Beta
×

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!

CoD: Black Ops To Get Dedicated Game Servers

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the that's-dedication dept.

Networking 69

roh2cool writes "The seventh Call of Duty game is being planned, and it has been dubbed Call of Duty: Black Ops. This game will be developed by Treyarch instead of Infinity Ward. Mark Lamia, Treyarch studio head, confirmed with CVG that in CoD: Black Ops, players will get dedicated game servers for the PC version of the game. Finally, PC gamers will get a chance to rejoice."

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Not unexpected (4, Interesting)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228740)

With the storm of bad press Activision has been under the last few months this almost comes as no surprise.

Too bad it's too late for them to win me back.

Re:Not unexpected (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228798)

And besides, historical shooters kind of lose to modern ones now. I would love this for new modern warfare, but since new Medal of Honor that is based on modern times is coming out too, I don't think I will be buying this one. And I'm one that still plays MW2 multiplayer about 20 hours a week (sabotage)

Re:Not unexpected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32230068)

Try Battlefield: Bad Company 2. It's what MW2 could have been.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

kernelphr34k (1179539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230376)

I stopped playing MW2, and started playing Bad Company 2. There are dedicated servers, and there are measures put into place to ban cheaters. Something that MW2 did not have, and it seems like IW did not care about cheaters.. So I will not be buying the new COD game.. I actually would like to see if I can return MW2 and see if I can get some of my money back... what a waste of $$$.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32256078)

it seems like IW did not care about cheaters.. So I will not be buying the new COD game..

Irrelevent, since Treyarch is developing this game, not Infinity Ward...

Re:Not unexpected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32258954)

They do too care about cheaters, it's just they messed up cheat prevention. There's a way to simply and completely turn off Valve Anti Cheat.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

PhongUK (1301747) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234614)

No it's not. MW2 and BC2 are completely different styles of games. BC2 is designed to be a more full-scale-war based game like Delta Force Black Hawk Down, Joint Operations et al, where as MW2 is a more spec-ops-quick-fast-action game. You've apparently never played either.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234932)

BC2 is more like a combat simulator. MW2 is an action shooter. One is based around realism and the other puts you in the role of a Bruce Willis type guy. Those after realism like BC2, and those after arcade style playability like Modern Warfare. Noone likes MW2.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

enigmatics (972410) | more than 4 years ago | (#32248150)

Made a couple edits. "Those after realism like OpFlash2 or ARMA II. Those after robust arcade style gameplay like BC2 (or still play BF2/BF2142). Those after simple arcade style gameplay like MW." Although, I agree MW2 sucks. I picked it up from the free Steam weekend deal and deleted after my second match.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

soppsa (1797376) | more than 4 years ago | (#32242614)

20 hours a week? I think its time to get laid.

pass the buck pass the buck (4, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229212)

I wonder if this will quell the cheaters?

I tried to play CoD online for months and was constantly having to deal with wallhacks and other cheaters. Contacted Infinity Ward and they said "not our problem, it' s Activision not policing their servers, contact them." Contacted Activision and they said "not our problem, we didn't write the server app, contact Infinity Ward". I actually went back and forth several times but neither of them were willing to accept any responsibility for the problem, and there were a lot of people with similar complaints.

So, at least this means they may not be able to do the infinite pass-the-buck if Infinity Ward is writing the game AND running the servers?

Re:pass the buck pass the buck (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32229502)

I have a feeling there was no cheating and you're just really suck at the game.

Re:pass the buck pass the buck (4, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230272)

Many of the less policed servers had blatant advertisements from the people writing the hack. You'd login and start playing and every few minutes someone would just come out of nowhere and you'd just die instantly. You see them make an obnoxious ansi color text down in the public chat line something like

Scrooge just got a HEADSHOT on FreshMeat using BabyBot 2.0. visit us at www.babybot.com

They would say other things when it was the hacker "manually" killing someone while they had their wallhack on. Autoaim for headshots, autoknife, auto grenade return, and wallhacks made it a very unpleasant experience.

I saw maybe five different varieties of bots on a pretty constant basis. Google "call of duty bots" for all the bots you care (not) to see.

But you got one thing right, ya I do suck ;) But this made me suck MORE and enjoy it LESS. I don't mind so much getting tooled, but when it's a script kiddie with a $15/mo subscription to one of these bots delivering me a headshot every time I so much as see them, it's really annoying. (yes, many of them work on subscription basis)

Re:pass the buck pass the buck (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234778)

$15/month to be able to shout BOOM HEADSHOT! at your own monitor with no real-life benefit (such as knowing that you're an uber-l33t twitch gaming God, ready to take on Fatal1ty / Kapitol at the next World Cyber Games) seems a little... Well, let's just say I don't feel so bad about paying roughly the same to play WoW anymore. At least it's me being the nerdy (let capable) gamer.

Re:pass the buck pass the buck (2, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229714)

there's no solution to cheating, so who do expect to fix it? You can hack the exe, the drivers, run the game in a VM and hack the input/output. The devs aren't going to police it. Punkbuster is shit and just causes problems without really solving anything. You're just going to have to stump up for a private server and police it yourself.

Re:pass the buck pass the buck (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#32235624)

Well, wall hacks are relatively easy to prevent; the server shouldn't be giving position information to clients for objects are not visible. Auto-aim is a bit harder to prevent; if the client has a copy of the model, it can find the relevant part of it and automatically aim there. You can possibly use Fitts' Law here though. If the client sends a stream of orientation information to the server, then the server can see if the client's aim quickly flicks to a particular point, without the acceleration and deceleration (often with overshoot and backtracking) curve that a human would follow. If a client does this repeatedly, without exhibiting any human-like behaviour, degrade its aim on the server, so shots that look like they hit on the client actually miss.

The server controls the state of the world, the clients just handle I/O, and if you trust the client then you've just made one of the top ten security mistakes.

Re:pass the buck pass the buck (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234638)

Did you send the game back for a full refund? It sounds pretty "unfit for purpose" to me.

Want breaks that don't squeel like a stuck pig when you pull up? Sorry, we didn't make the pads. Or the shoes.

Re:pass the buck pass the buck (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 4 years ago | (#32247016)

Have you tried returning software lately? Especially, software with a network play registration number?

impossible

Re:Not unexpected (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230488)

More likely that Treyarch gives more of a fuck about people outside the PS3/360 consoles. They're also making a Wii version that releases simultaneously with the others. Infinity Ward dumped the dedicated servers and ignored the Wii, that seems to be a matter of developer personalities.

Re:Not unexpected (1)

shnull (1359843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32241190)

i'm sure as hell not paying for it , battlefield 3 on the other hand might get a bit of sponsoring

To bad. (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228766)

To bad I won't be buying from this franchise again. They already screwed themselves over with COD MW2, and I've no faith that activision won't pull some douche move later on after they release the game.

Re:To bad. (2, Interesting)

Tigersmind (1549183) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228806)

To bad I won't be buying from this franchise again. They already screwed themselves over with COD MW2, and I've no faith that activision won't pull some douche move later on after they release the game.

My exact thought. No matter what a game from Activision would have at release, they have proven they cant be trusted. What will it have a month after release? Who knows.

Re:To bad. (4, Insightful)

zwei2stein (782480) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229088)

Oh, REALLY!? Not playing game on principle, eh? Not buying games from evil publisher, eh?

It sounds like ... boycotting. Which kinda does not work at all: http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/6062/1258035395841.jpg [imageshack.us]

It is not like nerd tears matter because they dry when *shiny* becomes available.

Re:To bad. (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229312)

Not a boycott, just me refusing to buy a product which isn't likely to deliver to the expectations I have of it. I'm not advocating everyone boycott the series or what ever.

Re:To bad. (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229394)

Not a boycott, just me refusing to buy a product which isn't likely to deliver to the expectations I have of it. I'm not advocating everyone boycott the series or what ever.

A personal choice based on your own wants and needs? And you're not pushing others to follow you? Please stop being reasonable, this is Slashdot and we don't take kindly to your types around here [tvfanatic.com] .

Re:To bad. (3, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230628)

No it just sounds like he won't grab his ankles because some new shiny comes out, he never said anything about a boycott. He probably does like I do and wait until games released by douches hit the bargain bin, where there isn't enough money being spent to care whether it is a rental or has shitty MP.

I would also suggest whenever possible shopping places like Good Old Games [gog.com] , where they actually treat you decently instead of a walking wallet. BTW if you click the link you'll see they have 4 shooters for $20 for their weekend sale. I'd rather support a company with NO DRM, NO screwing you over after purchase, and who treats their customers well. All their games work well even on W7 X64 (which is more than I can say for some EA games I picked up) and nearly always come with manuals, expansion packs, and other extras.

But just because someone choose to not buy from an asshole company doesn't make it a political statement, many just choose like me to vote with their dollars.

Re:To bad. (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234656)

Oh no! Imagine the idea of someone being slapped in the face and not wanting to come back for seconds. I'm sure this really offends your capitalist sensibilities but some of us actually care about what we by beyond the media hype.

Re:To bad. (1)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234662)

Er 'by' should have been 'buy'. Typos in a rant, imagine that.

Re:To bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32229216)

TOO bad, not "to bad," you illiterate fuck.

Re:To bad. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32230618)

Make up your mind. Boycott when there's no server, boycott when there are servers You'd supposed to be *training* them.

Rejoice? (3, Interesting)

theY4Kman (1519023) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228786)

After the firings, every Activision-produced Call of Duty title will be destitute.

Re:Rejoice? (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228982)

The series already is destitute. It's the same game, for the seventh time, with different graphics.

Re:Rejoice? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230662)

It's the seventh edition, but only the sixth in PC (CoD, CoD2, CoD4:MW, CoD:WaW, MW2, BOps).

I've only payed the first three, but although CoD2 was CoD1 plus pretty graphics, CoD4 was different enough to be a new game on itself.

Re:Rejoice? (1)

Custard Horse (1527495) | more than 4 years ago | (#32237586)

At least it's worth playing. I can't say the same about updated sports games. Tiger Woods 08, 09, 10 anyone?

PGA Tour 2011 new features include: plaid golf bags, new range of OZ rims for the golf cart and increased selection of perk-based apparel (hats)!

For Now (2, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228794)

They're going to provide "dedicated game servers" for now. As soon as the next installment nears release they'll trim back the servers to shared servers in order to "encourage" players to buy the new version.

How? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32228944)

I don't understand. "Dedicated servers" generally means they release a server executable/package that lets anyone host a server. Does it mean this no longer?

Re:How? (5, Informative)

haystor (102186) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229634)

It does not. It now means that a server runs just that program, instead of a client running the client and server.

Take Bad Company 2 for instance. You can rent servers from their approved vendors. So, while they are technically dedicated servers, they are someone else's servers that are just being rented. The traditional commands available to server admins are no longer there. Basically, for BC2, "dedicated servers" means that we get to pay for their servers.

Re:For Now (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230532)

That doesn't work, dedicated servers and P2P matchmaking are very different approaches. With servers you get a list of servers and pick one (or the game automatically does), with P2P players are grouped into playlists and then into actual matches with a host chosen at random among the pool of selected players.

Great! (1)

V!NCENT (1105021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32228916)

"Another reskinned sequal in exactly three second after the currentl product is launched" -Pure Pwnage

Rejoice, fellows! (4, Funny)

iamapizza (1312801) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229014)

Let us rejoice, fellow PC gamers, as we are wont to do upon an occasion so splendid. Partake in a feast, that we shall, on yonder banquet in honor of this occasion.

Re:Rejoice, fellows! (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234818)

As this will be a nerd banquet, I expect tortilla chips, plenty of salsa, fizzy caffeinated drinks, and most importantly of all pizza.

Are you getting a little worried, my eminently nibble-able friend?

Translation (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229064)

Activision found out that it's more profitable to be able to shut down game servers when they're done with the new skins (aka "next fullprice version").

Alternate translation (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229440)

Big game franchise regresses, then tries to catch up to better games.

Re:Translation (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230568)

They can do that with match making too, possibly even with less effort. Match making cannot work without a central server grouping people into matches. Turn that off and the game is dead.

Good job people (3, Insightful)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229080)

I know that I am one of many people who decided not to buy the last game because taking dedicated servers out of the game basically took out one of the few advantages out of playing a PC game. The reason I prefer PC games when it comes to online first person shooters is because
1. A mouse is just better suited for an FPS.
2. I have a really good PC that I painstakingly built myself.
3. Because of the sense of community you get from going to same server over and over and playing with the same people.

Without a sense of community a game gets boring after a while and it is just the same cycle over and over again. I have joined a few clans but even when I didn't join the server's clan it was still fun to have a loose connection to the regulars on a server.

I play most non-FPSs on my xbox now in days, but you just can't take the PC away when it comes to FPSs.

Good job voting with your wallet everybody.

Re:Good job people (1)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229322)

This weekend was a bust due to weather. I was board and cleaning out the applications folder on my mac of any apps I had downloaded and no longer use when I saw I had Halo CE still installed. I probably haven't played it in a couple years. So I fired it up, played enough single player to get a feel back for the controls and then went online and was shocked to see about 100 servers. (most of them modded apparently). I figured I'd try to connect online and find "This game is no longer supported".

Re:Good job people (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32230774)

"I know that I am one of many people who decided not to buy the last game"

No you don't know that, because there weren't many people who decided not to buy it. The miniscule handful of you who did, made no points. It was the largest entertainment release in the history of planet earth, until avatar. You PC gamers just don't matter one bit, so stop it with your retarded "I fought the power and PC games are teh awesomest cause da mouse is teh great...".

Re:Good job people (1)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 4 years ago | (#32231912)

Obviously the bad press had some effect. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered bringing dedicated servers back in a whole nother game if they didn't feel the pressure.

Most of the time after a game company does something once and ignores the bad press the first they just keep on going because there is only so much bad press they can get after doing the same thing again. Just look at Ubisoft. They already went through the bad initial press from their ridiculous DRM. FPS gamers who are part of clans are just more dedicated to the PC than they are too consoles.

People are fine with playing RPGs on consoles but FPSs are a whole different story altogether.

Re:Good job people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32232846)

Voting with your wallet didn't work. The PC version of MW2 significantly outsold COD4, even without dedicated severs.

AND the reason the new COD game has them isn't because they added them back due to consumer demand; the new game is using the COD4 code base... They never had access to the source or assets for MW2.

GG.

A better question would be... (4, Insightful)

Whatsmynickname (557867) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229090)

...does this game allow LAN play? This may follow the same model as Battlefield Bad Company 2 where they say "we have dedicated game servers", but too bad ALL servers are hosted on THEIR hardware ONLY and no LAN play...

Re:A better question would be... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 4 years ago | (#32232236)

Yes, hope its ISP server ready.
In Australia an ISP with support like this is great.
http://games.on.net/gameservers.php [on.net]
Low pings and hours of play does not count towards your monthly download limit.
Thats what most of the US based game developers seem to not understand, outside the USA the 'internet' is pay per play for many.

not news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32229290)

this is not news

of all the things you could post about gaming you choose this?

surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32229370)

And for the small fee of $14.99 a month we'll actually let you use them!

But... it's a Treyarch game. (1)

RoFLKOPTr (1294290) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229646)

Every single Call of Duty game developed by Treyarch has been utter shit or horribly screwed up in some way or another and touted as "innovation". For this reason, I'm super pissed that it had to be Infinity Ward that got boned by Activision, because they're the only respectable developers affiliated with the entire franchise.

Sure, this last game has some problems, but it's really not as bad as people make it out to be. Is there really THAT MUCH benefit to having dedicated servers as opposed to matchmaking? It's only so often that you get in a laggy game. The only problem I find with it is that they didn't think it through completely. We could really use some cheat reporting, votekick, and "This Guy Is A Terrible Host Don't Let Him Ever Host Again" buttons. That's really it, though.

Re:But... it's a Treyarch game. (1)

Laz10 (708792) | more than 4 years ago | (#32229726)

I liked World of War a lot better than Modern Warfare 2.
The sole reason for that is that I find 48 people in a game much more fun than 12 people.

It's a battle rather than a skirmish.

Also World of war had free map packs, rather than the 14€ MW2 ones.

I look forward to Black ops. I wouldn't have bought the game if it was like MW2.

Re:But... it's a Treyarch game. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32229730)

I thought World at War was great. I'm getting sick of the WWII games and the "modern" war games. I'd like some variety. Korean War, Vietnam, whatever. Just some different stuff.

Re:But... it's a Treyarch game. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32230336)

you do realize that the game TFA is about is Vietnam era, right?

Re:But... it's a Treyarch game. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32231634)

That's exactly my point.

Re:But... it's a Treyarch game. (2, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230642)

Roughly every third game I've been in was lagged (most players getting yellow or red pings), the worst was when the game picked me as a host (my connection is not suitable for hosting) and didn't give me the option to pass that buck, I had to quit those matches to get rid of the hosting position. Matchmaking would usually fail 3-4 times until it would actually start a game, gets much worse when you're in a group with other people (about every second time that it connected for one of us it didn't work for the other). Then you've got the fun of cheaters that can't be thrown out and won't get an anti-cheat ban until LOOOOONG after the match is over and those stupid lengthy wait times between matches.

There are no adjectives available... (2, Insightful)

Kwirl (877607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230080)

...to suitably describe how much I loathe that game franchise right now. I spent 60 dollars and bought world at war on the xbox, loved it and spent another 50 bucks to get it on the PC. I bought all of the DLC for both systems. Then I bought MW2 for the xbox and loved it. Then I made the mistake of spending another 50 bucks to get it on the PC without realizing just how horrible of a choice that was.

IWnet is the most ridiculous, horrible thing to ever happen to gaming. And what really 'grinds my gears' (Thanks, Peter!) is that they did it for the sole purpose of forcing customers to buy their DLC. Yes, I am guilty, but meh. I played battlefield 2 on the PC for YEARS, and they provided support, patches, new content and game fixes for the most part at an acceptable rate.

Then MW2 comes out and ... ok, I'm getting redundant. Long story short, Battlefield Bad Company 2 - I will never spend a dime on call of duty again. Sorry, Treyarch, I know this isn't your fault, and god bless you, i STILL love Nazi Zombies, but you happen to be under the roof where I hope the lightning soon strikes. BTW - go to EA or Respawned and I'll take it all back and buy every game you release as long as you aren't with the A team.

Re:There are no adjectives available... (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230658)

Respawn is IW, the fuckwits who foisted that IWNet mess upon us. Wouldn't surprise me if they actually kept their attitude now that they're working with EA.

Re:There are no adjectives available... (1)

Kwirl (877607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32230740)

from what i understand the iwnet was a top-down decision from activision, but i don't know for certain :P

Re:There are no adjectives available... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32234830)

BTW - go to EA or Respawned and I'll take it all back...

No, EA with their always-on DRM can stick it where it'll make it uncomfortable to sit down too. I've had enough of both of them.

Fuck 'em.

sh1t (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32230386)

been siitinZg here AND SOLD IN THE

I hope they don't consider this a big deal. (1)

X.mpls (1026436) | more than 4 years ago | (#32233496)

If they are making a big deal about this, I can only imagine what the overall quality of the game will be.

oh good, dedicated servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32235022)

Oh good, dedicated servers. Now some admin gets to decide what weapons and abilities in the game he wants to arbitrarily not let me use.

So in other words... (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32235150)

...PC gamers can rejoice at the fact that they are getting what they thought they'd be getting when they purchased the game in the first place?

It's a shame a lot more gamers don't take these greedy games companies to task using the "Sale Of Goods Act", or whatever the international equivalents are outside the UK.

Bad name (1)

uigrad_2000 (398500) | more than 4 years ago | (#32236538)

Have they even thought about how the name will be abbreviated? Anyone here like "CoD: BO"?

Re:Bad name (1)

cosmas_c (1079035) | more than 4 years ago | (#32240536)

Free unix account: freeshell.org [freeshell.org]
I'm tired of this ads

ououou a new ad

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?