EA explains Army of Two's regional lockout
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Mar 12th 2008 at 2:30PM }
Consequently, we spoke to EA Montreal's Reid Schneider, senior producer on Army of Two, in the hopes of learning more about the decision to introduce a territorial lockout across Xbox Live and PSN. While the explanation is unlikely to dissolve your disappointment (not to mention that of Claus, your Swedish best friend), it does spring from EA's belief to do what was best for its game. We don't believe it was the best decision for modern, borderless gamers, but Schneider assured us that the developer is "actively looking into" retooling the game in the future. "We are looking to find a way where we can do it," said Schneider," and not expose users to super slow connections..."
According to Schneider, said super slow connections are what prompted the region blocking. Using a deterministic (peer-to-peer) network model enables the game's synchronized gameplay animation, but requires parity on both systems. If a slow connection is thrown into the mix, "the person with the worst connection brings down the whole group to his/her worst connection level," explained Schneider. "While not generally a problem for COOP (since most people play coop with friends) when playing in Versus mode 3 people can be highly adversely affected by one player with a bad connection. We use the region lock to minimize the likelihood of this occurring."
The game's Asian version is an entirely different beast. Due to territory requirements, players of that particular version can't shoot the bodies that are inevitably strewn across the battlefield. As was the case with the initial release of Insomniac's Resistance: Fall of Man, us sick and disgusting Westerners weren't deprived of this "feature." Schneider noted that having one version of the game with bullet-proof corpses talking to one that didn't "would result in a de-sync in the simulation and ultimately the game would fail."
We can't say these explanations will come as much as an appeasement to gamers -- especially not with the likes of Halo 3 and Gears of War lodged in the same genre -- but with American foreign policy growing more insular every day, who really wants to game with other countries anyway?
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Mar 12th 2008 2:36PM
Throw in options, not restrictions.
Ted @ Mar 12th 2008 2:37PM
What oh what will we do without all those foul-mouthed American 12 year olds abusing their mics ;)
Older, nicer American gamers are welcome to move to Europe though, we have games and lots of beer.
onesidezero2481 @ Mar 12th 2008 2:54PM
what about jobs? cuz thats the only thing keeping me away from a healthy diet of the other two
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Mar 12th 2008 3:11PM
More expensive games, hardware and later release dates? No thanks. =D
player66 @ Mar 12th 2008 2:40PM
What it amounts to is either a poor decision by EA's marketing group or a development team that didn't have the time to optimize the network code. Blaming the restriction on "peer-to-peer" is a joke.
trask @ Mar 12th 2008 2:43PM
Sounds like they didn't take the time to properly impliment the network configuration needed to do this job, which is a shame considering this game was pushed back a few times already.
Dale @ Mar 12th 2008 3:02PM
I dare say any extra dev time would have gone into making the fist pounds more bro-tastic.
Token White Guy @ Mar 12th 2008 2:42PM
There is no excuse for this kind of thing.
rv @ Mar 12th 2008 2:42PM
I see the problem, but there are several things to consider.
1. Ea has fucking slow ass servers! I don't know if they make you use them for this game, but its ea, so Im guessing they do. Those EA servers are slow as shit compared to other games. ( I'm talking about xbox live here)
2. Why make it a whole lock? Just set up matchmaking so it doesn't match people from other countries, and if people want to play with foriegn friends, why not let that happen?
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 12th 2008 3:02PM
It does use EA servers and YES, they suck ASS!!!
ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ Mar 12th 2008 3:13PM
Do you think their servers would run better if they had less milked online sequels available by instead focusing development into the quality of each individual title and ensuring the quality of the online experience as well?
Shape @ Mar 12th 2008 3:20PM
The game uses peer to peer networking (mentioned in the article). It does not use the EA servers for online play.
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 12th 2008 3:28PM
I see that now, but then thats funny because when Im looking for a match it clearly sais (Connecting to EA Servers)...wierd. Who knows.
ALl I know is that the online is really laggy and its only 4 people to a match. It makes no sense, COD4, Halo3, even Gears arent that laggy and they of course allow way more than 2 vs 2.
KingOfGods @ Mar 12th 2008 3:29PM
It does use the EA servers because the first thing it tells you is that it's logging on to the EA servers when you go online.
Shape @ Mar 12th 2008 3:35PM
Yes, it uses the EA servers (rather than Live's servers) for matchmaking. Just like Burnout Paradise does. But the gameplay itself is done peer to peer.
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 12th 2008 3:05PM
What they NEED to address is the horrible hit detection and retarded melee system. Just those 2 things and I would be a little but happier with the game. I really doubt there will ever be a patch though. Sux for me.
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 12th 2008 3:06PM
*bit*
Kassu @ Mar 12th 2008 3:20PM
Wait, is he saying they blocked Europe because our net speeds suck?
Whut?
Mooseman721 @ Mar 12th 2008 3:23PM
The multiplayer is hopeless, lag, the like of which I have never seen. How can it be this bad? Split screen is ok though. Overall i'm disappointed, obviously based on the Chaos Theory mode, and the original is better, and by lots, better. Splinter Cell co-op standalone game, thats what we need!
Jhongerkong @ Mar 12th 2008 3:36PM
If the reason is because they dont have an ocean between them, then wouldnt Europe be able to play with Asia?
koehler83 @ Mar 12th 2008 5:05PM
So that's their excuse for Xbox Live.. whats their excuse for PSN? Obviously they dont expect us to believe Peer-to-Peer was a problem on PS3..
Oh wait.. its EA. Nuff said.
Ludwig Kietzmann @ Mar 12th 2008 5:14PM
Why wouldn't the reason apply to both platforms? PS3 games can use peer-to-peer play as well.
Shape @ Mar 12th 2008 6:10PM
Most PS3 games use peer to peer. COD4, Burnout, etc...
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 12th 2008 6:29PM
Thats right Kietzmann! [+] 1
Tell these blind fanboys who think just because of RFoM and Warhawk have dedicated servers that all PS3 online games have them. They are so sadly mistaken. I had to put KayRazyKen(Killje-bum) in his place yesterday. Always touting PSN=Lag free dedicated servers on all PS3 online enabled games. HA!! My ass!!
Darkbhudda @ Mar 12th 2008 7:19PM
No longer do I have bad lag and cop abuse from snot-nosed Americans because the host has a really crappy connection?
On the other hand most Americans are cool, so this is a mixed blessing.
Demaar @ Mar 12th 2008 9:10PM
Damn. I sure as hell hope the PAL version will run on my US 360. I wanna play with people I know...
Replica23 @ Mar 13th 2008 7:40AM
Bullshit. Not that I'm playing so it doesn't matter to me either way, just saying.
phungamer @ Mar 31st 2008 6:13PM
And I quote:
"So what does cause pings to go through the roof on some servers? I can tell you one thing - it's NOT some "56k'er" messing it up.
A common misconception. The ONLY person that will be affected by a 56k connection is the poor soul using it."
This has been known for years now (quote is taken from http://www.terraplanet.ch/sg/lag.txt)and while in this particular case it is referring to PC gaming (MOHAA, the principle remains true for Peer2Peer Matchmaking on consoles. So whaddup w/that BS?! ;^)
-pg
Kameleonic @ Apr 14th 2008 4:56AM
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/ao2regionlockremoval/index.html