CoD2 vets have flashbacks in CoD3 multiplayer
It would appear Call of Duty fans are experiencing déjà vu. Back when Call of Duty 2 released for the Xbox 360, the game had serious multiplayer problems; problems that took four months to fix. To the dismay of gamers, Call of Duty 3 has its own set of online problems, despite being made by a different developer than CoD2.
Buzz on the official Xbox.com message boards says that CoD3 players are unable to enter into ranked matches or (in some cases) any at all. Some players are unable to find any games, regardless of what skill level is entered into the system. Others join games and find themselves sitting in lobbies indefinitely. A different group find the multiplayer menu locking up on them. One theory suggests that anyone trying to join a ranked game ends up making a new lobby, which would result in thousands of one player online matches.
Console games are supposed to be simple plug and play affairs. We might expect these Call of Duty 3 multiplayer issues in a PC version, not a 360 version. Because of unified hardware and online components, console games should always ship (mostly) bug-free. We hope Call of Duty 3 is an isolated affair, but after issues with Dead Rising and Saint's Row, are we beginning to see an ugly trend in console games? The release now, patch later method is unacceptable on the PC, even more so on a game console.
[Thanks The Wallbanger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Marty @ Nov 9th 2006 1:55PM
Console games stopped being "simple plug and play affairs" the day hard drives (and hence, patches) were introduced into the mix.
Charles @ Nov 9th 2006 1:55PM
*cough*thereisnoPCversion*cough*
http://www.gamingnexus.com/Default.aspx?ArticleType=Article&Section=Article&I=1281
adam @ Nov 9th 2006 1:57PM
The cycle will continue as long as people keep buying buggy games and only complain on some forums.
Want a real solution? How about 100,000 people volunteer to return the game? The company might notice (100000*$59.99 = 6 million bones).
Martin @ Nov 9th 2006 2:00PM
Lets not forget that todays games are not simple versions of pong, but very complex software and even if we have a unified this complexity will lead to more bugs.
Tucker @ Nov 9th 2006 2:01PM
The biggest difference in patching a console game vs. patching a PC game in my mind is this: PC gamers kind of got used to the inevitable patch, because developers always gave the excuse "oh, well it's impossible to take into account and test every conceivable system configuration, so bugs are expected."
So what's the problem here? All 360s (and other consoles, naturally) have the same hardware, OS, input device, network card, etc. Widespread issues like this didn't crop up in testing? I find that hard to believe - either they weren't testing very hard, or they did adhere to the "release now, finish later" mentality.
I'm typically not a big whiner with these things, but widespread problems like this are pretty ridiculous. What gives, developers? I know we all bitch about delayed release dates, but we're going to bitch a lot more when we can't actually play the games we waited months (sometimes years?) for and then paid $60 to obtain.
crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:02PM
Man, I can't wait for the Daggerfall for Home Consoles!
That game was so buggy at launch, it never got patched all the way back to "playable".
@ Nov 9th 2006 2:02PM
They've bascially extended the debugging phase into the 6 month post release window. Are Core xbox uers able to patch their games in the absence of an HDD?
BTS.WRKNG @ Nov 9th 2006 2:12PM
Console games stopped being "simple plug and play affairs" the day Microsoft was introduced into the mix.
Franky Digital @ Nov 9th 2006 2:14PM
@8: "Console games stopped being "simple plug and play affairs" the day Microsoft was introduced into the mix."
Yea, because before that, no game ever shipped with bugs... >.>
Todd @ Nov 9th 2006 2:14PM
I predicted this a long time ago. Around the time Microsoft got into the console business. They are the "ship now, patch later" kings.
crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:17PM
"Yea, because before that, no game ever shipped with bugs... "
Name a buggy console game pre xbox360. Now name another. How far apart are they? Years?
Now repeat the excercise post 360. Dead Rising, CoD3, 2 months apart? maybe 3?
Panadero @ Nov 9th 2006 2:17PM
Welcome to next gen. *Rolls eyes*
waxc3 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:18PM
i am agreeing with everyone so far...
but you know i saw major bugs creep in when companies other than nintendo starting making 3-D games. when harddrives came it got worse maybe, but i had more ps2 mem card issues than xbox issues!
now my 360 games... some have sucked seriously with problems. (oblivion!)
the more technology they add, the worse it will get.
i get disgusted by it all being a non online user i can not get any patches or fixes. :(
waxc3 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:21PM
dont blame xbox and 360 for the buggy generation!
do you know how many times i feel through a floor or had lock ups in ps2 games!?
@ Nov 9th 2006 2:22PM
Not just next gen or consoles, have you guys played a first-run Lego Star Wars II for DS? Or, the first Madden for PSP that had to be recalled.
BlindsideDork @ Nov 9th 2006 2:25PM
Ok I will have to do this and this isn't fanboyish...I don't think.
But the whole harddrive issue or what not..buggy games, a lot of this started with Microsoft and their XBox and especially XBox 360.
This articles says console games...but how many times have you bought a PS2, GameCube, PSx, N64, and even some XBox games and needed a patch or it wasn't complete? With a few exceptions...hardly any!
XBox 360 may have SOME decent titles but all in all is shotty and say this cause it seems like they have this thought process or idea, "well since it is online and msot games are online and you score achievements, everyone is going to have an internet connection and play online so why not we do majority of the game and ship it out sooner and if there are some issues left over, we can send out a patch to them."
Goes along with Microtransactions and not giving you the whole game (cause i doubt they have tapped the FULL potential and full capacaity of their disc space yet)...but right now we can't lump ALL consoles together UNTIL PS3 and the Wii come out and we see how that runs. Until then, it is MICRO$OFT and XBox 360's problem, dont blame others for your own mistakes!
PS: I can potentially see myself being flamed for "fanboy"ism but on this topic, I don't care!
kuroshi @ Nov 9th 2006 2:25PM
Yeah a handfull of ps3 games need the update to be playable on the launch system. MS is responsible for those to. Damn you microsoft! Those all were not titles published or created by MS. The bugs were made by the developer and fixed by them. I'm sorry Bill Gates slept with your mom, but everything that is wrong in the world is not thier fault.
StoneGold @ Nov 9th 2006 2:26PM
The obvious answer is that as technology becomes more advanced, and games become more feature-laden, it's difficult to find all the bugs.
That said, forcing me to store data, something I might not be able to do if I have a core unit, on a hard drive, I'm guessing is not something included as a warning on the package. And since no store worth its salt will take an open return, I'm thinking an enterprising lawyer should be able to make some serious buck off of some game companies.
Draco @ Nov 9th 2006 2:28PM
@ >
Dont worry about core users, as long as they have a couple extra memory cards they wont have a problem with the patches.
crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:29PM
Believe it or not, but the most buggy Nintendo game i've ever seen (by nintendo) is super metroid.
Go to Metroid2002.com and check out all the hacks and tricks that are possible. The game has been totally broken.
Mario 64 has a few bugs as well, but nothing fatal.
Marty @ Nov 9th 2006 2:31PM
It's not the 360, PS3, or Wii's fault when these games come out - it is the developer's fault or the publisher's fault. When game developers are bullied around to finish games by certain times or if they promise deadlines they cannot meet, usually quality control is the first thing to go. Instead of testing the game for a month or two, and hammering out all the bugs, games ship "as-is" and the bugs get fixed later.
The only reason why people are not used to seeing this stuff on consoles is that previously, an A-list title that shipped with bugs to a system like GBA or PS2 meant that the publisher would later have to issue a recall and it would cost thousands of dollars to fix. Now though, with the advent of hard drives and storage media in game systems, I think those responsible for putting out games are extending the previously PC-only attitude of ship-now, patch-later to the console realm - a move that people who are more into consoles are not used to and will not like.
DeezNuts420 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:33PM
Why is everyone blaming M$? It's the publisher's fault. Sounds like the Sony fanboys are desperate for Microsoft slip-ups before the 20 PS3 units are released. Trust me guys Sony will have there own problems in the months to come.
PiNPOiNT @ Nov 9th 2006 2:34PM
I personally can't connect to a single COD game yet, and i have a hell of a time trying to get into a GOW game as well. COD won't connect at all and no one will ever join a game i host. GOW i keep getting a "failed to connect to host" everytime i try and join a game, i've only successfully played one online game thus far in GOW. All of my other 360 games work fine (for the most part).
crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:38PM
All the flack around the PS3 and 360 are adding up to Nintendo being in the right place at the right time.
I can garantee that there won't be a single bug fix required for any 1st or second party Nintendo games, and possibly not even 3rd party games, due to Nintendo's corporate quality control.
Remember, Nintendo means Quality.
devi8i @ Nov 9th 2006 2:38PM
Come on guys....unless its a first party game then the blame is squarely on the developers and publishers...and mostly the publishers since they generally control teh release schedule more so then teh development teams.....stock down, must sell game, dont care if its done or throughly QA'd...... MS has taken great strides to ensure a unified online platform to reduce these problems....and online console gaming is still in its infancy compared to the life of console gaming. Give it some time and everything will be corrected. At least now we have options other than replacing consumers games in fixing the problems.
epluribus @ Nov 9th 2006 2:41PM
"Console games are supposed to be simple plug and play affairs. We might expect these Call of Duty 3 multiplayer issues in a PC version, not a 360 version."
Well, you've almost got it. I'm amazed that people haven't figured this out long before now. 360 console games ARE PC games!
What do you think MS is doing here? Ideally, they want the whole world playing PC games, on Windows operating systems (like that on the 360), developed with Windows tools. And if they're forced to take a loss to enter the console business, to protect their core OS business and prevent it from becoming increasingly irrelevant, they will do so, but keep it tied as closely as possible to the PC. Whether than means needing to be tethered to a PC for any sort of media capability, or patch-upon-patch releases like the fall dashboard update, or never ending "upgrades" to console hardware that's never finished, or buggy games like that mentioned above, 360 users can look forward to more of the same. Enjoy.
Willie @ Nov 9th 2006 2:45PM
You know what is really scary. If EA gets wind of this, they will purposely make you download a patch and charge you for it....lol. I know how EA loves to charge their customers.
Phranctoast @ Nov 9th 2006 2:46PM
7. No they cant. they need the HDD. sux huh?
i expect this from a pc (to the person who said its unacceptable for pc games). there are a lot of diff setups for pcs. peole have diff vid cards, and well. you get it. This is unacceptable for a console. All the systems are the same.
baby sea tuna @ Nov 9th 2006 2:47PM
I agree with the "blame the publisher" camp on this one. Activision ships buggy games ALL THE TIME. So does EA. So do a lot of others. It's the price we gamers are being forced to pay in their battles to be #1 in the industry. And yeah, it sucks.
crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 2:59PM
"I agree with the "blame the publisher" camp on this one"
I do too, except that its on MS platform. MS could impose some quality controls on their publishers before the game gets launched.
So if there are multiplayer bugs, MS would have the power to say "no, its not done, fix it" before its released.
Finn @ Nov 9th 2006 3:01PM
did anybody think that MABEY since the game just came out this week, mabey there is nobody else searching for a match and thats why people are having a problem, I mean I know that COD is known for Multi, but when I got 2 I beat the campaign first
Harpua Scorpio @ Nov 9th 2006 3:01PM
This is because gamers and distributors are way too impatient for the developers to take the time they need to properly work everything out.
Read This
Harpua Scorpio @ Nov 9th 2006 3:02PM
Boo, no html in comments. Anyway, click on my name to read what I wrote somewhat on what I said above...clearly.
SprintRS @ Nov 9th 2006 3:19PM
1. Anyone who bought COD2 with its crapfest of a multiplayer and bought COD3 deserves it. I flat out refuse to buy any activision or infinity ward (yes i know new dev) after that debacle.
2. There have always been bugs in games. Only recently with harddrives and the internet have they been able to be fixed. Sure there might be more now, but take off your rose colored glasses and open your eyes; tons of NES games had a bunch of bugs.
Mr, Objectional @ Nov 9th 2006 3:21PM
PC games in general would have far FEWER problems, because the infrastructure and know-how is already there.
@ Nov 9th 2006 3:24PM
"I can garantee that there won't be a single bug fix required for any 1st or second party Nintendo games, and possibly not even 3rd party games, due to Nintendo's corporate quality control."
LOL... they better, 'cause they've only been making GC games for the past 5 years.
Marty @ Nov 9th 2006 3:45PM
I know you're trying to rag on Nintendo >, but it just ain't working. There are distinct advantages to using a similar development platform to a previous one, especially when you don't have to waste valuable time with your dev teams just to learn the new architecture.
I highly doubt you have the much technical knowledge of game-development, so please, let's not make a fool of ourselves by trying to poke fun at something that could be a well-played hand by Nintendo.
@ Nov 9th 2006 3:51PM
"I highly doubt you have the much technical knowledge of game-development, so please, let's not make a fool of ourselves by trying to poke fun at something that could be a well-played hand by Nintendo."
How well it turns out is still up in the air.
Wiimote is unproven outside in a real setting on mass, and no flagship console has ever retained last gen. technology.
And, given the near similarities of GC/Wii devs., what i stated above is true.
Mal F4cti0n @ Nov 9th 2006 3:54PM
No problems with Gears of War, a game produced by Microsoft. So why would a game for the Xbox360 developed and produced by others be laid at Microsoft's feet? Seriously people.
Do you think this multi-player will not have any bugs on Sony online? Is multi-player even available on the Sony version?
crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 3:58PM
"Wiimote is unproven outside in a real setting on mass, and no flagship console has ever retained last gen. technology"
It is true that wiimote is "unproven" in the real world, but everyone who has used it (even the 8 hour marathon Zelda sessions) have had nothing but good things to say about. Honestly, I'm trying to think, I don't think anyone who has picked it up and played it has said bad things about it.
As far as your comment about using last gen architecture: PC have been using the same or similar architecture for 20 years. Sure, there is a difference between a 486 and a Pentium, and a difference between a Pentium and a P4, but the base architecture and instruction set remains unchanged. That is the same step in Wii. If GC is 486, Wii is pentium, with the same instruction set plus more as well as extra functionality.
I know you have trouble seeing Wii as anything more than GC+, but this hardware is the only real hope for change in the industry.
droptop GP @ Nov 9th 2006 4:02PM
i've been playing COD3 for 3 days.
only prob i had was the 'finding a ranked match' issue.
i think the multiplayer is exciting, with big maps, 24 players & no lag.
juat wait till the PS3 online bugs start surfacing.....
Adam @ Nov 9th 2006 4:05PM
Gears of War has plenty of problems. The voice chat works about 80% of the time (not sure if this is for Gears only, as all of xbox live seems to have this problem right now) and it's almost impossible to join a game for multiplayer. That being said, it's a fantastic game and is fun as hell once you get in a match, but to say it's bug free is incorrect.
devi8i @ Nov 9th 2006 4:19PM
The Wii may have an advantage for deelopers in the development cycle of teh game, having already worked with teh architecture before, but Nintendo has thrown a couple new BIG variables into the mix:
1. The motion control.....by itself doesnt seem that daunting
2. Network play..... Nintendo is by far the newest of the three to this game. With teh exception of the DS game developers, not many other developers have had a lot of experience developing for online play for nintendo.
Sony at least has been in the game of online play for a while with mixed results, and MS has really made it their prime objective to offer up the most compelling "total package" if you will, for online gaming.
I think Nintendo developers have the biggest risks this round and it is fortunate Nintendo did not change their core platform away from the gamecube. No camp will win this year without a significant portion of game titles having some form of online play, couple this with a near manadatory change in control schemes and you create a daunting challenge to developers. If nintendo developers had to deal with new development tools on top of the other challenges, I think the Wii's support would be far less then we have today.
Mr. Khan @ Nov 9th 2006 4:19PM
My guess is this is the single disadvantage of LIVE's system of directly connecting consoles to play online, you are bottlenecked by the Internet Speed (and Ping rate) of the "host"
I think the Wi-Fi Connection games are also set up in this way, which leads to the same problems
And this is one of the reasons why Nintendo is not allowing Independent Storage Mediums other than SD Cards, they give you "gimped" Memory space, and in turn, you get extremely reliable hardware, Kind of like the advantages/disadvantages of the N64 Cartridges
Unimental @ Nov 9th 2006 4:23PM
This is most likely an evil ploy by MS to get CoD3 buyers back in the store to pick up Gears of War whilst they wait for the patching process to be completed. Or it's just developer laziness.
epluribus @ Nov 9th 2006 4:31PM
@39: "No problems with Gears of War, a game produced by Microsoft."
Orly? That's a pretty bold statement for a game that's a few days old. Aside from the problems with multiplayer that others are pointing out, perhaps you haven't seen this glitchy gem yet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBnect1mkYA&eurl=
reguy @ Nov 9th 2006 4:37PM
crono141 said 'Remember, Nintendo means Quality.'
no, nintendo means greed(old nintendo games on gba for 20 dollars, smaller memory card space so you're forced to buy more). nintendo also means have them buy their gamecubes again. nintendo also means no online play(gamers dont want to play online). so because xbox is the only system with a real online network everything is their fault?
please!! the ds wifi is a joke and the wii's doesnt even exist. but i forgot nintendo also means fun right?
crono141 @ Nov 9th 2006 5:14PM
reguy:
Bitter much?
How many GC did you have to buy because of hardware failure? How many times did you call Nintendo customer support because of red lights or blue screens or consistent lockups? How many times have you had to send in your bricked nintendo to get it replaced/repaired/refurbished?
Nintendo makes quality hardware. You cannot find hardware in the gaming sphere with the reliability and durability of nintendo hardware.
Now go see a shrink about all that pent up bitterness.
striderhayasa @ Nov 9th 2006 5:30PM
@reguy
chill, you're reasoning is flawed. Nintendo Wifi (with the exception of the FC system) is the most straight forward online service I've ever used with the added exception of the PC. Also Gamecube game saves are ridiculously small and the games tend to save so fast to mem card that you hardly notice it. Super Smash Brothers and F-Zero come to mind. My average game save was only 5 blocks. Didn't Nintendo release a 64MB mem card?
GBA games for twenty bucks like say....Golden Sun or Advanced Wars or Street Fighter.....compared to ...say 49.99 for PSP games. how is it Wii Wifi doesn't exist when it's built on the same network as DS wifi which BTW destroys the PSP in terms of all-around support. Metroid Prime Hunters online options are the best on the DS. Individual DS units can hosts games and act as a server, text, voice chat, full game options available online and robust stat tracking are all supported. If Wii provides the same experience, I don't see a problem especially with a Universal FC. How is that bad, especially when it's in a portable?
Xbox live is a great service but let's be real...it has issues. Now with the TV and Movie download options, how is all that data supposed to be managed on a 20 GB HDD along with games saves, demos, music and such? Only a year and there have been too many bricked 360's, too many online issues, too many lag issues,with XBLA arcade games (I'm thinking Street Fighter, Doom and Mortal Kombat) hey Live is cool still and I look forward to what XNA is going to do to the Live Community but don't hate on Nintendo like they stole your milk money.
They do make fun games. 3.4 million Animal Crossing players can't be wrong lol!
Tim Marman @ Nov 9th 2006 11:58PM
This is not to defend them so much, because this stuff SHOULD be tested properly - but as a developer I can tell you sometimes systems react differently under massive scale. There are conditions that sometimes get triggered which you couldn't find with a smaller test base. Of course, that's why many PC MMORPGs have beta user testing - to get that scale. Perhaps that's a route these companies need to consider, because this is becoming too widespread - COD2, COD3 (I was having no issues with Player, but couldn't get into Ranked), even Uno if I recall correctly.