Well I know you don't have to fully download them, but it's still a silly way of doing it. I might have missed some PS3 stuff because I wasn't thinking about it and was too busy on PS4. That should never happen, it should be automatic if I'm currently a subscriber.
One thing that is stupid is that you have to download the game to own it with PS+. Clearly, it should automatically be owned by you if you are currently a PS+ subscriber when it releases as a PS+ monthly title. As it is now, if you aren't on for a month because of a busy schedule or vacation or whatever, you miss those games regardless of being a PS+ subscriber at the time of their release. That's just stupid. The games phase out when they do, so new subscribers won't have access ...
Nice, I'd just gotten a new modem and router, so I was hoping to blame it on that. I was gonna try to open ports to get the damn messages to load on time. So many times someone sends me a message, I go in there, and it's not there. The other day, it took like 10 minutes for a message to actually show up in messages after I got the notification. Thank god they fixed that.
"The_KELRaTH + 9m ago
I believe Activision used the hybrid host format with Ghosts. Initially game connections were ok but 3 months down the line and the connections felt quite different with latency issues and a jump in host disconnects, drops suggesting that Activision start cutting the dedicated servers a few months after launch."
This is exactly what I believe they did with Ghosts. They start with hybrid, then slowly drop all dedicated servers. If you...
To be honest, Sony and MS should have more dealings/input with bigger multiplat pubs/devs on their servers. We pay for online gaming on both systems now, and 1 of the main fake reasons they give for us to have to pay is to maintain smooth online play. If they are gonna have nothing to do with these sh*tty p2p servers from top publishers, then why are we paying? It's just stupid to say there's no blame to be placed on them. They should be involved more with all the top games online fun...
They don't wanna hear it. That would cost money, and we all know how Activision feels about anything they consider lost profits. Even though it would bring more sales and future sales in the franchise if people felt secure that they'd stick with dedicated servers with the series - their eyes can only see in the short-sighted, short-term greedy vision and can't wrap their heads around the long-term view. So, they'll continue to lie about believing that their p2p matchmaking sys...
You really never heard of BrandsMart?
Exactly, and everyone knows that's the best answer for all the dropped connections, host migrations and hit marker issues. It really is sad for this gen to still have to deal with this crap. I mean, shouldn't this be part of why we pay for Live/PSN - to have smooth online gaming? Why are we paying to get online when most developers is doing p2p garbage online anyways.
MS should be giving Azure servers completely free to devs for online, and Sony should have dedicated ...
The sad part is that everyone, including Activision knows the easiest answer to get things going smoother with online play. They refuse to do it though, because Dedicated Servers would cost them a small dent in their profits.
That comment definitely isn't justifiable. I'm still curious though about the whole promising Dedicated Servers, then completely copping out on it. People should be able to get a refund for false-advertisement. They know most people don't even touch campaign in COD games, so it makes it that much more unforgivable for such a lie.
Basically, what they're saying is NO to dedicated server support. They refuse to let go of even 1% of profits to better the gameplay performance. Only if sales were in the hole, like around the time of MW3 on PC when they finally brought dedicated servers back there because they knew that's the main reason sales were so low on the last game on PC. Bobby Kotick has said it before that basically they listen to customers through sales, not through the what the community is actually beggi...
If you didn't immediately notice the jaggies all over the car you're driving, you need to get your eyes checked. The aliasing is horrible in this game.
I played a lil bit earlier, just did the first mission and started on the 2nd thing. I have to agree on the graphics being not good. Ubisoft up to their crap again. I love how they mention anti-aliasing improvements, if that's the patch that was downloading along with the beta then I gotta say that it's still horrible. It's like they aren't using AA at all. The dude who's face pops up to talk to you about missions looks like a PS2 era character model. The game does not loo...
Sounds like BS, coming from them. If they said it definitely had issues and they were working on it - fine. Activision doesn't care about performance though, just look at Ghosts on PS4 and you can see that Activision isn't concerned at all about having their devs put out top performing software.
Well, while waiting for things to get sorted and them to give us our PS+ version, I'll atleast be able to try out The Crew. I just went into my email to activate an account on speedtest.net and saw that I was sent a beta code for The Crew - downloading it now. It's listed as 14GB in the store. Actual initial download is 3.08GB and update file is 1.92GB. I wish the PS4 let me download at my actual ISP speed. It's going fast enough though, a little over 20 minutes left.
Also, I understand they went back to no dedicated servers on PC again. So, they just never learn. I personally wouldn't buy it also, until they learn to stop charging for pvp map packs and splitting up and fragmenting the community. Learn from old PC Shooters and newer games catching on like Killzone:Shadowfall and PvZ:Garden Warfare. Only charge for the cosmetic stuff and other campaign add-on stuff, which they clearly have enough revenue avenues for already.
It's sad, I mentioned this in a recent Advanced Warfare article. PC shooters had dedicated servers as a standard over a decade ago. Now, even on 2014 consoles that paywall online play, you still can't get dedicated servers on a so-called next-gen FPS. What's the point of paying MS or Sony to go online, when they aren't ensuring that online play on the most popular games is as lag-free as possible? It's always left up to the publisher/dev anyways, so why are we paying other...
No, gamers are way too suckered into overpriced and underperforming crap these days. You could pay $50-$60 back in the day and get a top quality complete game with little to no bugs and with all the bonuses included on disc. Nowadays you have to pre-order the Special Super Duper Combo Gold Platinum Edition for $150 along with a $50 Season Pass, and still get a broken game at launch that needs day-1/month-1/year-1 patches just to fix the main game and won't get all the content you use to g...
I don't understand how it's next-gen when they still are doing p2p servers. Seriously? All that money and they can't give dedicated servers? They started back with dedicated servers on PC with MW3, only because sales had dropped so low, console gamers buy regardless - so they don't have to listen. Then, there's the issue of charging for pvp map packs that breaks the community up, to the point you can't find matches in most game modes past 11pm by the 2nd map pack if yo...
@BlackWolf12,
It's that if you don't download/purchase it within that month, you miss out on it. If you are PS+ during the time a PS+ free game comes out, you should automatically own it to where you can download it whenever you like. Rather than you being busy/away and not being able to/forgetting/etc and missing out on that game for good. That should never happen.