44 Replies Latest reply: Jan 16, 2013 11:51 AM by SoG_Hanix_PC RSS

Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

flameweilder8

I've seen posts saying that it will cost too much, or as much as up to $5,000 for 3 servers per month.

 

But, this game doesn't need servers like that.

 

 

Servers like these will get the job done with flying colors.

 

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2007/08/warhawk-server-cluster.jpg

 

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1255/997953788_01bf388d5c_o.jpg

 

 

 

Now the price of a ps3 is ~$200-$250

 

And the price of a 4gb 360 is ~$200

 

 

If Activision spent a million on servers in each of the most populated regions (West coast US, East Coast US, Canada, Mexico, South America, Europe, Japan), They would only spend 10 million or less in total on all the equipment. All they need to have is upkeep, bandwith, and people who do the servicing which can be up to a million dollars per month.

 

 

Now lets look at Activision's profit ratings

 

http://www.gamespot.com/news/activision-blizzard-posts-1-billion-profit-in-2011- 6350085

 

WOW! 1 BILLION!?

ALL THAT MONEY FOR A BROKEN ASS GAME!?

 

Ten million is POCKET CHANGE compared to their yearly profits.

 

 

What about sales from COD alone?

Here is MW3

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/nov/18/modern-warfare-2-records-775m

 

775 Million in 5 days!?

 

If you were to have servers, that would be less than 2% of the sales from the link!

Lets not forget that this doesn't cover the additional sales from all the sheep who got COD Elite.

 

What about BO2?

 

http://www.redmondpie.com/call-of-duty-black-ops-ii-sales-hit-500-million-in-fir st-24-hours-of-release/

 

500 MILLION WITHIN THE FIRST 24 HOURS!!

 

 

 

 

 

While this is an old argument, lets face it. This game could be alot better and Activision more than well has the ability to do something about it without even using 1% of their $$$ to fix this for all consoles worldwide.

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
    sennalike

    Say what you like, justify it however you want, Treyarch have ruled out Dedicated servers.  It isn't going to happen no matter what is argued.  From what I have read it isn't feasible anyway.  You would need a server farm the size of a small country to serve the numbers of players and different game types currently playing.  The cost would be way higher than most people realise.

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

    just for the record dedicated servers are not the solution...lag comp is built into the game and also it would be a ping matter the solution would be to remove it but that will make it worse, sometimes you win sometimes you lose

    • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
      thebigb82

      Why arent Dedicated Servers the answer, on a dedicated server everyone is equal, the server takes the load and lag is nearly non existant, have you ever played a game on a dedicated server?

      • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
        rlbl

        Lag would be existent (it is always there)... however assuming everyone would play on the closest servers it would be consistent (and maybe to the point of being equal!?).

         

        Lag Compensation would STILL be required (contrary to popular belief), but the ocurrance of WTF!? moments would be minimized (not eliminated).

         

        some (potential) downfalls:

        - cost (more expensive than people would care to admit)

        - one would not be able to play with the same people they are playing with now (in some cases): logging into a UK server from the US would not be a hell of a lot different than being matched to a UK host as it is today.  So bring the example in, someone from the East Coast would lag like a snail if they joined a team logged into a west coast server...(didn't any of you play Diablo!?)

         

        (LOL)

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
    CallOfDutyFan88

    they can even bundle dedicated servers with season pass for an extra 10 bucks if they wanted to stop being so greedy and do right by the consumer. im not waiting in line for a 4th straight cod with lag issues. if they think they did us a service by giving us a game filled with weak nerfed guns to compete against a few good ones they have another thing coming. there is no excuse for all this fail of a game, this game has enough support as a game can ever ask for but instead of thanking the consumer they continue to take our money and run. i want to lose a gunfight because i was outplayed, not because they werent showing up on my opponent's screen.

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

    I would be happy with competant coders that could simply get the job done.    It's obviously not impossible to have a relatively lagless experience even without dedicated servers, these guys they have doing it now simply don't seem to be able to figure this problem out.  So find someone who can, simple.

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
    ghamorra

    Not possible, would cost way too much to even be considered practical. You can say all you want the Activision is greedy, but if you sat in on a board meeting you would be blown away by cost of Dedis

    • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

      ghamorra wrote:

       

      Not possible, would cost way too much to even be considered practical. You can say all you want the Activision is greedy, but if you sat in on a board meeting you would be blown away by cost of Dedis

       

      You need to stop drinking the kool-aid..

       

      How the hell do you know anything you claim above? Ever priced a server for a game? I have; totally wasn't "blown away" by the cost at all. The only reason myself and others didn't follow through on it was we were trying to get the rights from another gaming company to run one of their old titles on a server for strictly online head to head gaming like they did with Mortal Kombat 2. The other game company backed out in the end and we weren't allowed to run the game on our own server.

       

      Dedi's are NOT out of reach or impractical for COD. Will they solve ALL the problems? Nope; but they sure as hell WILL solve the major game breaking flaws. PLUS all the stupid stat tracking info that all these tweens have a semi hard-on for, won't affect the gameplay. No freezing in lobbies when changing classes or looking at challenges; no freezing in the game whenever you choose a class.

       

      The only time I've EVER been shot from around a corner on a dedicated server game is when Resistance:FoM opened the option for local or international server. I had HALF the lag distance(shot form around the corner) playing in Japanese games on that dedi server than I do playing  someone a couple hundred miles away across the Canadian border on BOPS2.

       

      Stop regurgitating what you've read from 3arc mods on here and get some real information on it.

      • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
        ghamorra

        http://community.callofduty.com/message/413715964#413715964

         

        This thread details a very generous (generous towards those wanting the servers) explanation for why Dedis are not practical

      • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
        sennalike

        Not a regurgitation from a mod but from someone on here who knows what they are talking about.  This is a post in the thread ghamorra linked to.

         

        To put the amount of infrastructure neeeded into context.(sure some of you have seen me write this one or 10000 times before over the years on here ) To service the entire cod community of one game you'd need basicaly the worlds entire world of warcarft infrastrcuture in EACH server farm in Each geographical location.Even using the cheapest options in location ie spreading stuff out to the max distance between server farms you'd be looking at either 3 or 4 of these in the usa alone. Rough guide to what the costs are... WoW was 100's of millions of dollars in setup costs, and with monthly running costs around $4 million a month.

         

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

    I'm quite aware of the technical and logistical issues with providing dedicated servers for a game. I'm a computer science/network administration major after spending eighteen years in another field. I'm not ignorant about the subject.

     

    Ok.. COD doesn't have nearly the following that WoW does.

    WoW= 100mil users. CoD=~1.5mill users between the 2 MAJOR consoles (online at one time).

     

    You guys are right though.. Activision certainly doesn't have the resources that Insomniac games does. That's why Insomniac could handle the OVERWHELMING task of providing dedicated servers to their ENTIRE client base all over the world. On a launch PS3 title...

     

    It's really not like there's an army of interns waiting to get a shot to work for Activision either. They certainly wouldn't be qualified to do server maintenence or in-game moderating.

     

    $1Bil just doesn't go very far these days, you know?

    • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
      Izjar11

      $1Bil just doesn't go very far these days, you know?

      Not far enough for them to want to spend unnecessary money on a game that produces enough revenue in its first few months of launch. The truth is these games get old, fast and the need to maintain, monitor, upkeep, pay, etc these servers outweighs the costs than the benefits.

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

    I'd happily donate some resources from a dedicated server as long as i could join my own server.

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
    the_murf53

    It makes no sense why the biggest selling FPS game of all time wouldn't have them.  It would not prevent lag (PC has dedicated servers and they still suffer from lag) but it would enable them to create larger matches and prevent host migration.  Dashboarding would cease to exist as well.  They have the money to spend on it but they would rather just roll around in it instead. 

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

    Two responses to various posts....

     

    1: The people who bring up dedicated servers, end up being told that they are too expensive. It doesn't matter if they plan to get them or not, or if posting about them matters at all...

     

    Fact is, they are not too expensive. They can tell us to go to hell if they want, but I hate BS excuses.

     

    2: The internet does always have lag, yes, but...

     

    If you've played BO2 on both console and PC, you would see the obvious difference. I play on both PS3 and PC, and the PC version hardly has any lag at all, even in ground war. Yes, there is still a little lag, but dedicated servers make a huge difference.

     

    The arguement that dedicated servers won't fix lag is a very narrow view, because of course they won't, but they would make the game much more enjoyable for everyone.

    • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
      ghamorra

      SanAndreasPsycho wrote:

       

       

      1: The people who bring up dedicated servers, end up being told that they are too expensive. It doesn't matter if they plan to get them or not, or if posting about them matters at all...

       

      Fact is, they are not too expensive. They can tell us to go to hell if they want, but I hate BS excuses.

      Where's your evidence to support this. You constantly tell me my research is wrong but you don't provide any evidence to support your argument

      • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

        The evidence is in every game that has provided dedicated servers. How exactly was the creators of games like SOCOM and Resistance able to do it? I'm sure there are many others, but you don't have to go to far to see that even COD has successfully installed them for PC. If they were so expensive, no one would have them because every copy of the game sells for the exact same price. That's all the proof that is needed. They are basically just screwing consoles out of what they deserve.

         

        They should at least set up servers that we could pay for.

        • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
          ghamorra

          It has nothing to do with the cost of the game. That's just a superficial argument. You have to look at who's buying the game. People from across the world play CoD. Only a very focused group of players played SOCOM and Battlefield.

           

           

          To further prove this point. Demon Souls was a Dedi based game but sold widely in the US unexpectedly. The next game in the series, Dark Souls, had to be host based because of this

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
    JUSTBAZE

    Although I know it's like beating a dead horse, But Why can't this be done. "How is it that BF3 can afford it, but BOPS2 can't?" I saw this question asked so many time. Someone always say, "well BF3 doesn't have as many people playing as black ops 2". But if that is true, again I would ask how can battlefield 3 afford this? If there community is smaller than COD, why is it that they can operate on dedicated servers all over the world, but not only that, they can rent them out to players to operate themselves. Yes they charge for those personal servers, but there are plenty of there servers that are opened for public use. So why is this an excuse? If they were serious about helping and trying to make more money they would think about this. If it means having a better experience, then I would be willing to pay. And for those who do not want to pay, they could give them the option to play with the P2P servers they currently have.

     

    BUT AGAIN, BEATING A DEAD HORSE......

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have

    Bleh, same old argument and mis-information.  I'll quote what I've written before..

     

         

     

    Dedicated servers are perfectly viable and should be expected, the game makes more than enough money and the cost is a drop in the ocean compared to the profits they make.  I think everyone's forgetting the pc version HAS dedicated servers...  The costs in that thread are nowhere near what the actual costs would be (infact they're waaaay off) and the servers are not limited by bandwidth, but by cpu.  You can BUY a server capable of hosting a quite few games at once (not sure of how much cpu the game uses) for between 1 and 2 thousand, they're quite cheap really, or you can rent them, also relatively cheaply.  Once you have your servers, you decide on whether you want to rent space in one of the many server bases already out there or buy a building to house them and run your own connection.  The servers are very low maintenance and only need the occasional reset button pressing when a server locks up which is rare, most server houses employ someone as a reset button presser (probably not his real title) and costs you nothing extra.  All maintenance of servers is done remotely from anywhere in the world and for patches is automated and done all at once, so staffing costs are very low and only needs one guy to pop down to the server house and do a bit of upgrading now and then.  The main cost with dedicated servers is the bandwidth and again a company the size of Activision wanting a massive amount of bandwidth will be able to negotiate a price the size of peanuts for it, as I'm sure they already do.  Don't let them fool you in to thinking dedicated servers are an expensive game because they aren't and you can't compare WoW servers to a cod server because they're completely different games with completely different cpu requirements.  WoW can still make a high end pc fall over it hogs so many resources.

     

    and

     

     

         

     

    You'll find you're getting lag on some games servers because of poor maintenance or cost cutting, ie running too many games per server and leaving it too long before server restarts.  Basically they work out how much cpu a game needs per person or per game size they intend to run i.e. an 18 player game might use 10% server cpu so they know they can then run 9 18 player 'servers' per server (should say per box instead of server really it's less confusing ) and leave 10% free for any massive cpu (action) spikes, like someone calling in a vtol whilst someone uses a lightning strike with masses of explosions.  That's not an exact scientific formula I've given you lol, but that's the short and tall of it and some games will cram too many games on to one 'box' leaving too little cpu to handle cpu spikage and hope they get lucky and you wont have more than one game spiking at any one time.

     

     

     

    Pretty much sums it up really, it also doesn't take in to account the massive discount Activision would get by buying a big pile of servers, especially with the whole Microsoft, intel tie up

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
    SoG_Hanix_PC

    Just going to say this once; while I prefer Call of Duty games to any other first person shooter, I went and picked up Medal of Honor Warfighter because the non-existent connection issues with this game have been bothering me a lot lately. My online experience with Medal of Honor is amazing. There is no lag, no connection issues; why might some ask, well, the major difference I can tell between the two games is that MoH has dedicated servers. Sure, this could be a coincidence, and hey, I know Treyarch won't do it with this game, but if I play 1 more CoD game with connection issues like this one, I'll stop playing CoD all together and go to Battlefield and MoH. While they play completely different and I love the feel of CoD, I absolutely hate the connection issues 20x more.

    • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
      Izjar11

      SoG_Hanix_PC wrote:

       

      Just going to say this once; while I prefer Call of Duty games to any other first person shooter, I went and picked up Medal of Honor Warfighter because the non-existent connection issues with this game have been bothering me a lot lately. My online experience with Medal of Honor is amazing. There is no lag, no connection issues; why might some ask, well, the major difference I can tell between the two games is that MoH has dedicated servers. Sure, this could be a coincidence, and hey, I know Treyarch won't do it with this game, but if I play 1 more CoD game with connection issues like this one, I'll stop playing CoD all together and go to Battlefield and MoH. While they play completely different and I love the feel of CoD, I absolutely hate the connection issues 20x more.

      I've played warfighter and I was not impressed by the spawning, moving or game play. Battlefied (if this is a game vs game discussion) is the closest competitor in this modern war class based game.

  • Re: Dedicated Servers is not that hard to have
    SoG_Hanix_PC

    I'll agree, the spawns can be kind of annoying with how they set them up, but I never spawn and die unless I repel in from the blackhawk. Not being able to talk to your squadmate when playing is also pretty annoying, but that is nothing compared to the issues that this game has. As far as moving and gameplay, it's different from CoD, but not bad by any means. I think it is just preference. I still prefer the CoD gameplay style, but MoH isn't bad by any means either; and I would rather deal with those few minor details as opposed to dealing with the huge issues that this game has. That is all I was saying.