Dedicated Servers Campaign

Please +1 this post. If we get enough people Relic cannot ignore us! The voice of the people must be heard.

Would you pay for it? I think that is the question that should follow this topic. Not all players are interested in paying more for the game. Myself, I have a job etc, and actually wouldnt mind to pay a monthly fee for server upkeep etc just to keep this game alive (compared to mmos, this game is really cheap/hrs played for me). To get dedicated servers cost, alot. There are more questions that could go along with this, but thats another topic.

Also, ignore the voice of the people? Sure they can. You already paid for the game. Ofcourse they want like to keep you as a customer, but if you are not willing to pay and just recieve things for free, its not likely going to change. If you stop playing in protest, not much will happen. They wont lose any money unless you were willing to spend some.

I would easily pay to get dedicated servers. A reasonable fee of course but yea.

If I remember correctly from some of our chats at the Community Summit in Vancouver, it's already planned.

according to the last relic broadcast they will not be doing this, but yes i am for it because the lag is terrible.

+1

Would you pay for it? I think that is the question that should follow this topic.

There are hundred of games with dedicated server, without fee. Lag is terrible and it makes people leaving game for good. It's rather question if relic really want to support their game.

There are hundred of games with dedicated server, without fee. Lag is terrible and it makes people leaving game for good. It's rather question if relic really want to support their game.

Not going to argue with you on that one. I also hate lag and would be really happy without it, and I would also like the servers. But as you stated yourself, the support is the key factor. Support for their game is there already: free maps (that cost time to develop and playtest), balancepatches (more work that they are not getting paid for), artwork, events, twitch casts, community managers etc etc. All of those are items that they dont get paid for (might attract customers though), and are meant to keep us in the game. Ofc other games might have all of the above as well, just saying the money for servers and upkeep has to come from somewhere. Maybe the DLC gives enough room though.

Last, lets not forget that the vast majority of players dont play anything other than campaign or compstomp. According to steam stats, only 6.6% of the players have played more than 10 automatches. They also have to be realistic where they want to put their money. Put alot of money into a small playerbase, or the same amount of money but can attract alot more new players that pay for the new content. Depending on company policy the conclusions can vary alot.

Edit: added stuff

Well, the most profitable thing financially they could do, is release the game and forget about it, just like EA does. I'm only here spending my time on this forum, because Relic is one of the companies trying to provide great gaming experience. And what we have now in multiplayer is not.

They sold 380k units of coh 2 according to IGN, probably many more. They are still selling ingame content. I think they are more than in OK shape to implement servers to the game.

Improve the netcode.

Dedicated server(s) will probably mean that the playerbase would have to be split up into regions.
This works for SC2 that has a huge playerbase, it won't for CoH2,

Connecting to an American server will still make the game infinitely better for all parties involved. It doesn't necessarily have to be region by region, SC2 only did that because they knew they had a lot of players who would demand region servers.

Connecting to an American server will still make the game infinitely better for all parties involved. It doesn't necessarily have to be region by region, SC2 only did that because they knew they had a lot of players who would demand region servers.

No, it will not: e.g. 2 Europeans connecting to an American server will experience a lot more latency compared to a direct connection between the two.

Well, currently there are no direct connections. Everyone connects to steam, steam sorts the packets and relays the information from there. For that reason, if one person lags everyone suffers.

I suppose that's the nice thing about dedicated servers, only the person lagging will feel it.

Also, if you think the monetization and paid DLC is ridiculous now, it will get even more ridiculous when they have to pay for dedicated servers.

It's a bigger technical and financial hurdle than people make it out to be. There's a reason that, even today with modern dynamically configurable (cloud) servers that places still charge a decent amount to run game servers for less technically demanding shooters and such.

Connecting to an American server will still make the game infinitely better for all parties involved. It doesn't necessarily have to be region by region, SC2 only did that because they knew they had a lot of players who would demand region servers.

American internet sucks, no thanks.

If you think US internet sucks, try Australian. All I know, is that when I play any game that has dedicated servers, the connection is ALWAYS better and the game more enjoyable.