MinisterofDOOM wrote:I'm assuming someone will rig up a "private IWNet" that will appear to clients as IWNet, and therefore will be browsable through the in-game server browser.
I still think the move is stupid, and their excuses are, if anything, even MORE stupid, but I don't expect the resourceful PC community to be thwarted by this move. Lots of other games have private/dedicated servers that aren't officially supported.I also wouldn't be surprised if IW made use of private/dedicated servers other than IWNet against the terms of use of the game, though.
Here's an attempt at defending the decision. I heartily disagree with every point.
http://www.fourzerotwo.com/?p=745
As I've said many times: Simplifying things is not always good. Sometimes complexity is preferable when it is accompanied by more choices.
Robert Bowling (FourZeroTwo) has been acting as a company windbag for IW throughout this whole ordeal. I was initially pissed that IW canned having hardened editions for the PC crowd. Plenty of people complained on the official boards, but none of the community staff there said a single word about it. Bowling is the community staff manager, so it's a complete ball drop on his part IMO. I eventually just wrote it off as Activision pulling a stunt as they typically do.
Then the IW.net fiasco hit the other day. Bowling has been defending the decision to go this route ever since the news was broken. His points are only partly valid as most spin is. If IW wasn't treating the PC community as imbeciles who barely know how to turn their computer on, news like this would probably go smoother. Also, announcing it less than a month from launch was a pretty bonehead move as well.
With IW.net, now they can create new "servers" as needed without having the run the cost of maintaining unused dedi servers. I can agree from a fiscal standpoint that it's a good move. However, the implementation is all wrong IMO. I would like to see dedi servers mixed in with IW.net. IW is trying to launch their own version of Battle.net, but they forgot that players can set up private matches/realms and run custom user maps. Now, Bowling has mentioned private matches can be set up on IW.net, but I have no clue if this will just make that map rotation available only to particular people who know the passwords to get in or what. I like the current setup as I have a few favorited servers I hop on to play hardcore sabotage. I'm not a member of those clans, but I can still play there.
I've heard the comparison to Steam a few times as IW.net is going to use VAC instead of PunkBuster. I'm all for VAC. I love VAC. However, Valve uses VAC with a very well designed Dedi server list. MW1's sever list was clunky to say the least, and a lack of a friend's list on the PC side really killed the feeling on community within the game itself. DICE and Valve will always have IW beat in that arena.
The last point I want to make is that Bowling has said multiple times that they listen to the community before and after they implement features like this. I occasionally peruse the IW boards, but I never saw anything about IW.net being ran by the community, nor did I see a general outcry of wanting a system like IW.net on the PC side. However, if you go to the boards now, every other thread is a bash thread about IW.net. An online petition against it is up to 136,000 signatures. While that may seem a bit arbitrary, that many signatures should at least make a head nod.
MTV Multiplayer Blog wrote:"'Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2' is actually the biggest investment Infinity Ward has ever made into the PC version of our games," he wrote on his FourZeroTwo blog. "It’s also the most feature-rich PC version we’ve ever made. IWNET takes the benefits of dedicated servers and allows them to be utilized and accessed by every player, out of the box, while removing the barrier to entry for players unaware of how to maintain a server on their own."
What Bowling's quote reads as: 1 - people are too stupid to run their own servers, so we want to do it for them.2 - We implemented features into this game that Treyarch did or we should have put in previous editions of CoD3 - Biggest investment in that instead of porting out a PC version to console, we ported a console game to the PC.
Rebuttal:1 - We're not stupid. There are usually 13,000+ servers running on CoD4 right now (granted a bunch of them are empty). The PC community has been running dedi servers for a VERY LONG TIME now. I think we can handle it. It's not a barrier for a PC player to access a dedi list and choose a server to play on.2 - Friends list. The year 2000 called and wanted to congratulate IW for catching up.3 - The PC community is getting a ported console game, as well as being denied the opportunity to purchase limited editions of the game. We're also having to deal with not being able to play community created content. The only investment I see is that they're investing in a way to piss off their user base.