peer to peer games? Yeah, I'd almost forgotten about it to.

    That is until Borderlands came out. This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'. I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend. No dice. Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help. The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issues.

    Meanwhile, games like UT3 and TF2 work like a charm. Not to mention it's frankly a really cool social experience of having a server you frequent and getting to know the other people who frequent it rather than only ever getting to see the friends you've already got or a continuous parade of people you play with once and then never see again.

    With all due respect to a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.

    • With all due respect to a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, saying that dedicated servers are an artifact of the past is just a blatantly stupid assertion to make. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.

      That didn't sound very respectful. I think that JC was implying that there is no technical reason for dedicated servers anymore. With the CPU/GPU horsepower available, there is no reason why you can't host a game and stil
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Asmor (775910)

        Since when has hosting a game impacted frame rates? In fact, I distinctly remember dedicated servers having a very, very low footprint as far as CPU and RAM usage went. That may have changed in recent years, I don't know, but with older games that's what I remember.

        One of the first games I played online a lot was Heretic II. I did not have a particularly good computer, and I hosted a dedicated server and played on the same computer just fine.

        The issues with hosting your own server are all related to network

        • The issues with hosting your own server are all related to networking, e.g. setting up all of your ports correctly, latency, etc.

          But most games fail when it comes to that. Ex: Left4Dead

          Local hosting has way more latency(and lower bandwidth usage) than a dedicated server on the same box. Even if you tweak cvars(which are capped), you can't push it beyond a certain point.

          And to top it off, it impacts your framerate negatively.

          Until companies do it right, please, just split them or allow both.

          • by Khyber (864651)

            Default L4D install, no config changes, local hosted game, worst ping I've had so far from a connecting player was maybe 70ms.

            Well more than playable. what crap networking gear are you using or what crap ISP are you using?

            • by bucky0 (229117)

              L4D isn't peer to peer. There are dedicated servers, it just automatically chooses them.

              • If you want to play custom maps, you usually have to go with local hosting.

                L4D is a combo system - I just wish local hosting worked a bit better.

            • One friend is in Australia. Local hosting gives about 310 ping, but a dedicated server reduces that down to about 240.

              Local hosting, I've never seen upstream pass 20KB/sec, despite having 60KB/sec available. Dedicated servers will gulp as much as necessary. Somehow that reduces the ping.

      • There are still a few reasons for wanting a dedicated server. You can have a dedicated server that keeps running when the person who started the game gets bored. With a proper p2p architecture that can still happen, but it's difficult to get right. With a client-server architecture, the person who started the game quitting generally leads to everyone being kicked off. With a dedicated server you can have a game running 24 hours a day and just have people drop in and leave when they have some time.

        As

      • Well, a number of them actually. One would be bandwidth. Lots of people don't have good bandwidth on their connection, especially upstream. The majority of consumer connections in the US are highly asymmetric, way more download than upload. So it is easy to find someone without sufficient bandwidth to easily host a game since they are likely to be on a cheap consumer cable connection. Now compare that to a dedicated server. If it is good, and the ones people come back to are, it'll be hosted in a datacenter

      • by citizenr (871508)

        With the CPU/GPU horsepower available, there is no reason why you can't host a game and still get stellar framerates.

        its not about frames, its about pings/lag

    • by petrus4 (213815)

      Decentralisation = the people doing it by and for themselves, on their own terms, at low or no cost.

      Centralisation = the suits doing it for you, charging you through the nose for it, dictating exactly when, where, and how it's going to happen, and the brainless masses referring to it as being a good thing.

      Some of said sheep will probably respond to this very post, in order to tell me I'm wrong.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Scott Kevill (1080991)

      That is until Borderlands came out. This game is a wretched reminder of the 'bad old days'. I spent hours scouring forums and search engines, fiddling with my router, and trying to set it up so that I could host a game for my friend. No dice. Even setting my computer as the DMZ host didn't help. The only way myself and another friend were able to play was through a third friend who didn't have any issues.

      For what it's worth, most people are playing Borderlands online now using GameRanger for exactly this reason, because it eliminates all these problems. Gearbox has unofficially recommended it as a solution as well.

      • by Ash-Fox (726320)

        For what it's worth, most people are playing Borderlands online now using GameRanger for exactly this reason, because it eliminates all these problems. Gearbox has unofficially recommended it as a solution as well.

        Nobody I play with even heard of gameranger. So, we tried it. Guess what - It didn't help the Borderland's online mode work.

    • by jdkane (588293)

      a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, [...snip...]. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.

      As a forefather of modern gaming he doesn't know what gamers want? Interesting assertion. I suppose the word design can be used in many contexts but still I wouldn't be so sure he doesn't know what gamers want in any of those contexts.

    • Mate if you can't port forward / open firewall ports to get borderlands to work, then how are you getting any other port forwarding requirements to work for anything else?

      took me less than 5 minutes and most of that was spent in notepad cutting and pasting lines out of access lists (in addition to static NAT mappings, I am running a CBAC firewall so I need to open that up in my router as well), for a typical point and click home router gui I can't see how it could have been difficult. Esp if you have a DMZ

  • by Mistakill (965922) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @02:41AM (#30012938)
    you need a very decent upstream connection (sans throttling by overzealous ISP's - thats a whole different ballgame) to host a game in the way IW, and perhaps Carmack are suggesting... ie this is from the FAQ of Call Of Duty 2

    to host a game (upload speed)
    128kbps upload: 4 players
    384kbps upload: 8 players
    768kbps upload: 10 players


    Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand, and Australia
    • by Kattspya (994189)
      In Left 4 Dead even if the upstream is adequate (1024kbps) the CPU-strain on an older (AMD X2 4800) computer will cause severe lag. And if the CPU suffices you can bet that half of the people will drop due to routing issues. In what world can most of the gaming population handle their own routers and firewalls? I thought I had all STEAM relevant ports open and routed but some people still drop.
      • by Khyber (864651)

        If you're getting lag on your AMD X2 4800 you're doing something wrong.

        My old X2 4200 did the job just fine with an 8800Ultra and 2GB of RAM, hosting a game with a 5mbit upstream.

        • by Kattspya (994189)
          I'm not getting lag, the clients are.
          • Hosted a L4D server fine w/ a Pentium M 1.6Ghz laptop / 512Mb RAM, which was also running squid+privoxy caching, and a web-ui bittorrent/usenet downloading facility (torrentflux-b4rt to be precise - a php frontend calling transmissioncli and nzbperl and parsing the output back to web via the php scripts).

            Having said that, with buddies in the same city and with a fast 2Mb upstream connection (ADSL2+ w/ AnnexM) and v low pings (lower than 20ms) between us via command line, they were getting ~70ms latency IN G

            • by Kattspya (994189)
              My friends that were in a 80 klick radius could connect to the server and had a low ping normally (20-50) but complained of lag when the horde arrived. I'm guessing that it was due to CPU issues rather than bandwidth.

              Most third party players dropped between lobby and loading of the game.

              I'm not sure whether you ran a dedicated or a listen server on that Pentium Mobile but I was talking about running a listen server. Being able to run a dedicated server shouldn't be a problem with older machines.
    • by Fumus (1258966)

      Id suggest that alot of people just dont have the upstream speed to cope with hosting a game... especially those of us in New Zealand, and Australia

      Huh? I thought dedicated servers were just that - dedicated servers. A program running among many others on rented servers that have the upload speeds and everything needed to host games without problems.

      I feel like I'm either missing something or others don't quite grasp the difference between a game hosted on your PC from your game, a game hosted by the developers, and a game hosted by players on dedicated servers.

  • by Toonol (1057698) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @04:03AM (#30013134)
    RAGE, from what I understand, won't have anything like deathmatches; last I heard, it would have a two-player co-op mode, and some head-to-head racing. Dedicated servers may simply be overkill in that situation. I think this may be a big ado over nothing.
  • There is way, way, *way* too much of a push away from open, transparent, decentralised internet protocols in pretty much every area, to centralised, proprietary, suit-run messes.

    The benefit of being able to run a decentralised server wasn't about doing the gaming equivalent of channel surfing. It was about being able to throw together a LAN in a basement, bedroom, or living room with some local RL friends whenever you wanted.

    I can just hear the brainless, ovine responses now.

    "But we'll still be able to do

    • by jcupitt65 (68879)

      Yeah, and all of your packets have to go through said remote service as well. If said remote service is hosted in another country, guess how much higher your latency is going to be?

      That's not how it works. The central server does matchmaking, but that's about all. The game itself is hosted by one of the clients, with some magic to hand over hosting as clients enter and leave the game. Your game packets do not go through a central server.

  • So, if the new trend is to lock PC players into closed matchmaking services, wouldn't it start a trend of disgruntled players moding the game into having a satisfactory multiplayer service with dedicated services? Think about it, PC players have already modded single player games into adding entirely a multiplayer service (and quite successfully at that, I'm thinking about GTA San Andreas' two multiplayer mods, MTA SA and SA-MP).

    An hypothetical example : Modern Warfare 2. It has both generated epic levels

    • by sowth (748135) *

      Or maybe all those modders will get fed up with the proprietary controls and just start learning to write their own games. Could it be a new era for open source games? I haven't really focused on gaming that much lately--especially since all the commercial offerings seem disappointing to me, but from what I've seen, open source games seem to be improving.

      • by 4D6963 (933028)

        Or maybe all those modders will get fed up with the proprietary controls and just start learning to write their own games.

        Are you an idiot? I believe you are. How's anyone gonna write anything like MW2 short of having a few hundred of million dollars and hundreds of people working for you? Did you see the 'best' open source FPS out there? They pale in comparison with decade-old Quake III, and they have the advantage of using a pre-made game engine to begin with. Homebrew gamers have a choice : they can ei

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by sowth (748135) *

          You fit your sig all to well.

          Gaming companies don't use millions of dollars and hundreds of people working. They spend millions of dollars to get hundreds of people working for them. Open Source have people volunteer to do the work for free because they enjoy it. What, do you think game companies spend those millions on bricks and steel and machinery and sets for actors?

          The main problem with OSS games has been there haven't been enough creative and graphic design people helping out. Have you seen what t

      • I've been thinking about this since the MW2 server decision and it does seem to be a slight change in attitude recently.

        Games like http://www.torchlightgame.com/ [torchlightgame.com], http://www.captainforever.com/ [captainforever.com] seem to be actively engaging its players in making the game but also expecting us to pay them.

        We can't make good open-source games because someone has to stop playing them and DESIGN/CODE them! :)

        So I think we are seeing something different and not so different,ie We should expect to pay for the games we play but we

  • If the system he is proposing is so much better than dedicated servers, where are his details?

    If he is suggesting the client/server model is dead... then he's having a stroke. How are you supposed to have lan parties without a dedicated server?

    • by sowth (748135) *

      My guess would be peer to peer. After all, it would be easier if you didn't have to set up a server to just play in a LAN party.

      Then again, if it would be p2p, I don't understand why he wouldn't say that instead of being glad Rage did not lead the way away from dedicated servers...

      Actually, I found this article [shacknews.com] referenced from linuxgames.com stating that it will just be geared toward single player and co-op, so maybe they think no one will care.

  • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Saturday November 07, 2009 @07:47AM (#30013772) Homepage
    The only reason to get rid of dedicated servers is to kill the community when you want and force people to move on your next game.
  • Cmdr Taco says no <em>tags</em> in story titles on the /. homepage !

  • No dedicated servers? Whats next lag that automatically lags with the person with the crappiest connection? No chat features? Sounds like PC gaming is starting to hit the 360 way, I wonder when it will become like the Wii.
  • Of course we don't need dedicated servers anymore! Consoles and home PCs can totally host 64 player games, I mean, consumer grade internet these days totally has up speeds to match their down speeds. Its not like Modern Warfare 2 will be limited to 9v9 players [kotaku.com]. Wait, I gotta stop being sarcastic, even I'm starting to believe this shit now... Dedicated are the reason we had 64 player multiplayer back in 2002 [wikipedia.org]. Now, I'm all for progress, but it takes some pretty huge balls to say that ded servers are a relic
  • Every MP game I've played for more than a week I've spent probably 90% of my game time in a single communities' servers. This goes right back to Quake and stands true today (TF2). Probably >99.999% of that time the server had some kind of mod too.

HOST SYSTEM NOT RESPONDING, PROBABLY DOWN. DO YOU WANT TO WAIT? (Y/N)

Working...