Slashdot Mirror
Call of Duty 2 Causing Server Unrest
Despite the excellent gameplay, Call of Duty 2 is causing a lot of internet unrest among the players who want to participate in the online multiplayer component. GamePolitics reports on a thread from the official site. From the site: "Server admins - those mysterious men (and women) behind the curtain who keep online gaming venues humming - are fed up with the PC version of Call of Duty 2. So fed up that they are planning a 24-hour shutdown of COD2 servers on Deember 16th if publisher Activision and developer Infinity Ward fail to address their complaints, which include the lack of an anti-cheat system."
Can't say I'm familiar with that month. How long away is it, again?
For a while there, I thought this was a strike being organized by some company that ran CoD2 servers, ala XBox Live. If that was the case, this would be Bad News(tm) for Call of Duty. Then I read TFA, and realized that wasn't the case.
Here, the "strike" is being organized (if you can call it that) by an upset gamer who runs a server, calling on others who run similar servers to take down their servers for a day. Still pretty bad PR for CoD2, but only if 99% of the game servers out there take part. Unfortunately, I suspect this will have about as much impact as those "Don't-Buy-Gas Day" boycotts I see via email from time to time (trying to force Big Oil to drop the price of gas at the pump.) That is, it will generate some press buzz, but in the end I doubt the company whose attention they are trying to attract will pay them much attention.
That said, cheaters really suck, and it kills the online gaming experience. I stopped playing online FPSs entirely because of cheaters.
I guess this doesn't include the 360 COD?
The people who make fps multiplayer gaming possible belong to user communities. You can only get these people so pissed off before they just stop supporting your product. Sure, as some of the posters in the links say, Infinity Ward already has their money, but the next time the release something they may see the consequences. Also, you can't totally blame this on the rush to release the game for the 360. I'm pretty sure that it took a couple of months for Punkbuster to be added to CoD as well.
Lousy Smarch weather.
I'd say these days it more of a requirement than something nice. Unless you are tacking on multiplayer as an afterthought you really can't expect people to just play nice...because your original topic is pretty much on target.
this sig deleted by another sig
"Your license to run the server are hereby revoked. You must uninstall all copies of our software formerly licensed to you. To obtain refund, please submit original UPC code from the box along with original receipt of your purchase. Allow six to twelve weeks of processing time."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
This seems to be happening in a lot these days.
A similar situation is happening with valve software, players of the online valve-developed games are becoming fed up with the constant stream of updates that don't actually seem to fix bugs.
Now another developer is releasing more software that's bad enough to generate word of a 24-hour boycott.
Laziness is slowly making it's way into software companies. Eventually, I use this term loosely as it may take 5 years for anything to happen, people will stop buying games until the developers fix them.
Of course, with a huge advertising budget the companies can always discredit complaints. Unfortunately, I only foresee the lying in advertising getting worse in the near future.
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
While I assume it would be nice for the developer to add things like Anti-Cheat
More like "necessity". This isn't just to make gamers happy, it's in the publishers best interests as well. If it gets around that online cheating is rampant, people will be much, much less likely to buy the game.
Make the PC version identify itself as the console version. That ought to thwart any attempts at enforcing the use of a cheat detector, so long as the communication is the same in every other way.
Disclaimer: I generally don't play games.
Well met!
The publisher already has the money. How will a strike hurt them? When all servers are gone people will move to an other game (maybe even of the same publisher).
This is true if the game is marketed as a massive multiplayer game like World of Warcraft or Battlefield 1942. However COD2 is a heavily scripted single-player game with a the multiplayer component tacked on. I don't think it's worth that much money to invest in the neverending war against client-side hacks. If you don't pay a monthly fee, then don't expect the company to fight against new hacks.
Cheaters are rampant in the Command and Conquer Generals RTS game. I solve this by only playing people I know.
It'd be easier to get rid of cheaters if server admins turned on Killcam, and voting, so people could just get rid of suspicious players.
Personally, I haven't noticed any widespread problem, but it sure would be nice if a few annoying script kiddies wouldn't try to ruin the game for everyone else. Sad when game creators have to spend their time on fighting these script kiddies, and not making fun games.
All you need is $sys$cheat.exe. It will stop the anti-cheat software!
Two words: continuing sales. Even if you aren't charging a monthly fee, it is still worth the developers time to fight cheats because people will still buy the game for multiplayer long after interest has waned in single player. Half-Life (and its mods) and Starcraft are perfect examples of this.
I don't quite understand the terms this person is putting forward. I played through the single player without one problem or one crash. And I've played about an hour or two of Multiplayer without any problems either. The servers I played on even had Killcam enabled and I never saw anything that could be a cheat, just players that are better than me.
I can understand the desire to have anti-cheating software, but I haven't encountered any cheating as of yet anyways.
What you fail to see is that there was COD and COD:UO before this even came out. This is not just about the anti-cheat it is about the game play that COD enthusiasts have come accustomed to in COD:UO which is the greatest of the COD franchise, (including this pos COD2). COD:UO had so many goodies in it, including PunkBuster (anti-cheat). So, why would you think a company that already has everything in a previous version not include everything that made the game great in the latest outing. I will tell you why, IW and Activision sold their souls to Microsoft to make COD2 for the XBOX360. If you play COD2 on a PC you can tell it is all made for the console. Controls and the gameplay just scream console. So with that being said an anti-cheat is not needed on console game and that is why it is not in the game. XBOX360 = COD demise
Having played COD2, I really dont see what all the fuss is about, though. It looks good, but its pretty much COD with better graphics, and it really adds nothing to the gameplay side of things. You can tell just by playing it for a few minutes that you are playing COD. I'll stick to Day of Defeat:Source for my WW2 gaming experiences, as it seems to be the only WW2 franchise that actually changes and upgrades things. Brothers in Arms is guilty of the same thing as COD...they released what was essentiall a map pack, with a new storyline, with Earned in Blood, and didnt bother to really do anything to the actual game itself.
I've been a long time player of CoD, however I've passed up UO. I've been nothing but pleased with CoD2 so far, and I simply cannot stand punkbuster or any other anti-cheat being included with my game. I'm probably the only person on the lonely internet who likes that there's no punkbuster included with CoD2.
I don't know what you're getting on about saying the controls and gameplay are just screaming console. I wasn't really aware that there was going to be an Xbox360 port, and only now have I realized after reading some posts here that there is one. The controls have been the same as they've always been, and I'll agree with the other guy here saying that it plays exactly like CoD, which I was expecting and appreciated. It's been a while since I've played CoD, and CoD2 was just the game I wanted.
Barring that, the game has only been out for a month and it's hardly broken. I ran into no show-stopping bugs or felt that the content was lacking in anyway. Knowing that the game isn't in any form broken, how can anyone feel that threatening the company that produces the game with some stupid plan to shut down a chunk of the servers in order to "get back at them" and get patch notes that they "deserve" when a well supported thread on their home forum would do the trick. It's a finished product, and it's not like you or I were tricked into buying it.
Hey, it's my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a piss.
You aren't alone. I hate when "extra" software is included with a game. I never install Punkbuster or Gamespy.
That's mostly because I don't generally like online play. I stick to heavy campaign driven games.
But, I do think that anti-cheat measures are important for those who do play online. At the least, the game could support the use of them, even if they aren't included with the install.
That would explain why you feel the way you do. Only playing COD I can see why you are really enjoying COD2, however, not playing COD:UO you have no clue how the game play has changed. That is why I said it screams console. You now have little indicators that tell you where the enemy is shooting you from, grenade indicators and even tells you when you are able to jump over a wall. That is to name just a few of the issues. It has totally changed from COD:UO which I am referring as is most of the community that is complaining about this.
If you would take time to read the IW forums you will also notice that the XBOX 360 version is having a lot of issues. The PC version has latency issues and causes dropped packets.
I also agree that shutting down servers for a day will not accomplish anything. It will only hurt the users. The only thing that will get to these companies is to stop as many people as possible from buying this game. Educating people on the gameplay and how the game interacts is the only fair way to let people make a decision on purchasing COD2.
I bought the game and it now is used as a coaster for my drinks. I went back to COD:UO and will continue playing it until they make changes that I feel need to be made.
So with all that being said, Enjoy your COD2.
COD:UO is a great product. They made many improvements from the original COD. They added:
1. Punkbuster
2. Vehicles
3. New weapons, including light machine guns
4. The ability to run for short distances. Previously, you could only walk, crouch/walk, and crawl.
5. Battle rank. As you reached point thresholds, your rank increased.
6. New games types including Capture The Flag, Headquarters
With the exception of Punkbuster, COD2 included none of the additions from COD:UO. They added a lot of "eye candy" and reduced the plability of the game. All game types are reduced to "run and gun." It is imposible to use any tactics in the game.
If I had known this, I would have never bought the game. What a disappointment.
I won't make that mistake again... Can you hear me now, Activision???
So I just played the original COD a while ago. I never played it online at all. I got COD2 and thought it was a fantastic single player experience. I have no plans to play online.
I don't know what the issues are. The only things I've seen are it isn't as good as the expansion and there is no punkbuster.
I found the single player experience to be pretty exciting. The game is a visual treat as you fight through a bunch of great looking maps with your squad. They call out gun emplacments and germans alike as you advance. They yell out to the closest man by name to cover them while they reload.
So lots of great details come together, while the overall map design is fantastic, as you'll push into an area and often have to defend it or fall back as waves of enemies charge at you.
So I don't know what the other game had. Someone complained about grenade indicators and the icon that comes up when you can hop a wall. I enjoy both of these features. In the campaign the computer really does a great job tossing grenades into your camping areas, and many a time you miss the fact that the grenade was tossed. So the indicator is nice, and kept the pace of the game going very smoothly rather then blowing up every 5 sec when grenades got thrown.
The jumpping over the wall indicator seemed fine too. This is a video game and I never know when it is going to allow me to hop over a wall or if I am instead on the edge of a map and it doesn't want me to move over it. The icon is non intrusive and helps.
Another fun feature is the autosaves. Normally when playing an FPS I quicksave very frequently, esp after a particuarly tough spot. In COD2 it is as though the developers went through and marked all the spots someone would quicksave at. Whenever I felt the urge to quicksave, the game would already be saying "saved" for me, hence, I was able to play the whole game through with no frustrating restarts, and at the same time, I didn't have to bother with saving. Not handing the saving and just playing really helpped the immersion.
So, perhaps mp sucks. I don't know. But the game is worth it if just for the SP experience.
But then I started actually reading people's opinions of COD2, and I am probably not going to get it now. I play games almost exclusively online, so single player campaigns mean nothing to me.
How is the online play of COD2 compared to Battlefield 2?
Exactly. While it would be nice to be giving the gamers what they want and supporting the game (it's obviously in the best interest of those doing the selling), they are by no written means obligated. These gamers shouldn't be threatening the developers considering the game that they delivered was complete and not riddled with bugs. The multi-player for CoD2 is an afterthought compared to the main campaign which obviously recieved most of the work.
What most people don't realize is that cheaters don't ruin your game, it's that you let cheaters ruin your game. It's the same in real life: you can choose to let some asshole get to you or you can ignore it. I typically play games online only with friends now too, as it tends to make each gaming session that much more rewarding. And when I'm playing on pubs, if I spot a hack I just move servers if I care enough to.
Hey, it's my OPINION that dogs have eight legs and make a sound like a car horn every time they take a piss.
Not sure why you have such a dislike for Punkbuster, it does cause problems sometimes but that isn't really the norm. You are also not even required to enable PB, there are usually enough non-pb servers that you will still have a place to play.
Gaming companies need to learn real quick that the PC FPS market is not like any other game market, FPS gamers (especially online gamers) will buy a game at launch just because it got a good review and looks cool, but thats not where the money is. Gamers will leave real quickly if there is not good support including patches, anti-cheat software, and other stuff that we take for granted now that gaming companies are just beginning to realize. And if they dont get it, they are going to jump ship and find a game that is more accommodating to them. And really, launch sales are meaningless in online FPSs because it is a loyal consumer group that is most valueble, HL had it and that made HL2 so successful, BF and CoD didnt have it as much, and they need to be reminded of that everytime they see the poor sales of CoD2 and BF2. It is these gamers that are threatening to strike that make a game successful, they host servers, websites, and all that crap and gaming comapanies are going to need to start catering to this demographic or otherwise 7 million people will just be playing Counter-Strike 1.6 for the next 5 years...
-willkill
Oh please! I wish they would stop bitching, and just get on playing with the game. Give Activision and IW a break! I love the Call of Duty series so much, that I don't care about the selfish opinions that others are doing. It took them years to make a great sequel to a great shooter.
CoD2 DOESN'T have Punkbuster.
Going to CoD2 from CoD:UO, I was disappointed to see that the gains of UO were reversed. One theory some friends and I kicked around is that the extra goodies added in UO are Grey Matter's turf, and Infinity Ward wasn't allowed to put them in. Whether there's some sort of intellectual property dispute or licensing fees or whatever, we didn't decide on.
Another theory we discussed is that there was a planned expansion pack to add the extra stuff and charge more money. CoD2:UO, I guess.
I really want Punkbuster, and whatever it takes to get Activision and Infinity Ward to put it in is OK by me - brick through the window, closed servers, bill board, whatever.
Why does my coffee mug smell like trout?
Hmmm... if I recall correctly most Anti-Cheat systems are often created by third parties. The only first party anti-cheat systems I know of are VAC and PunkBuster. Unreal uses Anti-TCC which wasn't created by Epic Games. Blizzard doesn't really use anything other than something for WoW (which foils the Sony Rootkit :P). What other games are there out there that have server side anti-cheat software?
-illumina+us "I put on my robe and wizard hat..."
Think about it this way. (And I know this is a stretch)..
If you have an MMO where most of your fanbase left so that you only have a few people in there, who's going to join in when interactivity with other people is nearly non-existant?
But, if you disable punkbuster, you are kind of defeating the whole point of this boycott. I say use punkbuster, and figure out why things are happening the way they are and fix it. It may be hard, but clean installs of everything can usually do the trick. (run fdisk)
Empathetic-- 94% You tend to walk in someone else's shoes a hundred miles before pointing a finger.
That's probably the case, but a lot of problems with pb deal with their auto-updating mechanism (which times out and gets you kicked) or the updates themselves (which causes odd program behaviour, crashes and again, kicks). While I always use PunkBuster myself, I'm just acknowledging that it has problems, some of those being out of your control to fix. For that reason, I think it's good that PunkBuster is optional.