By now you’ve likely heard about the myriad issues affecting the latest Call of Duty, and if you’re not actually playing the game (because let’s face it, gamers are showing up for CoD less and less each year), you may be wondering what all the hubbub is about. Well, the issue is a complicated one, but can be boiled down to a central, major distinction; the continued use of peer-to-peer multiplayer connections, vs. those powered by dedicated servers. Microsoft’s Azure servers are known for their dependability, for example, and are a big part of why Titanfall’s online experience was and still is incredibly smooth and reliable. The game had other issues, sure. But lag and cheap deaths were not one of them.
Now, I’m not here to berate Activision and Sledgehammer for their lack of foresight with Advanced Warfare, nor do I want to spit in their faces and make them feel bad. Regardless of whether or not dedicated servers were omitted to cut costs, simply weren’t ready in time, or Sledgehammer thought it’d somehow cleverly solved P2P’s inherent problems (a tremendous feat if anyone actually pulls it off someday), pointing fingers isn’t going to solve anything. What will solve this problem, however, is a commitment from developers going forward. P2P is simply not suitable for smooth, lag-free multiplayer, and in with each passing year it feels more and more ridiculous. It’s time to put a stop to P2P.
Related: Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare’s Lag is Turning Players Off the Game
The worst part is, I’m suspect one reason for its continued use is a misguided perception that internet connections in the US and other large markets are steadily improving. While true (the latency of the average home connection does slowly dwindle as time goes by), what game-makers aren’t taking into account are the ways in which people are getting online. You know what I’m talking about; the biggest culprit of them all. Tethering.
I don’t care how cleverly a developer has engineered its game to compensate for lag, if half the players in a game are connected via their $50 Boost Mobile smart devices, the experience is going to crash and burn. I recall trying League of Legends over T-Mobile HSPA back in college, and even that had trouble. Does anyone really think the likes of CoD or Super Smash Bros. are going to fare any better when a sizable chunk of the playerbase has jerry-rigged their connection from cheap prepaid cards at Wal-Mart? Call of Duty is highly competitive, and dying online is already frustrating enough when it works properly. Meeting my demise because I was shot before my own already-fired bullets didn’t register is enough to send my Dual Shock 4 through the nearest window.
As such, I propose a commitment from developers going forward. Or, if not possible, a commitment from gamers to be leary of games unwilling to comply, and possibly avoid buying them at all. The budgets of blockbuster game releases are truly massive, and Call of Duty sits atop that heap; is there really a financial reason dedicated servers aren’t properly factored into this equation from the start? Yes, I realize Michael Condrey says servers are coming, but by now it’s too late — I’m already bored. I’ve reached the operative age as a gamer where dying of unfair circumstance in competitive titles is too vexatious to be bothered with. Some players feel insulted by devs when games are littered with obvious instruction, in-game direction, or hand-holding. I could care less about that. I’m insulted when the chance to be my best isn’t even possible.
There are other culprits tied to this upsetting trend, and I’m not about to let them off easy either. That’s right Duck Hunt Dog, I’m looking at you; just where do you think you’re going? Anyone who partakes in competitive Super Smash Bros. knows that, like most fighters, every button press, every split-second adjustment counts, and can make or break a match. The For Glory mode in Super Smash Brothers for 3DS was supposed to appease all that. Though most folks prefer Smash in a room full of friends, those of us looking to compete don’t always have access to a room full of friends (or even one or two) who play the game at high level.
Though For Glory does achieve this, input lag and general framey-ness have long since turned me away from bothering. “But wait, look at all the Twitch streams, they’re lag free!” is the rebuttal I constantly stumble across, but I’m not talking about just frame-lag. That I can deal with, and it’s true that some fights(the key word being some), in terms of frame rate and freezing, are completely lag free. But input lag, even between two relatively solid internet connections, is almost always present online. Near-imperceptible though it may sometimes be (though it’s often obvious too), it completely soils the For Glory concept, cementing high-tier characters as the obvious victors of almost every encounter. The beauty of Smash is that the metagame emerges over time, and if you religiously explore a fighter’s quirks, you can take down the mighty Rosalina with a lowly Olimar or Donkey Kong. Thanks to P2P multiplayer, this has all but evaporated online, leaving only a certain slice of fighters as viable options if you’re trying to regularly win.
Don’t expect to take down certain characters online very often unless both connections are perfect.
This is where the feasibility of abolishing P2P becomes a bit murky, because certain titles ought to be held more accountable than others. Smash for 3DS, though disappointing in this regard, is a handheld title where unreliable McDonald’s or Starbucks WiFi may be used half the time anyway. Additionally, I don’t realistically expect thousands of servers to be budgeted into a handheld title’s development, considering that it’s likely to sell far more than its console counterpart and require even more of an investment.
If the Wii U version suffers the same fate, though, you can color me incredibly disappointed. Getting your buddies together in a room will still be fun, but that’s been fun since Melee. I was hoping to expand my horizons here, and have meaningful avenues for honing my skills (outside of level 9 CPUs) while flying solo. If I’m optimistic, maybe Nintendo will pull a Mario Kart 8 and drop the cash for dedicated servers with Smash Bros. on Wii U. If I’m realistic, there’s no way that’s happening.
Related: Majority of CoD: Advanced Warfare Players Have No Lag Issues, Says Studio Head
And then there’s Sony. That’s right Sony, don’t think I didn’t see you slinking out the back door while I was berating Duck Hunt Dog. You do realize you’re charging players for an online service that almost always depends on a P2P connection, yes? Not only that, but why have you allowed Activision to skimp on Share Play functionality? Are you both covering your own behinds because you knew how shoddy the multiplayer in Advanced Warfare on PS4 would be? No Share Play equals far fewer videos on YouTube demonstrating its incompetence, after all.
I began this piece stating that I didn’t want to make anyone feel bad, but as blood pressure rises I can already see that plan didn’t quite work out. I always, always appreciate the work that game developers put into their livelihood, and both Sledgehammer and Nintendo have my utmost respect for their recent work (particularly the absurdly content-rich Wii U edition of the latter). But moving forward in 2015, its time to solve this problem. Online multiplayer is a feature gamers factor in when making buying decisions, and frankly, I’m unsure if I would have even gone with Smash for 3DS if I knew For Glory online was going to be a bust. This holds ever more true for Call of Duty; with multiplayer crippled, who would ever bother? Am I paying $60 to see Kevin Spacey’s shiny, creepily-mapped face? No thank you.
To quote the parents of misbehaving adolescents ‘round the globe, it’s not that I’m mad — I’m just disappointed. And I hope that come the end of 2015, I won’t be left feeling the same way.
