It's been a while, but i have to speak up about this.  I can send emails to podcast and ask others to speak my thoughts, but it doesn't do much if i don't speak up as well.  Here are the facts, the things that have been said, and the things that will happen.

1.  COD4: MW2 will come out on PC without dedicated server support, meaning it will make use of a peer-to-peer online system.

2.  It will be the first PC game in a while to cost 60 retail that isn't a special edition.

3.  IWNet will be released, and won't work on launch, leading to even more "news stories" and the extension of this argument.

You might read those and think to yourself, big deal, but you have to take a step back before you decide the fate of this one.  It isn't as simple as valve releasing a new game by turning the lights on, but this is something that will have a massive effect on PC gaming as a whole.  For those who have no idea, let me explain what happens when things change on the PC.

EA in the past, with its sports titles all started out on the PC.  Including Madden and NHL everthing started on the PC.  There wouldn't be  NBA, and the rest of EA Sports' games unless they all recieved life on the pc.  Whether you agree with me or not about that, here is how things went down.  Games went to console, things were taken out of the PC version, and eventually the pc became a testbed for the console games.  NHL games would have special versions on the pc which basically were perfected a year later and released on consoles.  Online modes were stripped out of the PC version resulting in backlash and people just getting fed up with the whole situation, leading to a world now where sports games do not exist on the PC. 

One of the biggest reasons why PC gamers demand dedicated servers is because it allows older games to remain being played.  Counter-Strike, released in 1999 has over 60 thousand gamers playing it today.  I'm sure battlefield 1942, quake, and other classic games are still being played as well.  How?  Because PC gamers pay out of thier own pocket to run their own servers.  Take a look at the CS:S server list, America's Army, Rainbow Six, SWAT 4, Battlefield, and other online games, the majority if not all of those servers are run by gamers.  In 3 years when the MW2 servers are shut down to allow for the newest release, maybe you will get what I mean.  Heck, even Halo still has people playing it.

So when you take a look at this MW2 server removal, my immediate thought goes to that.  There will not be a call of duty game on the PC, which, fine.. there are better shooters anyways.  Then I get to thinking of those games, rainbow six,  ghost recon, steam games, mods, and then it hit me.  Rainbow Six Vegas is a console version of Rainbow Six, Left for Dead is a console version of a half-life mod, and Ghost Recon needs to be radically revamped to even be playable for most.  A lot of the classic PC games, and classic ways for pc gamers to get new games have been either changed, or are now becoming consolized ports.

Games for windows isn't helping either.  First off, Microsoft doesnt fix things they just want you to buy a 360.  Honestly, goes to the games for windows live site and try to find a support email address to or number to call.  It lists 100 different companies, and then when you have an issue that is GFW related, you  have to use Xbox support.  Fallout 3 on the pc was a massive mess of bugs and issues, with each released dlc making and creating worse issues.  It would take 20 minutes for the patcher to load, and another few for the patch to actually install.  Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es9hPPk4Oek

The plot thickens though.  When you look at the 360 and the ps3 themselves, how much of their life came from the PC.  We all joke at the Wii, but when you really take a look at the situation, the Wii is the only real console.  The ps3 and 360 all have media playback, media streaming, patches, online play, voice, text, and video chat, downloadable games, twitter, Netflix, etc.  The real difference, the pc can use the consoles' controllers, but it is too much to ask for a server to be made or an option to be created allowing pc gamers with consoles to use mouse and keyboards against other mouse and keyboards.  Not only are the ports terrible, mostly leading to controls not feeling or working correctly, but we get games months later.  Why?

Either way you look at it, this has become a big issue.  With numerous podcasts explaining that "they dont play pc games" and then asking "why is it that pc gamers demand so much" or "what is it about pc gamers that makes them so special".  Fact of the matter is, nothing.  Pc gamers have been dealing with a steady decline in the quality of their gaming experience for several years now, a decade for some.  All we want is to be able to play games and not have to deal with the issues of lazy development or 3rd world country treatment.  This isn't a respect thing for me anymore, I've accepted the fact that developers and console gamers just dont care about the world of pc, but the plain and simple truth is, things need to change.  Is it in the hands of the developer to treat their product with higher respect?  Do they want any gamer, no matter the platform to enjoy their gaming experience and become a repeat customer on expansions and sequels?  Do publishers want gamers to see them as "on their side"?  Will the PC gaming scene just become about WOW and flash games that get ported to the console?  Will solitaire be the only PC exclusive in the future.

I know many of you will just raise you hand a yell out "it's because of piracy", but let me be clear.  With the lawsuits overseas, the introduction of viruses and tracking into torrent sites, laws, and the simple difficulty in cracking a game, a lot of piracy on the pc has died off and will die off.  Where has it gone to?  The 360, the DS, and the PSP.

Want to hear more about how this will effect  PC gamers?  Hear it from one of our own.  The discussion starts at 43:25, be warned of explicit language. (and no it isnt F IW for 30 minutes)

[right click, save as]

http://ingamechat.net/audio/IGC20091022.mp3

-nabokovfan87    

It's been a while, but i have to speak up about this.  I can send emails to podcast and ask others to speak my thoughts, but it doesn't do much if i don't speak up as well.  Here are the facts, the things that have been said, and the things that will happen.

1.  COD4: MW2 will come out on PC without dedicated server support, meaning it will make use of a peer-to-peer online system.

2.  It will be the first PC game in a while to cost 60 retail that isn't a special edition.

3.  IWNet will be released, and won't work on launch, leading to even more "news stories" and the extension of this argument.

You might read those and think to yourself, big deal, but you have to take a step back before you decide the fate of this one.  It isn't as simple as valve releasing a new game by turning the lights on, but this is something that will have a massive effect on PC gaming as a whole.  For those who have no idea, let me explain what happens when things change on the PC.

EA in the past, with its sports titles all started out on the PC.  Including Madden and NHL everthing started on the PC.  There wouldn't be  NBA, and the rest of EA Sports' games unless they all recieved life on the pc.  Whether you agree with me or not about that, here is how things went down.  Games went to console, things were taken out of the PC version, and eventually the pc became a testbed for the console games.  NHL games would have special versions on the pc which basically were perfected a year later and released on consoles.  Online modes were stripped out of the PC version resulting in backlash and people just getting fed up with the whole situation, leading to a world now where sports games do not exist on the PC. 

One of the biggest reasons why PC gamers demand dedicated servers is because it allows older games to remain being played.  Counter-Strike, released in 1999 has over 60 thousand gamers playing it today.  I'm sure battlefield 1942, quake, and other classic games are still being played as well.  How?  Because PC gamers pay out of thier own pocket to run their own servers.  Take a look at the CS:S server list, America's Army, Rainbow Six, SWAT 4, Battlefield, and other online games, the majority if not all of those servers are run by gamers.  In 3 years when the MW2 servers are shut down to allow for the newest release, maybe you will get what I mean.  Heck, even Halo still has people playing it.

So when you take a look at this MW2 server removal, my immediate thought goes to that.  There will not be a call of duty game on the PC, which, fine.. there are better shooters anyways.  Then I get to thinking of those games, rainbow six,  ghost recon, steam games, mods, and then it hit me.  Rainbow Six Vegas is a console version of Rainbow Six, Left for Dead is a console version of a half-life mod, and Ghost Recon needs to be radically revamped to even be playable for most.  A lot of the classic PC games, and classic ways for pc gamers to get new games have been either changed, or are now becoming consolized ports.

Games for windows isn't helping either.  First off, Microsoft doesnt fix things they just want you to buy a 360.  Honestly, goes to the games for windows live site and try to find a support email address to or number to call.  It lists 100 different companies, and then when you have an issue that is GFW related, you  have to use Xbox support.  Fallout 3 on the pc was a massive mess of bugs and issues, with each released dlc making and creating worse issues.  It would take 20 minutes for the patcher to load, and another few for the patch to actually install.  Don't believe me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=es9hPPk4Oek

The plot thickens though.  When you look at the 360 and the ps3 themselves, how much of their life came from the PC.  We all joke at the Wii, but when you really take a look at the situation, the Wii is the only real console.  The ps3 and 360 all have media playback, media streaming, patches, online play, voice, text, and video chat, downloadable games, twitter, Netflix, etc.  The real difference, the pc can use the consoles' controllers, but it is too much to ask for a server to be made or an option to be created allowing pc gamers with consoles to use mouse and keyboards against other mouse and keyboards.  Not only are the ports terrible, mostly leading to controls not feeling or working correctly, but we get games months later.  Why?

Either way you look at it, this has become a big issue.  With numerous podcasts explaining that "they dont play pc games" and then asking "why is it that pc gamers demand so much" or "what is it about pc gamers that makes them so special".  Fact of the matter is, nothing.  Pc gamers have been dealing with a steady decline in the quality of their gaming experience for several years now, a decade for some.  All we want is to be able to play games and not have to deal with the issues of lazy development or 3rd world country treatment.  This isn't a respect thing for me anymore, I've accepted the fact that developers and console gamers just dont care about the world of pc, but the plain and simple truth is, things need to change.  Is it in the hands of the developer to treat their product with higher respect?  Do they want any gamer, no matter the platform to enjoy their gaming experience and become a repeat customer on expansions and sequels?  Do publishers want gamers to see them as "on their side"?  Will the PC gaming scene just become about WOW and flash games that get ported to the console?  Will solitaire be the only PC exclusive in the future.

I know many of you will just raise you hand a yell out "it's because of piracy", but let me be clear.  With the lawsuits overseas, the introduction of viruses and tracking into torrent sites, laws, and the simple difficulty in cracking a game, a lot of piracy on the pc has died off and will die off.  Where has it gone to?  The 360, the DS, and the PSP.

Want to hear more about how this will effect  PC gamers?  Hear it from one of our own.  The discussion starts at 43:25, be warned of explicit language. (and no it isnt F IW for 30 minutes)

[right click, save as]

http://ingamechat.net/audio/IGC20091022.mp3

-nabokovfan87    

Moving this to the Modern Warfare 2 forum.

We have enough of these already, thanks.

don't we have enough of these fucking things?

" don't we have enough of these fucking things? "

" I think what has been said about this "debacle" is enough already, if you're one of those people who chose not to buy MW2 because of the lack of Dedicated Servers, then good for you, for me, however,I am completely convinced that IW won't disappoint with this system and will be Pre-Purchasing it tomorrow.  "

Dude, get over it.  PC games used to be the hot platform for the latest and greatest and that has changed.  Console games started costing 60 bucks 4 years ago.  And you complain about a PC game costing 60 bucks in 2009?  How much did Quake 3 or Half-life cost when they came out?  50 bucks?  ten years ago?  Yeah, inflation sure isnt kind to PC games....
And you saying the PS3 and 360 are not real consoles shows your ignorance and self inflicted blindness to reality.  Now I wont have to rely on someones server to get into a game, or that some admin loves to kick people who swear, or that they load it up with audio files i dont want on my computer or maps that suck.  Yeah, this is a real terrible thing that is happening.  And this wont affect games as they get older from being played.  Look at Blizzards battle.net.  StarCraft is still being played and with revamping and platforms like Steam, IWnet and the new Battlenet, its more likely that older games will be played, even if they dont have staying power. You dont have to rely on a games popularity for servers to be up so that I could play with the smaller players still left playing a certain game.

... It does have to do with dedicated servers. 
 
And all the other shit you mentioned too. 

This is an incorrectly branded blog, as it should read "Sane people: It Isn't About Dedicated Servers" since there are plenty of PC gamers, including myself, who are entirely fine and good with matchmaking.

Speak for yourself OP, for many it is about dedicated servers as we prefer dealing with what's certain to be than pure speculation of how it will or won't affect the industry and comparisons to GFWL or whatever else you can come up with. Why is IWNET a threat? Was Valve's network a threat? Battle.NET? Arena.NET? Why speculate this is going to be so much worse somehow? This is just another network used by a company to power its titles' multiplayer, it has no bearing on PC gaming aside from the fact it removes standard features people have come to expect.

Also, what? Your post/opinion makes NO SENSE.
"One of the biggest reasons why PC gamers demand dedicated servers is because it allows older games to remain being played."

How does a peer to peer connection stop you from playing it in the future? IWNET won't host the servers for you in order to be able to shut them down just like that, it will still act as a mere means to find and access matches, just as it would if there was dedicated server support, except it does it for listen servers. Now, if they shut down the matchmaking you won't be able to find matches, but that would happen even if there was dedicated server support since the server browser just wouldn't work anymore. Of course techy people will be able to hack the system and perhaps set up third party match-finding services but again, that can happen equally with or without dedicated servers. These features are unrelated and actually common whether there are dedicated servers or not. There's simply no other way to do this, the company will HAVE to provide a match finding service that they may, in the future, shut down, otherwise you won't be able to find matches at launch. The old games you mention, like Counter-Strike, are playable not because of the dedicated servers but  because the companies involved with them still run the server/match finding service. There's no reason to assume Activision won't just because they named their network, they also have control over the first Modern Warfare's state even though they didn't call it IWNET at that point. They could shut it down easily if they wanted to. EA has its own, Valve has its own, other companies have their own. In short, you shun the real issues to come up with imaginary ones and appear "more in the know" than those complaining about the loss of dedicated servers and the community aspect they can provide to those who want it. You aren't.

@Hannibal said:

" This is an incorrectly branded blog, as it should read "Sane people: It Isn't About Dedicated Servers" since there are plenty of PC gamers, including myself, who are entirely fine and good with matchmaking. "

"As someone who played the PC version of Call of Duty 4, I find this to be a pretty egregious omission. It's one thing to raise the price of the game to $60, even with no platform royalty fees to be paid, but to actually refuse to include functionality that has for over a decade been an integral part of the PC multiplayer experience is just atrocious.

The entire tradition of clan-based and forum- and site-based community multiplayer on the PC is entirely dependent on the concept of privately-run servers. It's a great collaboration between developer and community: the developer provides a service open enough that it can be run in accordance to the community's preferences, and the community shoulders the cost and effort necessary to support the servers themselves.

PCs will never be as streamlined and standardized as consoles--but by the same token, consoles can never provide as open and community-customized an experience as PCs. Trying to simply turn a PC into a console by closing off the routes that make the PC experience unique isn't going to provide a better experience for anyone."

"Some articles took the dribble they said as fact and posted it without getting any real numbers or references. Please direct us to the forum posts where people were constantly complaining that they "couldn't find a decent server to play on between all of the cheaters, the insular communities, and huge skill level disparities that the original game's community fractured into".

You can't because they didn't. If it was so bad, why was it the most popular FPS game ever created?

What number crunching CEO's and accountants fail to realize, is that the casual community exists because the hardcore community exists and vice versa. It doesn't matter if it is video games, or sports. You wouldn't have the same interest in high school sports if a more hardcore pro team didn't also exist and you wouldn't have the pro players if they didn't start out as casual players.

If you cut off one, you eventually lose the other.

Where do you think most of the positive COD4 free good press came from? It came from clans, modders, map makers, competitions, hardcore fan web pages and word of mouth from the most passionate hardcore players out there.

IW just **** all over those people.

The sales of COD4 to my clan were only for the reason that we could mod the game to be more hardcore and make it similar to the experience of Rainbow Six Ravenshield. You wouldn't have sold us a single copy if the game were locked down and not mod friendly.

Bad customer service reports spread 100X farther than good customers service."

You care because..? Is it hard to scroll by my posts a little faster if you aren't interested?

" @Al3xand3r: Do you need to write a thesis in every single thread?  "

" @crunchUK: You hate Call of Duty 4?!?  *gets Ban Hammer ready* "

" don't we have enough of these fucking things? "

" Speak for yourself OP, for many it is about dedicated servers as we prefer dealing with what's certain to be than pure speculation of how it will or won't affect the industry and comparisons to GFWL or whatever else you can come up with. Why is IWNET a threat? Was Valve's network a threat? Battle.NET? Arena.NET? Why speculate this is going to be so much worse somehow? This is just another network used by a company to power its titles' multiplayer, it has no bearing on PC gaming aside from the fact it removes standard features people have come to expect.

Also, what? Your post/opinion makes NO SENSE.
"One of the biggest reasons why PC gamers demand dedicated servers is because it allows older games to remain being played."

How does a peer to peer connection stop you from playing it in the future? IWNET won't host the servers for you in order to be able to shut them down just like that, it will still act as a mere means to find and access matches, just as it would if there was dedicated server support, except it does it for listen servers. Now, if they shut down the matchmaking you won't be able to find matches, but that would happen even if there was dedicated server support since the server browser just wouldn't work anymore. Of course techy people will be able to hack the system and perhaps set up third party match-finding services but again, that can happen equally with or without dedicated servers. These features are unrelated and actually common whether there are dedicated servers or not. There's simply no other way to do this, the company will HAVE to provide a match finding service that they may, in the future, shut down, otherwise you won't be able to find matches at launch. The old games you mention, like Counter-Strike, are playable not because of the dedicated servers but  because the companies involved with them still run the server/match finding service. There's no reason to assume Activision won't just because they named their network, they also have control over the first Modern Warfare's state even though they didn't call it IWNET at that point. They could shut it down easily if they wanted to. EA has its own, Valve has its own, other companies have their own. In short, you shun the real issues to come up with imaginary ones and appear "more in the know" than those complaining about the loss of dedicated servers and the community aspect they can provide to those who want it. You aren't.

" Moving this to the Modern Warfare 2 forum. "

" I think what has been said about this "debacle" is enough already, if you're one of those people who chose not to buy MW2 because of the lack of Dedicated Servers, then good for you, for me, however,I am completely convinced that IW won't disappoint with this system and will be Pre-Purchasing it tomorrow.  "

" We have enough of these already, thanks. "

" @Napalm said:

" We have enough of these already, thanks. "

I agree, I'm tired of seeing this story pop up. "

"in peer 2 peer, as you can witness with madden and many other console online games,  "servers" get shut down so that newer versions will be purchased.  most often you see this with madden, tiger woods, wrestling games, stuff like that.  if you allow people to run dedicated servers, then no matter what the developer does on their end, the game can still be played.   Let's be clear, i never said IWNET was a threat, i said that if the game follows other in the past, if IW decides that the pc version isnt selling enough, it could mean the end to a very popular fps on the pc. "

no it isnt actually.  im guessing you dont play pc games at all.
 
 
go look at something like swat 4, the game is mad old and ran by the players,  then go look at tiger woods, halo, anything else on the console.  it all can be shut down.
 
something like warhawk can be ran post server shut down because the option to use an extra ps3 as a server is built in.  that's the most equivalent thing you have on the console side.

 In short, you shun the real issues to come up with imaginary ones and appear "more in the know" than those complaining about the loss of dedicated servers and the community aspect they can provide to those who want it. You aren't.

Your response to my explanation of how things work is, no it isn't? Well, yes it is. Console games shutting down has nothing to do with not having dedicated servers and everything to do with being a closed platform. I don't know if SWAT 4 server browsing servers are still run by whatever company released the game but it has absolutely nothing to do with dedicated servers. I explained each and every situation separately in the first post and now you're just circle jerking the issue without actually reading what I said, understanding how things work, and starting to discuss the real issues. Here's your SWAT4 case (if the company has indeed stopped support), already covered, you refused to read:
 
@Al3xand3r said:

Now, if they shut down the matchmaking you won't be able to find matches, but that would happen even if there was dedicated server support since the server browser just wouldn't work anymore. Of course techy people will be able to hack the system and perhaps set up third party match-finding services but again, that can happen equally with or without dedicated servers. These features are unrelated and actually common whether there are dedicated servers or not.

" No it isn't what? Your response to my explanation of how things work is no it isn't? Well, I guess, yes it is. Console games shutting down has nothing to do with not having dedicated servers. I don't know if SWAT 4 server browsing servers are still run by whatever company released the game but it has absolutely nothing to do with dedicated servers. I explained each and every situation separately in the first post and now you're just circle jerking the issue without actually reading what I said, understanding how things work, and starting to discuss the real issues. "

To see your server that you made public I have to connect to a server that has a list of the games. That doesn't happen somewhere on the internet arbitarily, when I click to browse servers my PC doesn't scan the whole freaking internet to see if any server is broadcast, it connects to the same server that all the public games also connect to and broadcast that they exist for me to connect to. If that server was shut down then I wouldn't be able to see your match no matter how many times you clicked the "public" box. That works the same for dedicated and peer to peer. All the company can shut down in both cases is that one server that holds the broadcast information. In that case, users can bypass the official system and make their own service regardless of the inclusion of dedicated servers or not. It's a separate issue as I also said three times at least already. The reason that doesn't happen on consoles is that you run the games off the disc (for the most part) and can therefor not alter the game enough to have it connect to the new user-made broadcast service as opposed to the defunct officially sanctioned service. Though clever people clearly also hack console games at times, for example making the original Halo's multiplayer playable online. Dedicated servers issue is different to the shut down issue. Valve can shut down their servers and you wouldn't play Counter-Strike: Source, IW can shut down their broadcast servers and you couldn't play the original Modern Warfare, even though both these games have dedicated servers, UNLESS a modification as above was done. Clearly you aren't willing to properly read and understand the issue so this is the final time I explain it.

" @Napalm said:

" We have enough of these already, thanks. "

I agree, I'm tired of seeing this story pop up. "

" To see your server that you made public I have to connect to a server that has a list of the games. That doesn't happen somewhere on the internet arbitarily, when I click to browse servers my PC doesn't scan the whole freaking internet to see if any server is broadcast, it connects to the same server that all the public games also connect to and broadcast that they exist for me to connect to. If that server was shut down then I wouldn't be able to see your match no matter how many times you clicked the "public" box. That works the same for dedicated and peer to peer. All the company can shut down in both cases is that one server that holds the broadcast information. In that case, users can bypass the official system and make their own service regardless of the inclusion of dedicated servers or not. It's a separate issue as I also said three times at least already. The reason that doesn't happen on consoles is that you run the games off the disc (for the most part) and can therefor not alter the game enough to have it connect to the new user-made broadcast service as opposed to the defunct officially sanctioned service. Though clever people clearly also hack console games at times, for example making the original Halo's multiplayer playable online. "

The server browser is useless if it can't connect somewhere to find the list of available games. It doesn't search the whole internet to find them, it connects to a server that the game servers also connect to in order to tell it they exist. I'll call this a list server. From that point on it's done clientside with your PC pinging theirs to see if they're really online and to show the given ping response time. But you can't get to that step without first going to the list server that will list the games. I don't know if some game, somewhere, has a magic server browser that doesn't require that and actually does scan the whole internet in a matter of seconds, but most do. Valve's games do, for example. Valve's games also have dedicated servers. Therefor the issue is unrelated. They can have a setup that they can shut down at will for the majority of users (who won't bother looking for user-apps that may possibly bring a third party server listing) with or without dedicated servers. If that's too hard to understand then I guess I understand why there's such backlash to the MW2 backlash, if the vocal ones are so ignorant to how things work.

Here, I drew it for you. This is how it works (and doesn't work) WITH and WITHOUT dedicated servers for most games:

Wow, there's a whole lot of two people talking past each other going on here.
 
No, without company support for a list server, people can't browser servers whether it's dedicated or peer-to-peer.
 
HOWEVER, most PC games (including, since you listed it as an example,  Al3xand3r, Counter-Strike: Source and pretty much every other Valve game) allow you to do a direct connect-to-IP in order to play on a server you already know the IP for.  In this way, older games still CAN be played multiplayer on dedicated servers run by the community, even if the list servers are down. All they have to do is get the IP out there, either via websites or simple communication with their friends.
 
That doesn't work with a peer-to-peer only multiplayer system, because in the absence of the matchmaking service there's nothing for the game to connect to, and it doesn't know how to go look for a specified IP. So if the matchmaking servers go down, multiplayer is over, period.

wow i never thought about people not being able to play the game in a few years. i wish that developers don't make PC gaming more console like then what it has been. it is one reason why they are doing it because they want PC to be just like console gaming.

Yes, that's one way to bypass a list server being down, if the game allows that, like Valve's games do (in theory, because if Steam shuts down you're fucked unless you can crack it completely). I never said you can't bypass it, I listed other ways it can be bypassed myself. Still, they could just as easily have dedicated servers and not allow an easy shutdown bypass by having some sort of online login service (something many games already have, yet there has been no backlash there, funnily enough, and COD and Battlefield are prone to using that too, for the stats and ranks)before getting you to the server browser, which would also be down and unusable in that case, so you couldn't solve it in that way. However, we don't have all the details of how the matchmaking in MW2 works to say that it's impossible to bypass the service being down purely because it doesn't have dedicated servers.  Perhaps MW2 retains LAN functionality, which you can use with Hamachi to set up games with a bunch of friends (or willing fans online), if anything like this is workable. Or, since by that point there won't be all that many users, perhaps a user-made matchmaking service will be workable with a few modded game files that tell it to connect there instead of the defunct official server. There's no way to know, so if that would be the only issue, then we might as well ask for more information than ask for dedicated servers.

In short, as the situation currently is, maybe you can bypass a potential service shut down, maybe you can't, we don't have details to know, but it's still an unrelated issue to the dedicated servers themselves as it could be made hard to bypass in their case also as I explained above.

Is it as good as it is though? No, not for me, which is why I say the lack of dedicated servers is a real, current issue and not the possibility of a future service shut down because that can happen regardless of having dedicated servers or not, and we'll deal with it in due time seeing how it can be bypassed. Right now though, I care about the loss of dedicated servers, not just in the future when/if the service/company shut down, because they provide better service for me and what I want out of a multiplayer game even before the company's theoretical shut down.

" wow i never thought about people not being able to play the game in a few years. i wish that developers don't make PC gaming more console like then what it has been. it is one reason why they are doing it because they want PC to be just like console gaming. "

" @ZeroCast said:

" I think what has been said about this "debacle" is enough already, if you're one of those people who chose not to buy MW2 because of the lack of Dedicated Servers, then good for you, for me, however,I am completely convinced that IW won't disappoint with this system and will be Pre-Purchasing it tomorrow.  "

Exactly, i mean i hate cod4 but it's what, the second most popular online game for 360 after nearly 2 years? "

Thanks for writing this post.  You've stated your opinion in clear and simple language and provided shrewd analysis.

"And you saying the PS3 and 360 are not real consoles shows your ignorance and self inflicted blindness to reality."

"

One of the biggest reasons why PC gamers demand dedicated servers is because it allows older games to remain being played.  Counter-Strike, released in 1999 has over 60 thousand gamers playing it today.  I'm sure battlefield 1942, quake, and other classic games are still being played as well.  How?  Because PC gamers pay out of thier own pocket to run their own servers.  Take a look at the CS:S server list, America's Army, Rainbow Six, SWAT 4, Battlefield, and other online games, the majority if not all of those servers are run by gamers.  In 3 years when the MW2 servers are shut down to allow for the newest release, maybe you will get what I mean.  Heck, even Halo still has people playing it.

"

My biggest problem with the whole thing is how little we know about it. If IW.net was really as great as IW says it's going to be, why have we heard so little about up to now? The game is releasing in little over a weeks time. Surely they would want everybody to know just how good their service is and that would be the perfect way to remove peoples fears. Also they announced the service on some small fan podcast only after the issue of dedicated servers came up, so that means thery would never have announced it all before the game came out unless they were asked. That, to me, doesn't show much faith in your own service.
 
You can't just tell people this new thing of yours is going to be amazing and then expect them to believe it without any proof. I'm not willing to spend £45 (about $75) to be the guinea pig for your new, unproven service.

In one way, I really agree with alot of the things said, the whole situation does kinda suck abit.
But the issue of when the next game comes out and them turning off support for this one will mean no more online I kinda disagree with.
There are other solutions for server lists, other than first party ones, I havent used it in a while, but im pretty sure gamepy is still around which has this facility, and thus Im sure when (if) they ever turn off support they will just release a patch which directs to a gamespy service instead.
 
Does that make sense, or am I talking rubbish.
 
And yes, IW.net is gonna crash on launch day, and the day after that, and be slow as hell for the first week, and in the end will probably just be a Gamespy clone anyway.

3.  IWNet will be released, and won't work on launch, leading to even more "news stories" and the extension of this argument.

 
 EA in the past, with its sports titles all started out on the PC.  Including Madden and NHL everthing started on the PC.  There wouldn't be  NBA, and the rest of EA Sports' games unless they all recieved life on the pc.  Whether you agree with me or not about that, here is how things went down.  Games went to console, things were taken out of the PC version, and eventually the pc became a testbed for the console games.  NHL games would have special versions on the pc which basically were perfected a year later and released on consoles.  Online modes were stripped out of the PC version resulting in backlash and people just getting fed up with the whole situation, leading to a world now where sports games do not exist on the PC.

  Games for windows isn't helping either.  First off, Microsoft doesnt fix things they just want you to buy a 360.

The plot thickens though.  When you look at the 360 and the ps3 themselves, how much of their life came from the PC.  We all joke at the Wii, but when you really take a look at the situation, the Wii is the only real console.  The ps3 and 360 all have media playback, media streaming, patches, online play, voice, text, and video chat, downloadable games, twitter, Netflix, etc.  The real difference, the pc can use the consoles' controllers, but it is too much to ask for a server to be made or an option to be created allowing pc gamers with consoles to use mouse and keyboards against other mouse and keyboards.  Not only are the ports terrible, mostly leading to controls not feeling or working correctly, but we get games months later.  Why?

Pc gamers have been dealing with a steady decline in the quality of their gaming experience for several years now, a decade for some

No, the consoles have finally caught up and gone past the PC. PC gaming is a far better experience now than it was a decade ago but it hasn't got the accelerated development the consoles had. And you know why ? Because when things like IWNet and Battle.net try to advance it with new solutions, people just jump at them due to paranoia before experiencing these systems themselves. A lot of PC gamers complain when there is a change from a system they are comfortable with but the same people also complain that no one is doing anything to push the system forward.  BTW piracy is still alive and kicking, on all platforms. Its just a lot easier to play a pirated game on the PC and it always will be. Companies can't do much about hacked single player copies but killing dedicated servers is a good way of attacking the multiplayer scene for these games. Login servers don't work on the PC because they can be easier bypassed with cracks and things like remote profiles. But writing a whole new script for hosting p2p and creating those game sessions is much harder and is therefore a more watertight solution.

" @nabokovfan87 said:

"

One of the biggest reasons why PC gamers demand dedicated servers is because it allows older games to remain being played.  Counter-Strike, released in 1999 has over 60 thousand gamers playing it today.  I'm sure battlefield 1942, quake, and other classic games are still being played as well.  How?  Because PC gamers pay out of thier own pocket to run their own servers.  Take a look at the CS:S server list, America's Army, Rainbow Six, SWAT 4, Battlefield, and other online games, the majority if not all of those servers are run by gamers.  In 3 years when the MW2 servers are shut down to allow for the newest release, maybe you will get what I mean.  Heck, even Halo still has people playing it.

"

Any other points you make aside, this one is just plain wrong.  
 
As Al3xand3r has stated multiple items but you refuse to listen to, it makes no difference if the servers are dedicated or not.   
 
If they allow dedicated servers-  Whilst IW host thier 'list server', everythings fine. If that goes down, you're screwed unless you download a third party one.  If they don't-  Whilst IW host thier 'list server', everythings fine.  
 
If that goes down, you're screwed unless you download a third party one.    Notice the similarity?  Clue- they both have exactly the same outcome.  
 
As Al3x said, Dedicated servers don't magically use their amazing connections to bypass the need for a list server.   
 
Hopefully that's simple enough to understand, and short enough fro you to bother reading. "

"@nabokovfan87:  Your "fact" #3  is just an assumption.    
 

3.  IWNet will be released, and won't work on launch, leading to even more "news stories" and the extension of this argument.

Were you part of alpha testing for the game and the IWNet ? If you can't produce any proof, don't call anything a fact. Also, please don't judge a system before its even released.

EA in the past, with its sports titles all started out on the PC.  Including Madden and NHL everthing started on the PC.  There wouldn't be  NBA, and the rest of EA Sports' games unless they all recieved life on the pc.  Whether you agree with me or not about that, here is how things went down.  Games went to console, things were taken out of the PC version, and eventually the pc became a testbed for the console games.  NHL games would have special versions on the pc which basically were perfected a year later and released on consoles.  Online modes were stripped out of the PC version resulting in backlash and people just getting fed up with the whole situation, leading to a world now where sports games do not exist on the PC.

The discontinuation of these series is because of negligible sales and longer development cycles for PC, not some kind of bias towards PC games. EA simply sold far more copies on the consoles and they are easier to update on an yearly basis than the PC. I actually talked about PC gaming to an EA developer during one of their sessions here at USC.

  Games for windows isn't helping either.  First off, Microsoft doesnt fix things they just want you to buy a 360.

Why would they spend the development resources and a significant amount of marketing towards promoting it then ?  The system is still in flux but its improving. If anything, its something which makes PC gaming more linear and easier to manage. Steam had similar problems during the first couple of years but its great now.  MS wants you to buy a X360 but they also want you to use the GFWL platform on the PC.
    

 
  @Killjoy said:

Pc gamers have been dealing with a steady decline in the quality of their gaming experience for several years now, a decade for some

No, the consoles have finally caught up and gone past the PC. PC gaming is a far better experience now than it was a decade ago but it hasn't got the accelerated development the consoles had. And you know why ? Because when things like IWNet and Battle.net try to advance it with new solutions, people just jump at them due to paranoia before experiencing these systems themselves. A lot of PC gamers complain when there is a change from a system they are comfortable with but the same people also complain that no one is doing anything to push the system forward.  BTW piracy is still alive and kicking, on all platforms. Its just a lot easier to play a pirated game on the PC and it always will be. Companies can't do much about hacked single player copies but killing dedicated servers is a good way of attacking the multiplayer scene for these games. Login servers don't work on the PC because they can be easily bypassed with cracks and things like remote profiles. But writing a whole new script for hosting p2p and creating those game sessions is much harder and is therefore a more watertight solution.   
 
PS: Fuck's sake, I just argued with someone about MW2. I'm going to jump off a building now! "

 
its funny how you say the consoles have caught up when all that has happened is the console got more pc.  sure graphics-wise the consoles have "caught up", but the pc has gone well past that in terms of hardware and the software just needs to catch up.  Something like steam has made pc gaming a better experience then a decade ago, releasing smaller games, sales, and other things like that, but it isnt due to developers coming out with thier own crap.  lets imagine that for every online only game that each seperate developer had, the big ones, that they had their own client/software, i can't imagine people playing more then a few of those before they get sick and tired of messing with to much crap to play the game.  the reason steam is sucessful is because it simplifies things, if you have 5 different versions of steam for 5 different games with 5 different buddy lists then it is 5x the complication and not consolidating your list into one central place.   this is something that GTA IV on the pc took a lot of flack for. 
 
i'm not going to get into piracy with you, you just dont know what you are talking about.  as for cracking a game, much like the psp go in 1 day, if the developers say it can't or won't be done, it just adds fuel to the fire.

@Cowman said:    

 " @TheHBK said: 
And you saying the PS3 and 360 are not real consoles shows your ignorance and self inflicted blindness to reality."

I agree, I don't understand how multimedia playback makes you not a "real console." Adding functionality doesn't make something less capable. Unless the add-on is the 32X but that's not what this is about. "  

"lan mode + connect to ip does.  and as i have also said just as many times, old games like swat 4, hearts of iron, bf2, rainbow six, battlefield, are all still being played online.  if they didnt have community run servers then i'd imagine those list servers you like to mention would be shut down, but community following sure as hell means a lot more im guessing then matchmaking.  i think we can both agree to disagree, but im right and he is right the difference is i actually play pc games and particularly those old ones through hamachi and lan mode and what not.  like i said, it can be done, something you wont find on a console.

" @Al3xand3r: Do you need to write a thesis in every single thread?  "

" if the server list isnt there then explain to me why swat 4 still works, cs, dod, all of those games arent listed by valve or their devs.  it is built onto the friggin disk.  thats why on steam you have things like dedicated server software and such.  if a dev had to list all thousands of D.S. then it wouldnt be worth it to them.   and when i say ip connect and crap i dont mean p2p, you can connect to an ip of a dedicated server as well, like i said, none of this no matter what the hell you argue can be done on the console at all.  lives of the pc games reach much farther then anything out on the pc, particularly mp ones. "

The other thing everyone here seems to be missing is mods and custom maps.  Capture the Flag and Team Fortress started as Quake mods.  Counter-Strike started as a Half-Life mod.  So did Day of Defeat.  And so on.  No dedicated servers and P2P matchmaking only (along with GFW functionality -- I don't remember if MW2 has it, but I digress) means no mods, no custom maps, none of that.  Sure, 90% of everything is shit, and I've played some garbage UT mods in my time, but the other 10% can greatly extend the life of a game beyond what the developers originally created, and can lead to new gametypes, new game ideas, and even new game development teams (the CS guys were hired by Valve around 2000, no?).
 
So really, you're losing not just the community aspect of PC gaming, but the creativity that's been associated with it since the days of Doom.  I think that's incredibly unfortunate, and I think that loss is the one that's really been understated by everyone.

It seems everyone here is focusing on the technicality of peer to peer vs dedicated, when for me its down to practicality. Trying to get a loada people together to play in a group on the console matchmaking systems is horrendous. Whereas having a serve is so much easier. Peer to peer is like trying to get a loada mates together for a party at an obscure location no one knows about, you have to be there at the time when they plan it otherwise you won't know where it is. Whereas as dedicated servers is liked having a party at the usual place where people can pop in and out. It's just about having a home, rather than casually wandering around the ether of multiplayer games.