I'm also not doubting that you don't know what you're talking about.
If I don't know about something, I make that disclosure in whatever I have to say.
For example, I am not a programmer, a designer, nor a developer. But I do know this - those that ARE and have been posting in these threads? Most of them make sense and actually put out information that can be verified.
It just so happens that I have an in-law that has a master's in game design and I've had a lot of conversations with him.
The bottom line is this: Dedicated Servers, while they might "help," are NOT the solution. Knowing this, developers ask the next logical question - because it is an economics question - will the bring ENOUGH help to JUSTIFY the expense.
Overwhelmingly the answer is NO.
So why do some do it and others do not?
Simply so that they can tell the potential customers, "Hey! Buy our product - we use dedicated servers!"
And they are not lying when they tell you, "It REDUCES lag related issues."
But it does not solve those issues.
There is NEVER one or two people on a game design/development team that is critical to the creation and production of a game. NEVER. To think there is a "god" of game design and development is akin to saying the NY Yankees will never win another World Series withou Alex Rodriguez. Really? I doubt that. In fact, I'll make a prediction: the year after he leaves the Yankees, the Yankees will win the World Series.
The reason I talk about the design and development team is because not every team is all that great.
I think Battlefield probably has a pretty good team. But the man in charge of that team is misguided. He's too focused upon "beating" Call of Duty. Thus he spends money on shyt that does not matter - for no other reason but to get people to convert to Battlefield instead of Call of Duty.
Frankly, I DGAS which game is "better" in the view of the community. I actually like the concept Battlefield far more than I do COD. But my experience with Battlefield is not good. The lag was just as bad as it is with COD. Finding a match was difficult (granted I was playing BFBC2 - but it was well prior to the current release). The greatest disappointment of all was discovering there are what? Three maps? Are you serious??
Pass. I'll stick with Call of Duty for the time being.
There is a lot of thought - A LOT OF THOUGHT - that goes into any multi-million dollar venture. To sit in these forums and think that decisions, like whether or not to use dedicated servers, are made lightly and without deep, deep consideration and research is simply naive and shows a lack of genuine knowledge of any business, and particularly the business in question - game development.
As for why MW3 was not nominated for GotY, I'll give you an example of what happens when media nominates the same "best of" product year after year after year. Years ago Motor Trend got into the habit of naming Toyota and GM "This of the Year!" Woohoo! Yay! The problem was that SOME - not all, but some - of those products were, being blunt - pure effing junk. Notice Motor Trend rarely, if ever, does a "down the road" follow up on "Cars of the Year"?
What happens is both the industry AND manufacturers finally got fed up with it. Car makers found themselves designing and building cars that would make Motor Trend happy. Well what they finally realized, especially in Ford's case, was that no matter how great a car you made? Motor Trend would still nominate someone else's car. Worse, the public simply was not buying cars that met all of Motor Trend's standards.
Now some reviewers realize the "favorite" trap. As a result, they mix up thier standards now and then and, what do you know, a new brand is the "best of."
And, frankly, it should be that way and you want it to be that way. Why? Because you're absolutely right - when you get down to the brass tacks, there really has not been any massive changes to the Call of Duty franchise since COD4: MW.
But there is a business reason behind that, believe me. It all has to do with economic theory. Each title represents a short run business plan. They are destined to lose interest among consumers. Thus, each title is really nothing more than a tweak of production.
In the long run, yes, the series will lose interest and fall by the way side. When? Who knows. Key will be a "better" product.
Right now, frankly, BF is in the right direction - but it still is not a better product. Right now they have a ton of options when it comes to weapons. But who cares? That's like playing rust over and over and over again but all you ever really change up is which weapons you use.
I'm not that impressed with MW3, to be frank. The series needs a massive facelift - like what MW1 brought to the title.
To me, who cares which game is better right now? This is definitely not the future of gaming.
That's why I keep saying the next generation of consoles leaves everything up in the air - including Battlefield.
I tell you what. If the next-gen consoles have just twice the computing power they have now plus are more capable of host-serving (like we have now)?
Then, yes, Battlefield is probably going to take over Call of Duty - unless, like I said, massive changes come to COD.
But I really think they are either going to have to skip a year of production OR bring in a third development team.
My bets are they will do neither until they actually see a huge loss of sales. Then they'll skip a year, maybe two, of releasing a title and, hopefully then, they'll re-invent the FPS again.
