Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

John Carmack Says No Dedicated Servers For Rage

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the will-you-rage-over-rage dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 162

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.'"

cancel ×

162 comments

More getting the shaft (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012712)

Thanks game devs for getting those with only lan access in moms baement the shaft.

Dedicated Servers = Freedom (3, Insightful)

DirtyCanuck (1529753) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013074)

Dedicated servers are the shit.

Remember when gamespy was quakespy? And there was Mplayer?

I used to play q2 tournaments on Mplayer. But all the mods rolled on Quakespy/Gamespy. It gave people from such communities as the Action Quake/Quake 2 group some exposure.

More recently a great example of such a contrast is the early release of Halo 2 and even the lack of multiplayer support in the Original Halo in the beginning.

Before xbox live we had Xbox Connect which allowed me to play online before xbox live was mainstream. Furthermore it allowed for the playing of Halo 2, online, months before it came out.

This includes modified versions of Halo and Halo 2 that would never be realized without dedicated servers.

This culture is not even recognized by the noob gamers that started playing games online through a console portal.

Definitely worth fighting for.

Re:Dedicated Servers = Freedom (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013138)

Yep. The scenario you mentioned is the same one that went through my mind: a couple of generations of gamers goes by and suddenly no one even notices that you have to play on their servers because that's the "standard." Then it'll be you have to pay to play on those servers because bandwith is too costly, or storage or some crap. It's all bollocks, and it's setup to move the industry into a position to capitalize on the only portions where it's not making any money.

Glad to see he's not charging forward (3, Insightful)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012714)

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.

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (0, Flamebait)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012730)

Seriously why are people kissing Carmacks ass these days? Did anyone play the new 'Wolfenstein'? The guy can only live on the success of doom and the original Wolfenstein for so long. As far as I'm concerned the guy may be a good programmer but in terms of making games that are fun and are genuinely good he's a has been. I don't care about any of his new games to come out. Rage? Doom 4? seriously a Doom 4. Like we need another Doom.

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012750)

Just like we need another slashdotter's disproportionate observation as id provided the tech, while Raven provided the fun/or lack of fun factor of the new game. It'd help your argument more if you would read up on who's actually putting their hand into the cookie jar of the new sequels.

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012870)

Since when has Carmack been a designer or producer? Hint: he isn't. He's in charge of the technical stuff, the engine. If that sucks, by all means blame him. But a crappy game on top of a nice engine means that id Software sucks, not Carmack.

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (2, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013068)

Here's a question, though... and I mean this as a genuine question, having never done game development:

Is the networking/interconnection system part of the engine, and if not, would the former be part of Carmack's responsibilities, too?

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (2, Informative)

JimboFBX (1097277) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013762)

Yes and no, it would be considered a module of the engine if you will. If programmed correctly, the interfaces should be such that you can swap out one method of networking with another and the game wouldn't know the difference. You should be able to completely spoof being networked at all and have no issues. If programmed incorrectly (like gears of war and gears of war 2), then the core engine and network could be coupled together in a way that it is not easy to modify the netcode without breaking something fundamental to the game engine.

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (4, Insightful)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014084)

Is the networking/interconnection system part of the engine, and if not, would the former be part of Carmack's responsibilities, too?

Yes, it is. Most major game engine packages, including IDTech contain a networking layer. In fact, John Carmack was the guy who pretty much pioneered the client-server model for graphical games back when he made Quake.

However I've never had a major problem with his game's network layers. The issue is only that the game itself (content and gameplay wise) has been fairly bland for the last few iterations. If what the grandparent post is saying is correct, John Carmack is only responsible for the technical side, (including rendering and networking) and not the game experience itself. However, if "Masters of Doom" is correct, that is simply not the case as that book attributes most of the decisions as to the focus on recent games to John Carmack. It argues that it is the direct consequence of his conservative policy in game design that lead to Quake2, Quake3 and Doom3 being how they are, for better or worse.

The grandparent is claiming that John Carmack's technical record is unblemished and if he says P2P hosting is the way of the future then he should be given the benefit of the doubt and not questioned until he either recants, delivers a bad implementation or proves not to be able to implement this system in reasonable time. Even if he is responsible for the boring combat of Doom3, that suggests nothing about his ability to write game networking layers. I wrote a lot of the network system of a commercial game engine. My personal reaction towards this statement is to acknowledge that past history suggests that he will be able to deliver something very good and there is nobody who can really call him wrong until they have tested his implementation. I however, have not abandoned the client-server model and neither should anyone simply on the words of John D Carmack without thinking exactly about the priorities and requirements of their game.

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (1)

AndrewDBarker (1532289) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013088)

You do know Mr. Carmack himself reads this site, that's why I posted this here.. ?

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013506)

Ooh, Mr. Carmack. How far have you got your tongue wedged up his asshole now you fuckstick?

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (0, Offtopic)

magnusrex1280 (1075361) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014556)

lolwut. Have you been drinking, or are you playing that game where you stick random words together and giggle as others try to figure out what you're talking about?

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013654)

Latest wolfenstein = made by Raven Software = shovelware factory.

Yes, doom 3 wasnt perfect either, but I for one would like another Doom game, you insensitive clod!

Especially one that is not farmed out to aforementioned shovelware factory, but made by id software themselves.

Re:Glad to see he's not charging forward (2, Insightful)

Tibor the Hun (143056) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014088)

teh stoopid is overrunning slashdot too.

Battlefield Heroes.. (1, Insightful)

msimm (580077) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012766)

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 way I could think of to compensate for all this would be strong team/clan tools because they would cause little communities and host servers their players would spend more time on, but honestly I haven't seen any games with something decent since Tribes 2 (invite system, team management, tag controls, even a messaging system!).

I don't love or hate the matchmaking system, but I would like to see them find a way to do it that doesn't impact the gaming community so much. Until then I'll miss my server browser.

Re:Battlefield Heroes.. (2, Insightful)

sp1nny (1350037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012802)

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.

Re:Battlefield Heroes.. (4, Interesting)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013008)

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).

Re:Battlefield Heroes.. (1)

VisualD (1144679) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013226)

L4D has plenty of dedicated servers. Simply select "Best Available Dedicated" in the lobby set up and away you go.....

Re:Battlefield Heroes.. (2, Informative)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013292)

You have to know the server's unique identifier, type it into the console, choose "best available dedicated", and then the group will follow you to that specific server. Which is what we were doing the other night, since one of our group of 4 only gets a good ping when it's a west coast server. If you simply select "best available" and hit go, it might pick somewhere in Kansas, which is going to ping badly for us in Texas, Florida, and the guy who only pings well to west coast servers. But it's the best averaging ping server valve could find for us. Valve has introduced group servers, where you can associate a server with a group via your group's id number (you have to be a group admin to see it), but that seems to be buggy, or doesn't update very quickly. This is very annoying if you've paid for a private server (or you're hosting your own somewhere) and are trying to run anything other than dead stock L4D. You can technically connect directly to the IP, but that bypasses the lobby system completely.

Re:Battlefield Heroes.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30014212)

if you want proper server choice use the console command openserverbrowser to get a classic "internet", "favorites" server listing.

I typically do this to pick one of my favorite servers, then invite friends.

Re:Battlefield Heroes.. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013372)

I see your Borderlands and raise you a Dragon Age: Origins

Re:Battlefield Heroes.. (1)

TheThiefMaster (992038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013378)

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 the one of us with a public IP (actually multiple static IPs and a router that supports multiple DMZs with different IPs, so he's technically still behind NAT) has ever hosted a game successfully. Even better, it never works first time, he always has to restart Borderlands before we can actually connect.
The game itself though (apart from a few minor pre-first-patch bugs) is awesome. Who doesn't want a rocket launcher that fires a spread of five rockets that set everything on fire when they explode?

A remnant? (3, Insightful)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#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? (5, Informative)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 4 years ago | (#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? (0)

Shadow of Eternity (795165) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012908)

Which was largely my point, ~200k concurrent players at peak time is a damn sight more impressive than 200K total. I don't even know how many active unique users valve's games have but it's probably somewhere between an imperial and a metric fuckton.

Re:A remnant? (1)

BKX (5066) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013892)

It's 1.6 million, according their current stats. That's down a bit from their actual peak, which was over 4 million about three years ago, IIRC.

Re:A remnant? (3, Informative)

lga (172042) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014012)

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:A remnant? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012910)

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 still growing. Updates and new content every once in a while for nil.

Now just give me my hat already.

Re:A remnant? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#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? (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013280)

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!

Re:A remnant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013820)

Right there with you. Making and playing mods is what kept me interested in PC Gaming for more than half of my life (I'm 24 now, and I learned to program by messing with Quake C). The unfortunate part is that if we stop buying their games, we will simply be replaced by people who don't realize/care that mods to games can be a truly amazing experience.

Simply about piracy (3, Informative)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:Simply about piracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013612)

I don't think so because Quake 3 had an authentication system.

Re:Simply about piracy (5, Informative)

Kaboom13 (235759) | more than 4 years ago | (#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?

This is a bonus (1)

Fippy Darkpaw (1269608) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012770)

I don't pirate games I like and if it curbs cheating central servers is fine with me.

Re:This is a bonus (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012806)

I'd rather deal with the occasional cheater than suddenly lose multiplayer because the publisher decided the servers were no longer financially viable. This is really about making games disposable, which, for me at least, negates any inherent value received at purchase.

Re:This is a bonus (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013096)

What does that have to do with matchmaking vs dedicated servers? You need master server in both cases, otherwise you couldn't get a list of dedicated servers.

Re:This is a bonus (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013876)

You need some form of advertising. Gamespy was compiling lists of dedicated servers long before this kind of thing was integrated into games. If a game is still popular enough for people to run dedicated servers but not worth financial outlay for the publisher to support then people can still advertise dedicated servers via some mechanism, even if it's just a web forum with a list of IPs...

Re:This is a bonus (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013238)

Yep, I enjoy playing Tribes 2, despite the company being long gone. I don't like relying on 3rd parties in the tech world. Few companies have proven themselves stable enough to last.

News Flash: Carmack No Longer Relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012808)

"Thank god I didn't have to figure it out!!"

What happened to Carmack the innovator? Nowdays it seems hes happy to take backseat to bolder devs like Valve and Infinity Ward.

What rage will be like. (0, Offtopic)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012824)

I'm thinking rage will be a tricked up Far Cry 2, FPS with some wafer thin role playing elements, you drive around, shoot some stuff, drive around, repeat. Like any FPS it will have implausibly located exploding barrels, and crates... everywhere. We are long past the era significant innovation in the FPS genre.

Re:What rage will be like. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012852)

What if... now here me out on this one, What if we... were to combine the barrels and the crates somehow? We could call them Barrates or, crarrels.
Come on, work with me here people, either keep up or get out of my way.

Sheesh.

Two words: (2, Insightful)

denzacar (181829) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013846)

Wooden barrels.

Having no dedicated servers is a bad idea (2, Interesting)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012836)

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.

Re:Having no dedicated servers is a bad idea (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013300)

I played the Demigod (which supposedly has all this fancy new p2p server nonsense) demo some time ago. That was the last time I ever played a non-central server game. It was a lag nightmare. You always had as much lag as the person with the worst connection. Needless to say that out of maybe 15-20 games I tried to play, only 1-2 were lag free.

Re:Having no dedicated servers is a bad idea (2, Insightful)

Zoidbot (1194453) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013432)

You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this. Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360, will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers (PC and PS3) will get gimped due to the Xbox's limitations.

John Carmack is something of a remnant himself (0, Flamebait)

kbrasee (1379057) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012838)

Just sayin'.

boycott (0, Flamebait)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012850)

forget a petition, if id wants to screw over PC gamers then a boycott of all id games and all games using technology licensed from id is in order.

Re:boycott (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013056)

And id won't care. The "sales" they would lose to this would primarily be the people who used to pirate the game.

Re:boycott (1)

drsquare (530038) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013434)

all games using technology licensed from id

Both of them?

Re:boycott (2, Informative)

bcmm (768152) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013582)

I'm probably getting trolled here, but here is a list of stuff based on the Quake III Engine [wikipedia.org] .

Also remember that Source was originally based on Quake II.

sadder than a crying puppy (2, Interesting)

Myrcutio (1006333) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

Re:sadder than a crying puppy (1)

Dahamma (304068) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013120)

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...

Re:sadder than a crying puppy (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013900)

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...

Re:sadder than a crying puppy (1)

Zak3056 (69287) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014256)

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.

if (NO == dedicated_servers) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012856)

"It's not cast in stone yet, but at this point no, we don't think we will have dedicated servers,"

Then we don't think we will be purchasing Rage, Mr. Carmack.

Re:if (NO == dedicated_servers) (0, Flamebait)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013196)

First "his" view on Linux, and now "his" view on dedicated servers.

I'm beginning to think that John is drinking the koolaid his new corporate masters are forcing on him.

John, I know you read this site. I just want you to know that this BS that has been going on since you were bought... you just lost a loyal customer permanently.

Doom? bought at full retail.
Quake? bought at full retail.
Quake 2? bought at full retail.
Quake 3? bought at full retail TWICE.
Doom 3? bought at full retail.
Quake 4? bought at full retail.
ETQW: bought at full retail.

Never again. Enjoy the downward spiral, I know i'm not alone in this.

Re:if (NO == dedicated_servers) (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013656)

What are you talking about?

Re:if (NO == dedicated_servers) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30014242)

It's a statement of what he previously bought and that he won't be buying again.

I'd care (0, Offtopic)

tengeta (1594989) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012874)

But I stopped playing games a year ago... what a great year its been.

Re:I'd care (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013394)

But I stopped playing games a year ago... what a great year its been.

Say, you don't know this guy [theonion.com] , do you?

A remnant? (0, Flamebait)

deweyhewson (1323623) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012880)

Really, when was the last time Carmack's games were relevant? Doom 3, maybe? Even that was overshadowed by other, better, games at the time. If anything is a leftover remnant of the 90s, it's id Software.

Re:A remnant? (2, Funny)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013646)

I think you are mistaken. There was no game called Doom 3. There was, however, a tech demo by that name...

Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (4, Insightful)

Asmor (775910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30012914)

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.

Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30012948)

you just might change your mind when your favorite game is no longer financially viable and the central servers are killed.. Of course, if it's popular, expect version 2 to come out, giving you the 'honor' of paying again for whats' basically the same game. This time though, you'll HAVE to pay if you want to keep on playing because you've got no dedicated server option for you and your buddies to set up your own environment. Oh, and don't forget about mods...

Technical vs. emotional (2, Interesting)

TiggertheMad (556308) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013002)

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 still get stellar framerates. I think you are reading things into his comments that aren't there.

Re:Technical vs. emotional (2, Informative)

Asmor (775910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013048)

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 networking, e.g. setting up all of your ports correctly, latency, etc.

Re:Technical vs. emotional (1)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013202)

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.

Re:Technical vs. emotional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013156)

ping fairness and the variability of host quality (how many background processes, does the user maintain his system etc).
running a modern game in listen mode on a modern comp is no different from running an old game on an old comp in the same way..

user setup dedicated servers are the backbone of any multiplayer game community.

Re:Technical vs. emotional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013636)

I don't buy it. For example, I can run a Doom 3 dedicated server with a max of 4 players on a P3 1Ghz. I have to admit that I don't know how it scales on modern CPUs. Also Doom 3 is not primarily a multiplayer game so the multiplayer code might not be well optimized.
But even if one has the CPU power to host a server and play on the same machine there's still the issue of network bandwidth. Most people I know simply don't have the bandwidth to host games with more than 4 people.
Finally, I don't think it matters whether people have enough CPU power and/or network bandwidth. Id's game engines have always had a dedicated server ... so why stop now? It just doesn't make sense.

Re:Technical vs. emotional (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013928)

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 another poster pointed out, the person running a non-dedicated server has an effective ping of 0, which gives a noticeable advantage on Internet games (and a slight one on LAN games).

Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013016)

I'm thinking back to when Kali was released, and for $20 you had lifetime access.

I'm thinking back to Madden 2001 and the sheer fun that was online play (through a simple java matchmaker).

I'm thinking back to D2, and how much fun battle.net was, as long as you pretended cheats didn't exist.

A centralized service has its benefits, but it has to be a game that is going to be really really good. It's not a secret that poor designs of authenticated matching systems flop in a big way.

Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013166)

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:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (2, Interesting)

Scott Kevill (1080991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013212)

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.

Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014578)

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.

Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30014108)

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

Yeah I've only tried Borderlands for PC like three times online and all three were awful. Gearbox should be ashamed and embarrassed about the piss poor online play experience they provided to their PC using customers.

They shouldn't feel any too proud about claiming it was designed for PC either since so many of the UI elements are still quite clearly console oriented, even after releasing the PC version a week after the console versions, allegedly so that they could "optimize" it. Selling things is a pain in the ass since the dialogs require clicking with the mouse as they don't respond to Enter and Esc the way the text on them claims they do.

Not to mention that not having a single damn setting for voice chat in the in-game menus or a way to mute players or a push to talk key is simply stupid.

Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (1)

Asmor (775910) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014428)

Or the fact that there are so many hidden settings only configurable by editing files which are in a location you'd never think to look on your own (My Documents\My Games? Seriously? Who the fuck does that?). Disabling mouse smoothing is absolutely vital, IMHO, and the game feels like trash until you've done that. But you'd never even think to do it unless you happened to stumble onto the instructions about it in a forum somewhere.

Re:Decentralized gaming IS the ancient remnant (1)

jdkane (588293) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014480)

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.

Not everyone can host a game via p2p (3, Informative)

Mistakill (965922) | more than 4 years ago | (#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

Re:Not everyone can host a game via p2p (1)

Kattspya (994189) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013220)

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.

Re:Not everyone can host a game via p2p (1)

Fumus (1258966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013906)

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.

Re:Not everyone can host a game via p2p (1)

mabinogi (74033) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014258)

a "Dedicated Server" in the context of a PC Multiplayer game is a separate server program distributed along side the game, or the ability to run the game itself in a headless server mode - as opposed to hosting the game within a running playing session.

It allows players to set up semi-permanent servers for their friends - or the world - and also prevents the server interfering with the performance of the game, and vice versa.

They are distinct from centralised servers - it's historically rare for a FPS to have a centralised server.

Doesn't really matter (3, Informative)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 4 years ago | (#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.

This isn't a good thing (1)

petrus4 (213815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013184)

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 that! We can just go through the remote service to do so!"

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?

Add to that, the fact that you're paying money for no good reason other than your own stupidity and laziness. You should not want to give a company the ability to dictate terms of use to you, and you especially shouldn't want to give said company money when you don't have to.

It doesn't really bother me, though. I don't play contemporary games, and the single main reason why is because they've been dumbed down in order to give the Guitar Hero demographic what they want; something to serve as a centrepiece in the living room on a Friday night, while people are getting drunk and/or stoned with their friends.

If you care about actually having any kind of real challenge in a game now, you're accused of having no life.

Re:This isn't a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013224)

Not to mention you can't play it at work!!

Re:This isn't a good thing (1)

jcupitt65 (68879) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014234)

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.

Xbox Live gimping all platforms. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30013398)

You can all thank Microsoft and Xbox Lives reliance on laggy P2P networking for this. Any multiplatform titles that includes Xbox360, will mean all the other platforms that usually have dedicated servers (PC and PS3) will get gimped due to the Xbox's limitations.

THANKS MICROSOFT, YOUR CRAPPY HARDWARE AND CRAPPY SOFTWARE IS SLOWLY DESTROYING GAMING NOT ONLY ON YOUR SYSTEMS BUT YOUR COMPETITORS TOO.

Thankfully I only mostly support PS3 exclusive titles, not only because they are better, but don't have to play to Microsofts gimped P2P networking.

mistake (1)

Turiko (1259966) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013450)

I'm really not sure about this. Carmack has done a lot of great things, but i still think this is a very big mistake. Unless the game has nothing to form communities around (no deathmatch, capture the flag, anything), anyone who buys this game essentially gets no multiplayer. The pings will be way up, with loads of cheaters and hackers on. After all, it's easy to hack your local files and then click "host".

New trends, new counter-trends (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013530)

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 of interest from players, arguably even historical levels, and simultaneously no less historical and epic levels of discontent from PC players due to the drop of dedicated servers. So imagine the scenario : MW2 is released, discontent hardcore PC gamers boycott it and pirate it en masse, and to get the multiplayer experience they want out of their new favourite game they create their own dedicated servers and the accompanying mod for the original game, resulting in an online community of multiplayer gamers who control entirely the multiplayer aspect.

The net result being everybody pirating the game and running the mod and everybody's happy with it except the game's publishers who lost control of the multiplayer on PC and who lost tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of sales. Could this be a forthcoming counter-trend?

Re:New trends, new counter-trends (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014652)

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.

So where are HIS details? (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013694)

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?

Re:So where are HIS details? (1)

sowth (748135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014358)

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.

Dedicated servers are a must (2, Insightful)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013772)

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 ... (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 4 years ago | (#30013798)

Cmdr Taco says no <em>tags</em> in story titles on the /. homepage !

Whats next? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014158)

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.

Carmack sold out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30014496)

He has sold out his beliefs, his passion, and his work. He once said that DirectX was the worst thing ever (which it is) and now he openly embraces it. He has supported Linux in the past and now they are moving away from that. Now he has betrayed PC gaming completely by going to some stupid console-like gaming model that many other PC games are stupidly going toward. What do you want to bet it will be the absolutely horrible Microsoft Games for Windows thing?

Fuck Carmack and fuck id. They have betrayed PC gaming just like everyone else is. Microsoft flashed id some fucking money and now he's in bed with them. Screw them and don't give them any more of your money. Demand PC gaming that supports multiple OSes, a sane 3d API, and most of all, decentralized servers. You know, PC GAMES, not goddamn console ports.

Re:Carmack sold out. (1)

mambodog (1399313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014604)

Maybe he realised that games with repetitive gameplay and little-to-no story don't sell like they used to in the 90s [wikipedia.org] , and that rocket hobby ain't gonna fund itself!

Re:Carmack sold out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30014760)

Little to no story in videogames is GOOD. Fuck all this elaborate cutscene and WHAT A TWEEST bullshit, I want to shoot stuff.

And Doom? Repetitive? You were playing it wrong.

If anything, it's shit like Doom 3 which completely fucking went against what Doom was supposed to be that has made him sell out.

Of Course! (2)

mambodog (1399313) | more than 4 years ago | (#30014586)

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 of the past, when the current gen local hosting malarky can't deliver anywhere near what deds could.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...