You obivously dont understand how this works here. Go look at the server browser in BF3. for each game you see there is 1 server. You could not set up one server in LA and expect people in say Illinois to have a goos connection or even make it into the game. Thats not to mention the people in NY or Florida or England. Or anywhere else all over the world. If you don't understand how it works don't try to pretend you do.
So that atomatically means that if COD had dedicated servers you wouldn't lag either? No it doesn't.
You have misconceptions about how this all works. The dedicated servers would have the same server code on them that your console is running when it's host. The lag and lag comp would be the same. People would be joining the server from all over the world with all kinds of discrepancies in ping times. Lag comp would get applied to the fast connections - It would be the same problem we have now but it would cost a lot of money and man power to maintain which, in the end, Crapto-vision would pass on to us, the customers.
A better option would be to implement TCP IP connections instead of the unreliable Listen/Broadcast protocol they use now. Accounting for every packet! Throw on region lock and the majority of the player base would be fat and happy.
But these dev's want EVERY customer and every dollar they can get their little greedy hands on so they make it half-a$$ for everyone, matching you with players on the other side of the planet. Giving the person who should be at a disadvantage (high ping)- the advantage.
You realize that the idea of dedicated servers is to locate them throughout different regions to accomodate for population density & to equally distribute server loads- right?
There isn't just one big centeralized server that everyone has to connect to- that would defeat the purpose of having dedicated servers.
Yes, I’m quite aware of how all this works, so let me ask you this:
Since the players for COD are all over the world -where would you place the servers? You couldn’t afford to put one in every city could you? Even every major city? And even if you could it doesn’t negate the fact that the ping times for all the players connecting would be vastly different depending on home networking (or lack of) and ISP traffic shaping / routing. It would all play into the disparity of ping just like it does now. It’s not worth the cost. The only pros I see are the end to dashboarding and more control over backend updates. But again, at a huge cost.
I’ve played BF3 and I get people from Canada in the USA servers and the hit detection is as bad if not worse that COD’s. I don't think dedi's are the answer to the connection issues in COD.
I agree that it wouldn't be cost effective for Activision to do such a thing and yes, it still relies on the client's connection to the server. However, it would still make implementing lag comp. more manageable. Definitely would be a better situation than what it is now. Of course that's assuming they had enough servers to accomodate the several hundreds of thousands of people playing the game.
On to the next topic a server browser? why not add this? players could fine tune search preferences to find the exact games they want maybe they want a server with the map cycle: nuketown, carrior, and hijacked and a cycle of search and destroy and domination games a playlist browser could never do that
Because there are no dedicated servers. Without a dedicated server, you can't have a server browser.