Dedodido

" @Dedodido said:

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @Dedodido said:

"

"I'm talking about the monopolisation going on.  Pricing is one thing, lack of competition another.  There's nothing even slightly confusing about my post.  Why would anyone want prices to be more expensive, don't be specious. "

(Cut out a load of the quotes since it was getting quite big)
 
I was being nothing of the sort, I was genuinely confused at first by you saying

These large businesses are cutting out the middle men and are not throwing the discount back to the end users at all.  In fact, Activision charges than other companies for a lesser experience

which led me to believe you thought they were charging too much. But then later on you said

In short they are robbing people of choice and taking away the ability for smaller businesses  to make money in offering competitively priced dedicated server hosting. 

Which I initially thought implied you thought they weren't charging enough.
I realise now you meant that smaller companies can't offer hosting at all due to the exclusivity deal, but there are plenty of other games. COD: Black Ops isn't the be all and end all of PC gaming. Besides, it seems perfectly reasonable for the publisher to outsource their server renting to a third party, who they choose to give that contract to is their prerogative.
 
As an aside, regarding your comment that

There's nothing even slightly confusing about my post. 

I believe it is the job of those who read your comment to decide if it's confusing or not, obviously you know what you were talking about since you were the one who wrote it. "

Wow, still trying to be specious?  A missing word does in no way make my post confusing, obviously though, you're using it in an effort to negate my idea at some level, because your example somehow makes the most expensive CS :S Server Hosting vs what's really available based on competitive pricing (.75c a slot hosting for example) seem rational or sensible.  Nobody in their right mind pays $80 / month for a dedicated CS : S server, especially @ 66 Tickrate.   My part of conversation is about monopolisation, stop trying to derail it.  Obviously your job as some corporate flunky is to do so but it's not working because other people are talking about the same thing in this thread. "

I had no idea it could be so difficult to have a discussion with someone. For the last time, I'm not being specious, I was genuinely confused. And missing words? Where the hell did I talk about missing words? Derailing the conversation? I'm some corporate flunky? Good god man, what the hell are you rambling on about? (By the way, I'm a student, you should really stop assuming you know people when you don't, it's insulting.)  I basically said that an exclusivity deal doesn't make monopolisation a problem because there are lots of other games people can do hosting for, and you responded by saying "My part of conversation is about monopolisation, stop trying to derail it.".   ...And you claim your posts aren't confusing? "

"In fact, Activision charges than other companies for a lesser experience: - note the missing word "more" from that sentence?  If you didn't see that, then explain how my EXTREMELY CLEAR LANGUAGE can be misread as me stating I "thought they were charging too much".  Please, because this is annoying having to go round and round while you make claims about my text being confusing when it's really not.  Next, your reasoning is that people should just go to another product and that somehow resolves the monopilisation magically?  This is Activision we're talking about, a company who charges more for their product just because they can, without any reasonable justification otherwise.  This sets an extremely poor precedent in PC Game Server hosting and you can be damn sure that this type of hosting monopolisation, as well as the increased pricing model, is influencing other companies.   Either you're being naive or acting naive in order to avoid the subject at hand.   Finally, you can be a Corporate Flunky and still be a student.  There are many students who work as viral marketers too.  Is that insulting to you too? My posts aren't confusing.  It's not a claim.  It's a fact. "

" @Dedodido said:

"

"I'm talking about the monopolisation going on.  Pricing is one thing, lack of competition another.  There's nothing even slightly confusing about my post.  Why would anyone want prices to be more expensive, don't be specious. "

(Cut out a load of the quotes since it was getting quite big)
 
I was being nothing of the sort, I was genuinely confused at first by you saying

These large businesses are cutting out the middle men and are not throwing the discount back to the end users at all.  In fact, Activision charges than other companies for a lesser experience

which led me to believe you thought they were charging too much. But then later on you said

In short they are robbing people of choice and taking away the ability for smaller businesses  to make money in offering competitively priced dedicated server hosting. 

Which I initially thought implied you thought they weren't charging enough.
I realise now you meant that smaller companies can't offer hosting at all due to the exclusivity deal, but there are plenty of other games. COD: Black Ops isn't the be all and end all of PC gaming. Besides, it seems perfectly reasonable for the publisher to outsource their server renting to a third party, who they choose to give that contract to is their prerogative.
 
As an aside, regarding your comment that

There's nothing even slightly confusing about my post. 

I believe it is the job of those who read your comment to decide if it's confusing or not, obviously you know what you were talking about since you were the one who wrote it. "

Wow, still trying to be specious?  A missing word does in no way make my post confusing, obviously though, you're using it in an effort to negate my idea at some level, because your example somehow makes the most expensive CS :S Server Hosting vs what's really available based on competitive pricing (.75c a slot hosting for example) seem rational or sensible.  Nobody in their right mind pays $80 / month for a dedicated CS : S server, especially @ 66 Tickrate.   My part of conversation is about monopolisation, stop trying to derail it.  Obviously your job as some corporate flunky is to do so but it's not working because other people are talking about the same thing in this thread. "

Dee-dough-die-dough

I@SeriouslyNow said:

" @Dedodido said:

" @SeriouslyNow said:

" @CL60 said:

Sorry, but that's utter bullshit.  People have certainly payed for and used dedicated server hosting companies, yes, but the difference here is that there is no competition on pricing anymore and that's a very, very bad thing.  These large businesses are cutting out the middle men and are not throwing the discount back to the end users at all.  In fact, Activision charges than other companies for a lesser experience, at least BC2 allows for custom server content.  In short they are robbing people of choice and taking away the ability for smaller businesses  to make money in offering competitively priced dedicated server hosting.   This is a monopoly and the last time I looked, monopolies are a illegal. "

I'm slightly confused by your post, are you complaining and saying that the server prices sould be more expensive? 
Or are you saying the servers are too expensive? If you're saying the latter, you're wrong. Take a look at this page for example:
  http://www.gameservers.com/game_servers/battlefield_2_server.php An 18 player server (which is tiny by BF2 standards) is $22.45 a month. A 64 player server (which is what most people play) is $79.95 a month. It's exactly the same price for a CS: Source server, which is a 7 year old game. "

I'm talking about the monopolisation going on.  Pricing is one thing, lack of competition another.  There's nothing even slightly confusing about my post.  Why would anyone want prices to be more expensive, don't be specious. "

These large businesses are cutting out the middle men and are not throwing the discount back to the end users at all.  In fact, Activision charges than other companies for a lesser experience

In short they are robbing people of choice and taking away the ability for smaller businesses  to make money in offering competitively priced dedicated server hosting. 

There's nothing even slightly confusing about my post. 

" @CL60 said:

" @Nonentity said:

" @Zatoichi_Sanjuro said:

" @Binman88 said:

" @Crushed said:

" As a PC gamer... this is honestly non-news. It's the same sort of setup that that dedicated server owners and renters have been doing for years. "

@fedorajay said:

" You can tell who the console kiddies are by the "lolz" and "hahaha". Anyone who knows anything understands this is nothing new and there are people out there who actually prefer it this way. "

@PowerBombYo said:

" Some PC gamers have been paying for servers for plenty of years. What's the big deal? "

@zaglis said:

" LOL@ the same clueless consolist comments on every site this has been posted.    "

 I'm glad to see people responding here that actually have a bit of sense.^^^^  The handful of negative comments on this article so far have come from idiots assuming PC gamers will be up in arms about this - because said idiots probably have no understanding of how dedicated hosting works. 99 times out of 100, a clan ALWAYS rents a server in this fashion. This is how dedicated servers have been hosted for years. Heck, I'm currently renting a dedicated server for an 8 year old game exactly like this. It is very rare to see a clan server hosted privately - most people don't have the bandwidth for it, nor want the hassle of maintaining the server on site.  The only possible issue I can see is the lack of choice, but as long as this company is reliable and able to deliver good pings, then there's absolutely no problem with this at all. Prices seem very reasonable to me too.  Unfortunately the voices of reason from the PC camp are bound to be ignored here, as I expect a slew of idiotic, shit-stirring comments from the vocal minority of the console camp to be added shortly. "

QFT, especially the last line. "

Double true. "

Tripled.  "

Sorry, but that's utter bullshit.  People have certainly payed for and used dedicated server hosting companies, yes, but the difference here is that there is no competition on pricing anymore and that's a very, very bad thing.  These large businesses are cutting out the middle men and are not throwing the discount back to the end users at all.  In fact, Activision charges than other companies for a lesser experience, at least BC2 allows for custom server content.  In short they are robbing people of choice and taking away the ability for smaller businesses  to make money in offering competitively priced dedicated server hosting.   This is a monopoly and the last time I looked, monopolies are a illegal. "

"

not that its BAD, just that it exists at all and drove people away from L4D1 (which is much, much better) "

I'm not just beginning to think this, I've thought it since day 1. In my opinion, if DLC comes out before 3-6 months after release then it's just something they could have put in the game, and the developer/publisher is playing silly buggers.

My first will have to be a human warrior, since that was my first GW character.
After that I'll be going for all the combinations that don't make much sense, so:
Sylvari Necromancer 
Asrua Ranger
Norn Assassin/Mesmer
Charr Elementalist