Madness. Let this game die a quick and painful death.

And IW, also.

They should at least have the balls to say "ok, we're doing this because we want to control every aspect of how you play and charge you for DLC".

It's a sad, sad day. And they said that they were free of Kotick influence. Either they were too innocent or they were lying. Probably the latter, since 402 already lied in several interviews saying that PC multiplayer wouldn't change at all just one month ago.

I don't think it should, "die a quick and painful death." that is but see what the IWNET service can provide as their automatch service better be pretty robust looking at all the hubbub being generated.

While dedicated servers are more open ended, particularly towards large groups wishing to play together and mod support, I can see that this grouping of similar functionality between LIVE and PSN service would make it easier to test and optimize. Conversely, I can see that they are banking on having enough servers, a robust set of matching criteria, and probably some method of ensuring that groups can all join together on the same server. (I believe LIVE has this functionality, and PSN does not necessarily prohibit some developer method to do this.)

In the end though, I do think the petition is doing some good as it gives feedback to devs and publishers. If it gets big enough, someone WILL be tasked to see if some sort of option is feasible. You can't tell me that if this petition or cancelled pre-orders get to 500,000 that an EP or VP won't release additional funds to correct this matter.

A petition is really of very little value in determining "lost sales" or "lost revenue". Canceled preorders are a good indication but I'm not sure IW or Activision will have access to that information across any or all retailers. Don't know for sure.

I agree but it was the "other" post where I mentioned lost sales and not this one. Sorry if I was unclear.

What I was pointing to above was the relatively high number of people that sign a petition. There comes a point where you either discount the numbers entirely or take any measure of it as a reflection of market viability. If you discount it (which is certainly possible due to fraudulent signatures) then your risk is 50-50, either you were right to discount it or not. If you take any approach that says the numbers are an fraction of being valid, then you have to take the total percentage into account. 500,000 signatures is where I kind of dub this issue as being too big to ignore.

As to pre-orders and sales cancellation, there's additional set ups and added content for pre-orders that can help be indicators of initial sales. As I recall there are some instances where added content codes or additional 5x5 keys for services via LIVE and added content could be an indicator for Xbox 360 pre-purchases. Trending wise, I would HOPE that there is some indicator from retailers on what the current unit pre-order demand is trending towards to avoid short fall or overstock.

If the petitioners want more umph, they could post their purchase ID number on the transaction that they canceled for verification. If say a random sampling of 100 were done and could be verified (i.e. gamestop verifying that the transaction code looks legit.) it would put some throw weight into the argument that was verifiable.

But in any case, if sales are bad then IW will learn and the next product or the COD from Treyarch will take this into account. The 50-50 argument cuts both ways: either the developer will suffer or the consumer but that question will be answered once the title releases. Both sides have long memories, and does not suffer fools lightly.

Looks similar to the excuse Blizzard gave to remove LAN from StarCraft2... they could at least change their speech. Both companies now under the same hood in Activision. Coincidence?

I'm no stranger to the sort of compromises a developer has to make to appease a publisher, but this particular news story killed my interest in the game. Here's hoping this doesn't set a dangerous precedent.

How would one go about organising a group of around 30 to join a server; are they expecting us to 'party' or 'group' together, wait for a server to become available (probably the most latency filled piece of crap since pigeon mail) and join as one? Then hope that no-one else will join, as we have no control over the server, and just accept that 'this is it', the ultimate in next generation online multiplayer...

20 minutes later, when we are bored with the standard levels, we purchase a 'map pack' with the diversity of someone who has been making the same sh*t for 2 years and could not possibly bring anything new to the table.

Maybe this is a marketing stunt, so that the next developer can bring back dedicated server support and be the saviour of all man kind?

RIP COD 6 and IW, may you be ranked correctly in heaven.

Well... I'm really looking forward to the single player campaign at least. :\

I dont know I have to say while I think the no modding thing kinda sux I have to say that the party and multiplayer systems on xbox is way better and provides a much better experience.

Plus this eliminated the people using pirated versions on hacked dedicated servers.

also eliminates the need for the god awful Punk-Buster Software that has been running the PC multiplayer experience in the the ground for a couple years now. To be honest if Even Balance is still in business in a couple years I will be thoroughly surprised.

Bad Company 2 is going to have dedicated servers. They also have an emphasis on vehicular combat as opposed to arcadey 'guns only' combat in COD6. I think this year EA's getting my money... They're really on a roll this year...

James,

I can't agree with your comment about the xbox being a much better multiplayer experience. PC online gaming is still leaps and bounds better than anything any console has ever offered.

I'm with you Justin about EA. Mass Effect, Mirrors Edge, and Dead Space are some of most enjoyable newer PC games I've played in the past year.

I am wondering if this will snowball into what happened with spore when everyone learned about its invasive copy protection. It will be interesting to see what happens, but for the record, lack of support for public servers is not a very good idea. There is a place for both private servers and a matchmaking system- its a shame the company didn't exploit the strengths of both these systems.

Why not have a reason for DLC, a ladder, and modding support all at the same time?

I don't think much will come of all the bellyaching. I'm annoyed at the direction the game's taking but I'm still buying the game. IW does a great job with the Single Player aspects of the game and I'm not losing out on that at all.

I'm not sure where the decision for this is coming from. Maybe it's because they really just didn't want to deal with supporting the market on the dedicated server side. Maybe it's because it's easier to just plug into Steam or whatever. I don't know.

I like Penny Arcade's take: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2009/10/23/

You know what this all sounds like? How the consolers sounded when they would get popular PC games (especially shooters) after the PC and for $10 more. Now, the tide's turned because of simple mathematics...more people who were kids in the last couple decades and are just now in their 20s have had access to a $400-500 XBox more so than a $1500+ PC. Sure, they had access to that PC but as a kid, they likely played second fiddle to parents or had to make a choice to grab the Xbox version so they could play with friends who didn't have regular access to PCs. I'm not saying there's a whole generation that didn't have access to PCs...the current 20somethings out there, I'm sure had unprecedented access to PCs compared to 30somethings like me who convinced their parents that the latest Apple //e was a great learning tool. :)

But, I think a big part of this is also Microsoft's fault. The Xbox is setup for rapid gaming (quick boot times), consistency (in terms of platform experience), and ready access to a common marketplace where all the products are compatible with your machine. The Games for Windows initiative is a joke (every single GFW game I've gotten had problems out of the box because GFW wasn't up to date on my machine and the updater never worked in-game). It's a hassle. You take 10 different games and you're looking at 10 different install and setup scenarios and experiences. And, if you're lucky, everything works out of the box, no patches, etc. required. Oh, and if a patch IS required, none of those games will check (scratch that, I think one or two of EA's games DO check for updates but only if you've installed the download manager or whatever).

PC gaming needs a more consistent experience and one that is kept up-to-date as well if not better than Windows Update. Why not have the same servers that manage and host the XBox experience handle serving up patches and updates for Windows games? Throw in a special updater that will check on a regular basis for updates and patches and handle them just like Windows Updates.

Create a more unified experience when installing and setting up games (those library folders don't impress me and they assume there is something the OS can find off the game install to associate it with the folder). Make it as easy if not easier than running an XBox game.

Honestly, why not give me the option to insert a CODMW2 DVD into my drive and after a very short install (of basic data and to create a folder), let me start the game. Then stream the rest of the install while I'm playing. Much of the game is in memory and texture/data streaming off the HD should take priority over the DVD -> HD stream. Suddenly, you're playing your game in no time and the barrier to entry is gone. Right now? I start and install and go grab dinner or something. It's stupid.

Microsoft needs to step in and stop worrying about eroding XBox sales. They aren't going anywhere. There is a growing segment of the population that is perfectly happy on a game pad and won't care about the PC. But there is another segment that does care for specific games and pissing them off does nothing to improve sales of anything. I'm still running XP and and probably not going to upgrade to Windows 7 anytime soon because I don't see any benefit. If you told me Windows 7 does all sorts of things to improve gaming including offering solid backward compatibility with XP games, I'd sign up.

Some games are great for console. Unless you've got a fancy wheel for it, racing games are so much more enjoyable on consoles. But shooters, for me at least, are nothing more than tank battles with a lot of auto-aim help. Your reticle is a turret that's got to be turned and lifted and aimed properly. Meanwhile, with my mouse, I've already zeroed my target, fired a burst and moved behind cover.

The thing I'll miss though about dedicated servers is knowing I'll have a consistent experience playing on a favorite server of mine. I can always trust in the fact that my favorite server has the right mix of people, map selection, rules, and fun. Matchmaking means being dropped into 1-person servers and being surrounded by hacks or noobs. It'll work at times but as my experience in L4D has illustrated to me, it's always going to be hit or miss.