The end result should be better speed and stability -- at least when it comes to matchmaking. They can't help you if you're still dropping grenades on your toes.
Infinity Ward addressing Call of Duty 4 PS3 matchmaking issues
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
on Nov 12th 2007 3:55PM
67
The end result should be better speed and stability -- at least when it comes to matchmaking. They can't help you if you're still dropping grenades on your toes.
Reader Comments (67)
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 3:58PM SheppyReturns said
Where are the Live comments?
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:02PM (Unverified) said
Exactly. Live's party system sucks. Half the people cant use mics, the other half drop out. I mean I love my COD4, but lets get this shit fixed. It didnt even do that on the beta.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:03PM Vegeta has a ps3 said
ummm I don't think that has anything to do with live, more like people using XBL are pricks.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:13PM (Unverified) said
Almost all the problems people are having on live are because people are too stupid to set up their routers correctly. I have yet to have a probelm playing cod4.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:03PM (Unverified) said
yeah i cant even play splitscreen cause it freezes my ps3 anyone know how to fix this problem ?
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:11PM (Unverified) said
Sell your PS3 and get a real gamming machine like a 360. The PS3 so only good for watching blu-ray movies. You should know this by now.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:12PM knowWhatYouTalkAbout said
yeah, get a 360 lol JK. Although that doesnt happen to me on the 360. Iv played 4 player split screen quit a bit and everything is fine, except airstrikes cause a little bit a slowdown.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:17PM (Unverified) said
Cyro, were all so sorry, I am sure we forgot the difference between a real gaming machine and a fake one. Please enlighten us on what Blu-Ray movies we can enjoy.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:30PM (Unverified) said
I saw on another thread this was caused by a corrupted game save, and deleting that save will fix it. You might want to google it before doing anything though.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:51PM SheppyReturns said
Cyro, would this be the same gaming machine that all games require constant patching and updating for that far off, many months away point where all but a few games are actually playable online? I mean, hell, it took em five months before Lost Planet wasn't quite as broken. Admittedly, this isn't every game, but damn close to it.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:10PM (Unverified) said
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=175454
PS3, 360, and PC users had been complaining about it.
weird thing tho, I really thought Microsoft had dedicated servers...and that the fee was for that
PS3, 360, and PC users had been complaining about it.
weird thing tho, I really thought Microsoft had dedicated servers...and that the fee was for that
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:18PM (Unverified) said
So it begins. I stated a long time ago, its gonna cost Sony ALOT to maintain servers for EVERY game (if they sell alot of games ex COD4) then they're gonna get hit by needing and LEAVING the servers for it (and how long do they support it?)... too many questions....
Good luck...
Good luck...
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:21PM (Unverified) said
errr no, Sony gives the devs the option to decide wether to have dedicated servers or just p2p, if you have a 360 you should know that Live is p2p, as far as I know, Microsoft made it mandatory....
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:19PM (Unverified) said
Ha ha the PoS3 fails at gaming AGAIN.
With more exclusives, you could at least say that's how the game is supposed to be!
But that's the rub, isn't it...
With more exclusives, you could at least say that's how the game is supposed to be!
But that's the rub, isn't it...
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:21PM (Unverified) said
Cyro also needs to sell his fake grammar lessons, and get some real ones
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:26PM (Unverified) said
You are definitely right. English is not my native language though.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:22PM (Unverified) said
Glad to see them getting it worked out. They should have expected the traffic though, CoD4 was on everyones radar for a while.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:26PM (Unverified) said
I am also glad that eleventeen year olds are not into PS3. If I had to put up with the Live userbase screaming obscenities in my ear, I would no longer game online.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:32PM IslandLife said
Amen, brother.
And I don't care what anyone says, ELEVENTEEN should be a number. It just sounds sooo right.
Reply
And I don't care what anyone says, ELEVENTEEN should be a number. It just sounds sooo right.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:40PM (Unverified) said
I've learned to love the pull up gamer tag... Mute... Its is awesome listening to just the person you know arguing with someone you can't hear....
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 7:17PM (Unverified) said
Akamaru...
Don't worry, once the PS3 achieves a respectable user base, you'll be surrounded by the screaming bunch, waiting for their sacks to drop, as well. Certainly an advantage to Sony right now. Small userbase=less screaming douche bags.
Reply
Don't worry, once the PS3 achieves a respectable user base, you'll be surrounded by the screaming bunch, waiting for their sacks to drop, as well. Certainly an advantage to Sony right now. Small userbase=less screaming douche bags.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:27PM Bran said
Just add co-op to campaign PLEASE! Kotaku had a story a while back that mentioned it as potential dlc.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:30PM (Unverified) said
well im not uneducated enough to buy a 360 cause then i would have to deal with lag!! plus everyone knows that xbots pay live for the privilege of playing p2p unlike the psn wich uses servers for free for a lag free experience.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:36PM (Unverified) said
I dont know what lag you are talking about? I have played over 350 matched games in Halo 3, with not a single lag in any of them. And match making is so good I pay 50 bucks with pleasure every year and will keep doing so. I believe its worth every penny, for the great system that it is.
Have you even tried playing on Xbox live, Mr. fanboy?
Reply
Have you even tried playing on Xbox live, Mr. fanboy?
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:41PM Spiza said
Can you use mouse/keyboard on the PS3 version?
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:51PM (Unverified) said
DelayStation = LagStation?
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:52PM (Unverified) said
While they're at it, they can patch the no online split screen problem for both PlayStation and Xbox.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:55PM (Unverified) said
mr.fanboy wow creative, yes i have played live how ele would i know it lags duh, have you ever played on psn? i will give you that though i havent had lag on halo but on most other games i have.also its a little wierd how most xbox perfered owners dont know that live has no personal servers and that there paying basically for just demos while most ps3 owners do.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 5:24PM (Unverified) said
Yeah, I love those personal servers on peoples' unreliable DSL connections. I love getting dropped from games constantly on PSN. I love my PS3 but good lord the PSN is crap.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 5:35PM zuburi said
I have a Live subscription, and I wouldn't mind paying a fee for the PSN. The main reason is because at least with Live I can fire up an ages-old launch game like Kameo or PGR3 and people are still playing it online thanks to the servers being available. With PSN, as soon as a game's popularity drops, they're gonna kill the servers. Which sucks for me since I have a huge backlog of games and by the time I get around to playing something, it's usually years old. I'd like to play something like COD4, but I'm going to pick it up on 360 just because I know that if a friend and I decide to fire it up years down the road and play online together, the servers will still be available.
You get what you pay for with PSN's free service. I would have absolutely no problem dropping $5/month (no more, though) for increased functionality, performance, and longevity.
Reply
You get what you pay for with PSN's free service. I would have absolutely no problem dropping $5/month (no more, though) for increased functionality, performance, and longevity.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 6:28PM (Unverified) said
Le Sigh.....
Actually, GWTW, most PS3 games stil utilize the p2p system. The main difference why the lag is drastically reduced is because it doesn't run through Xbox Live. People love praising that system but it is the biggest Lag attributer on that system. Oh well, regardless, moving on...
jason,
whether it is DSL on Live or DSL on PSN, the same issue occurs regardless. I know it's hard to imagine how those "ping" numbers relate to host reliability but learn them and you won't have issues.
zuburi,
Were you aware that servers have been running for Twisted Metal Black: Online up until a year ago? This was a game Sony mailed you when you bought the network adapter. Something they made zero money off of and the servers went down that recently. Also, several 360 games, particularly EA titles, are no longer running their servers. Basically, a developer will shut down servers when they want to, no matter if you were paying for the service or not. Just remember, The Cake is a Live.
Reply
Actually, GWTW, most PS3 games stil utilize the p2p system. The main difference why the lag is drastically reduced is because it doesn't run through Xbox Live. People love praising that system but it is the biggest Lag attributer on that system. Oh well, regardless, moving on...
jason,
whether it is DSL on Live or DSL on PSN, the same issue occurs regardless. I know it's hard to imagine how those "ping" numbers relate to host reliability but learn them and you won't have issues.
zuburi,
Were you aware that servers have been running for Twisted Metal Black: Online up until a year ago? This was a game Sony mailed you when you bought the network adapter. Something they made zero money off of and the servers went down that recently. Also, several 360 games, particularly EA titles, are no longer running their servers. Basically, a developer will shut down servers when they want to, no matter if you were paying for the service or not. Just remember, The Cake is a Live.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 9:33PM zuburi said
Thanks Sheppy, I was assuming that the servers were up indefinitely for Live stuff. Any idea who maintains the servers? Now that you told me about EA dropping some of them, I'm guessing that it's not entirely in Microsoft's hands. Or do you think EA could've strongarmed Microsoft into shutting those servers down so people who wanted to play online had no choice but to buy the latest version?
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 4:59PM (Unverified) said
they need to work on the live servers too, for the last 5 days it says there's 0 players online in the game, and around 5pm it's real hard to connect to a game
but once you're in a game it's usually good
but once you're in a game it's usually good
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 5:17PM NightElve said
I just finished the Single Campaign (PS3) just five minutes ago, what a great and awesome game!
Now I think I'm gonna give a shot to the Online part.
Now I think I'm gonna give a shot to the Online part.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 5:37PM zuburi said
About how long did it take? Was thinking of picking it up, but the current trend developers have of relying on a game's online mode to inflate playtime instead of focusing on a lengthy single-player experience has been bothering me as of late.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 5:51PM Vidikron said
Unfortunately the single player game is rather short.... maybe 5-6 hours on normal difficulty? I just finished it myself and while nearly every second is awesome, it ends way too soon. If you're not interested in MP then a rental may be your best bet. Either way, buy or rent, I highly recommend you play it.
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 5:54PM (Unverified) said
yeah, but this game seems like it was mostly made for multiplayer, then they added a campaign too. same as halo 3
Reply
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 6:04PM zuburi said
That's not what bothers me, it just bugs me because it seems like it's much faster to create a few multiplayer maps and balance weapons than it is to create a long, compelling single player experience. Nothing against online-only, but I don't want to drop $60 now for something that seems like it was easier, faster, and cheaper to make because they focused on the online portion only.
Again, this is all assumptions.
Reply
Again, this is all assumptions.
Posted: Nov 12th 2007 6:34PM (Unverified) said
You know, here's to going against popular opinion. What's wrong with a short single player experience? Resident Evil was under 3 hours with no multiplayer. Contra is killable in 12 minutes. God of War, recipient of many GotY awards, was actually about five hours.
I'm of the opinion that if the single player experience is phenominal, who cares if it's 3 or 20 hours long. And since I hate being forced in to false game extending drudgery, I'm all about letting a game be it's true length and let us enjoy it for that. And frankly, since I'm an adult and don't get as much time to game as I used to, all these 100+ hour games never get touched by me. Hell, I have issues with a 40+ hour RPG nowadays.
I mean, you can bitch about short game length but let's put it this way, if a game is 100+ hours, how often are you going to go back and play that? But if a game is only 5-6 hours, how many times will you be home sick or something and play that shorter title? Frankly, I'm of the opinion that there is a certain magic in a game you can play through on a weekend. As a kid, that used to be my REASON for the Blockbuster down the street. Rent a game and challenge myself to beat it before the 3 days was up.
Reply
I'm of the opinion that if the single player experience is phenominal, who cares if it's 3 or 20 hours long. And since I hate being forced in to false game extending drudgery, I'm all about letting a game be it's true length and let us enjoy it for that. And frankly, since I'm an adult and don't get as much time to game as I used to, all these 100+ hour games never get touched by me. Hell, I have issues with a 40+ hour RPG nowadays.
I mean, you can bitch about short game length but let's put it this way, if a game is 100+ hours, how often are you going to go back and play that? But if a game is only 5-6 hours, how many times will you be home sick or something and play that shorter title? Frankly, I'm of the opinion that there is a certain magic in a game you can play through on a weekend. As a kid, that used to be my REASON for the Blockbuster down the street. Rent a game and challenge myself to beat it before the 3 days was up.
Featured Stories
Super Joystiq Podcast 004: 38 Studios meltdown, Gravity Rush, Civilization 5: Gods & Kings, Dragon's Dogma
Posted on May 25th 2012 3:30PM