Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
hardcore_gamer

John Carmack says Rage won't support dedicated Servers!

Recommended Posts

Well here is something disturbing:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95955-John-Carmack-Says-No-Dedicated-Servers-for-Rage

Doesn't this mean that players won't be able to host and control there own multiplayer servers? And if so then will they do the same thing to Doom 4? If that is the case then i will personally consider it to be somewhat of a spit in the face to fans of the older Id games Like Doom/Doom 2 and Quake considering that many of those games still have active online community's.

Discuss.

Share this post


Link to post
DoomsdayRooster said:

Is this an anti-piracy measure?


I don't think so. I think this has something to do with "making joining games more easy".

So apparently spending 20 sec finding a nice server to play on is so hard that it's worth sacrificing the ability to control your own online experience in favor of begin able to press a single button right away that throws you into a mostly random game that is beyond your control.

Oh! And then of course once the official servers are dead the online portion of the game dies as well since no dedicated servers mean nobody will be able to keep any servers online after the company stops supporting the game.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe it's easier for them to develop the code or something without having to worry about it. Can anyone point out the benefits of this, other than having to spend slightly less time making the game?

I think it's a pretty bad idea to bite the hand of the fanbase that feeds you. Well, fed you. I'm guessing gamers who prefer less autonomy outnumber those which prefer more. If they didn't EA might make good titles.

Didn't Carmack recently state he wanted to compete more in console games? I had this theory when I started playing D3, and then Q4, that by making the games more console-friendly you opened the game up to a bigger market (at the 'marginal' cost of poorer gameplay for PCers.)

Rant: end.

Share this post


Link to post

Hasn't some other company recently done this too?

It's probably the latest "future of gaming" which will "revitalise the experience", it'll blow over soon enough. Just like episodic releases, remember both of the games that did those?


(SiN: Episodes was the other one)

Share this post


Link to post
deathbringer said:

Hasn't some other company recently done this too?

It's probably the latest "future of gaming" which will "revitalise the experience", it'll blow over soon enough. Just like episodic releases,


No it won't.

Full control of the content means that they can make more money.

I mean, Call of Duty 4 was famous for great MODS and dedicated servers, and yet Infinity Award has decided removed all MOD support and dedicated server support from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, why? Because it means they will be able to sell downloadable content for real money, content that most people probably would not bother to buy when they can just download mods for free.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

If that is the case then i will personally consider it to be somewhat of a spit in the face to fans of the older Id games Like Doom/Doom 2 and Quake considering that many of those games still have active online community's.

Doom did not support dedicated servers either.

If Carmack remains true to his philosophy, Rage will get its source GPLed one day, and then the sky will be the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

f Carmack remains true to his philosophy, Rage will get its source GPLed one day, and then the sky will be the limit.


Perhaps, i just prey to god that he won't don't fallow Infinity Awards example and remove all MOD support as well on purpose for the sake of having greater control of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

I don't think so. I think this has something to do with "making joining games more easy".

So apparently spending 20 sec finding a nice server to play on is so hard that it's worth sacrificing the ability to control your own online experience in favor of begin able to press a single button right away that throws you into a mostly random game that is beyond your control.

If done right, this kind of "press one button to play"-servers are great. I remember back in time when I used to play a lot of Age of Mythology online, which either allowed you to make your own custom game the usual way or had a "ranked lobby" where you just press a button and the servers find you an opponent (or opponents), creates the game and so on. The easy to use lobby was the number one reason why I bothered playing the game online, because I no more had to bother with trying to find people to play, settle on rules and do any other annoying shit. Also thanks to the in-built ranking system, the servers only matched you with players with similar ranking to yours, so you were certain to always only play people with similar skill level.

It was a really wonderful thing, and more and more games should make use of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Building usable matchmaking software and running a big set of servers to play on is quite a bit more work than just letting players set up their own games. It's a nice thing to have, but taking things away from players who want to set up their own thing isn't nice. I suppose it cuts down on the work if you know you have to set up a service anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
AgentSpork said:

So basically, they're taking the already dead PC game market and killing it even more. I love the way they think!


If it wasn't for piracy this wouldn't be happening. Unfortunately thats the reality of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Kaiser said:

If it wasn't for piracy this wouldn't be happening. Unfortunately thats the reality of it.


i am very skeptical that piracy is the only reason, i mean if it is then why also remove all mod support that made the last CD: Modern Warfare game so loved by many?

The whole thing strikes me as begin an attempt to insure full control over the game even after it has been bought by the consumer.

Infinity Award: Want to download a user made map for your game like last time? To bad! You can't! But just because "we love you" we will offer you this map pack of 3 maps for ONLY 30 dollars!

EDIT: Sorry! I forgot we are talking about Rage here i thought we were talking about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2.

Share this post


Link to post

Look, he said Rage probably won't support dedicated servers, which is not set in stone. Meaning it could have them as an option at release or later.

Still, for someone like John Carmack to consider dropping ded. servers I'd like to know his reasoning and I'll definitely be watching if they are still making this a favorable PC game unlike the dumbing down and option-limiting that's been going on lately. At least we haven't heard about this with Doom 4.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's important to consider this quote:

"We'll see how it works out for everyone else."

So everybody pray to the triple fish god that Modern Warfare 2 will fail hard and Carmack is shown the light.

EDIT: Also he's spoken recently about selling dedicated/private servers to Quake Live players as a way to keep it funded, so he can't be opposed to the idea completely

Share this post


Link to post
DeumReaper said:

I'll definitely be watching if they are still making this a favorable PC game unlike the dumbing down and option-limiting that's been going on lately. At least we haven't heard about this with Doom 4.


Not every Id Software tittle has to be PC focused. I think Rage is probably begin created with consoles in mind considering that the gameplay is heavily based on cars.

Now Doom 4 on the other hand, they would have to be real sellouts to make that game console focused. And Cormack has already said that the game would look better on the PC.

Share this post


Link to post

If I remember correctly from the Masters of Doom... Carmack was at one point opposed to the Wolfenstein push-wall secrets because it didn't fit into his scheme of efficiency in game design, and it took quite some time for Romeo and the crew to convince him to do The Right Thing by putting it in.

Following Infinity Ward's decision to remove dedicated servers is an error in his judgment with respect to his fan base: The PC gamers.

He is a brilliant programmer and I really respect his hackers ethic and his decision to GPL the Doom source code, yet sometimes, he needs correction from Romero with respect to game design.

Share this post


Link to post

Console games should have non deticated servers PC games shouldn't
Reason,PC versions of games usually spawn a crapola of mods non deticated servers on PC games isn't a very good idea and it could possibliy lead to multiplayer map mods ending

Share this post


Link to post

Okay, whatever, game developers. Do whatever the fuck you want. I don't care anymore.

Well, that's a lie. If console games were smarter, and if consoles were open to developers/modders/whoever wants to much around with 'em, and if I could park my console under a desk and play games with a keyboard and mouse (ie. if consoles worked like dedicated gaming PCs), then I wouldn't care about the PC game scene.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven’t bought a video game in years so I personally don't care. Games to me are personal, nostalgic interests I visit often. I've grown disconnect with this generation as many of us do.

I will buy Doom 4. But that is all. (And maybe Diablo III ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

I haven’t bought a video game in years


Me neither actually. But I like thinking that if I wanted to buy a game there would actually be something worth playing out there.

Share this post


Link to post

When I first heard the news I was really disappointed that Carmack would slap the PC gamers who basically made id in the face. Then I realized that I haven't really enjoyed an id game since Quake, and I stopped caring. Thinking about the fact that they haven't made a memorable game in 13 years kind of put things in perspective. What they want to do with their game is fine, I probably won't play it anyway. Ooh, cars and guns and mutants oh my.

Share this post


Link to post
Lizardcommando said:

Dammit, it's Infinity Ward, not Award!

Congratulations you've one the Annual Infinity Award, forever!

Share this post


Link to post

True.

For me Quake 2 was the last FPS that got the gameplay factor right. Shortly after came Half-Life and then the story-driven games took over. I just miss the simplicity of these old games. No long-winded introductions, no necessity to follow a plot. Just play.

But the problem is not the players who 'demand' such stuff - it's the producers who think that players demand such things. But these people are so often out of touch with their customers that they totally miss with their approach. It's awful. I've met a few such people from smaller businesses and all they talk about is 'people want this' and 'people want that' but they only get their information from like-minded people who are as out of touch with the customers.

It wouldn't surprise me actually if a new game that emphasizes 'game' over 'interactive movie' would be more successful than the suits would expect. Too bad that they'll never try it out themselves.

And then you get such insults where the producers intentionally limit the longevity of their games by crippling moddability or network use. Sorry, pals - but that's not worth the asking price for me - in particular when combined with DRM making the game essentially an overpriced rental.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, I like a good story in a video game, but it must be done right. Games like FEAR and Half-Life, where you have no control over the story and you're just filling a character's shoes are OK if done correctly. I absolutely loathe cutscenes in game. If your character isn't important or involved (or smart?) enough to be present for important story events, and you need to resort to showing video clips to tell the story, then you're not doing it right. Story driven games (like MGS2 for instance) that rely heavily on cutscenes to tell the story end up being movies where you play the character in the unimportant scenes, as if the player isn't important at all. Half life and FEAR get it right because you don't need to resort to cutscenes and can include the player in important events.

EDIT: on topic, who would play this game for the multiplayer? I can't see multiplayer being nearly as important as I'm willing to bet more work has been done for the single player campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Patrick said:

some good stuff


Agreed. A related issue: When I played Doom 3, I found it utterly ridiculous that new monsters were always introduced in cutscenes. This is the absolute least effective way to introduce a monster. A cutscene is a period where the player is free from all danger, so the player's very first impression of the monster is of an utterly harmless entity. This is a direct impediment to a horror game's design goal: to actually make the player a bit worried about his survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Starke Von Oben said:

John Carmack sold his soul... to EA games.


EA has nothing to do with this.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×