Comments on: Breaking: Predictable Thing Happens

By: pepper

pepper — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:38:32 +0000

I never said it was unmoddable. Just that the support for it is disappointing, and the things that mod teams have done usually involve some pretty whacky hacking to get it to work.

By: Jim Rossignol

Jim Rossignol — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:47:39 +0000

We’re going to have more to say on it soon. But our official line is that we think it’s a crock of shit.

By: Quercus

Quercus — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:27:13 +0000

I’m sure most PC games journalists are critical – but as for games magazines or sites – I’m not so sure. Most sites (including RPS) seem content to remain objective and just report what has happened, rather than voicing opinions either way. So far the only sites I have seen that have said anything overtly positive about dedicated servers (and by inference therefore, negative about IW’s decision) are the DICE blog for BC2 and the artile by Tim Edwards for PC Gamer.
It is possible that the games magazines haven’t caught up with the story yet, but at the moment it is depressing how few professional voices are standing in the way of IW’s propaganda machine.

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:00:05 +0000

There seem to be an awful lot of mods, some of which do pretty clever things with BF2, its not like it is unmoddable.

By: subedii

subedii — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:45:21 +0000

@mungrul: Oh they’re still going to be recruiting people from the mod community. Mod or indie experience is crucial if you’re going to even think of applying for any of he larger devs. It’s just that these guys won’t be from their own community.

Which is deeply ironic considering, well, you know some of the map makers for CoD4? Where did THEY come from? Mapmaking for earlier CoD games.

Now the statement is that amateur mod-makers and mapmakers could never hope to replicated the quality of someone working full time on the job, so it’s better to make things easier for the less hardcore fans instead and maintain quality. But even if that were true, it’s something people do to develop their skills and show their potential.

All this is moot for IW though. Realistically they can easily draw talent from any number of sources and communities, it’s not like they’re going to be suffering a shortage of people applying. Doesn’t change the fact that the logic behind it is a bit skewed if you talk about how unimportant that community is to you and then draw people with those skills from those communities.

By: Glove

Glove — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:16:03 +0000

Aye, cue.

By: Mungrul

Mungrul — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 07:43:27 +0000

There’s one critical factor about mod-ability that people always seem to forget; it creates future employees, or even future franchises. To stifle this only harms the developer community in general. But of course, this is long-term thinking, and not related to the idea of maximising short-term profitability, so corporate big-wigs aren’t interested.
It’s shocking when you consider that founder members of Infinity Ward themselves came from the modding community.

By: Monkeybreadman

Monkeybreadman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 06:46:51 +0000

Its normal for the BF series. Dice give out licences to server providers so they can host ranked servers. The GSPs then have to limit the access the user has to the server files. Something IW should’ve done.

If i was Dice i would release another trailer for B:BC2 and be busting my balls to get 1943 out as soon as possible

By: runcrash

runcrash — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:02:06 +0000

So my question is to all those who have rented a server before: In the BFBC2 FAQ it says that you can rent servers from “trusted partners with datacenters.” Is this normal for a FPS or can you host a dedicated server anywhere you like to? I know a friend of mine who is a web designer fires up a TF2 server on the web server he rents from time to time.

By: Psychopomp

Psychopomp — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:01:50 +0000

Cue?

By: Monkeybreadman

Monkeybreadman — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 03:17:45 +0000

I agree

By: Hidden_7

Hidden_7 — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:05:44 +0000

The thing I find amusing about the “put out” argument is that as an analogy is actually doesn’t work that well. In one sense, yes, that’s exactly what’s happening, one group is easier to please and nets greater rewards, so it makes sense to focus on that group more than the harder-to-please group that provides less return for investment. However, by saying that it is like the boys all chasing the easy girl and if you want to get boys you’ve got to “put out” more you’ve now made your previous position, which is actually fairly reasonable (for profit companies are going to focus on groups that offer more return for investment) aligned with a pretty crazy position (girls that can’t attract male attention need to slut it up more).

It doesn’t seem useful as far as analogies go. Usually you want to associate your position with a less controversial, better received position. It clearly falls down from disanalogy, since the usual rational against just “slutting it up” is that worthwhile fellows care about more than just sex, whereas you’re not going to really suggest saving yourself for a caring company that cares about more than just money. Still, seems an odd argumentative tactic.