More details on the ability to switch between Co-op/MP/Zombies without having to leave your group and back out to the main menu. This is FANTASTIC news.
http://charlieintel.com/2015/04/28/...tween-campaign-multiplayer-and-zombies-modes/
"Black Ops 3 basically features three games in one, says Mark Lamia. Fans will be able to seamlessly switch between all the modes on the fly if youre playing multiplayer with group of friends and want to play some co-op campaign, youll be able to take the party from MP directly into campaign mode without additional blockades, they said. Or if you want to play Zombies with the same group of friends, youll be able to. Theres no breaking of the modes like how Black Ops 2 had. Its all integrated to make the experience more enjoyable."
Treyarch confirms split-screen co-op (up to 2 players local split-screen, or 4 players online with up to 2 split-screen on each TV):
https://twitter.com/Treyarch/status/594270691962269697
Treyarch confirms split-screen co-op (up to 2 players local split-screen, or 4 players online with up to 2 split-screen on each TV):
https://twitter.com/Treyarch/status/594270691962269697
Four player split in FPSs is still dead.
Oh well, the other method can work.
AW and Ghosts do use dedicated servers on all platforms, including PC. If you were one of the many gamers who encountered severe connection quality issues in AW, regardless of platform, then what you experienced was quite possibly the result of overloaded dedicated servers. That means that had games been played P2P with a player host, that particular connection issue wouldn't have been a problem. For many, it was apparently easier to just deny the existence of dedicated servers entirely than to come to grips with and appreciate that networking is a complicated subject and one that isn't to be reduced and oversimplified down to a false dichotomy of "dedicated server or not dedicated server." Some disgruntled AW players chose to believe that there just weren't really any dedicated servers at all, rather than accept the reality of poorly performing or overloaded dedicated servers. The fact that a dedicated server wont by necessity have a lower latency connection than a direct one to another player, for example, is seemingly a hard pill to swallow for some gamers. Call of Duty has many problems worth complaining about, and latency issues are among them, but a lack of dedicated servers isn't, especially when squared with the rampant ignorance of networking in many gaming communities.
Yeah no, this is complete bullshit.
AW does use the awful hybrid system as the poster above you noted, because I've personally experienced host migrations on Advanced Warfare PC as soon as a certain player leaves. Just google "AW host migration" if you don't believe it.
Not to mention the insane number of matches where only the "host" and maybe 1-2 others would have full green ping bars, while the rest of the players would have red ping bars and awful latency, and as soon as the "host" left and another took his place, everyone's connections would be decent to fine.
In addition, they were extremely cagey about the dedicated server situation, choosing only vague non-answers and never specifying in what way shape or form the servers were being used for.
It's not some kind of PC community conspiracy, it's just common sense.
Treyarch confirms split-screen co-op (up to 2 players local split-screen, or 4 players online with up to 2 split-screen on each TV):
https://twitter.com/Treyarch/status/594270691962269697
kind of sad considering we've finally almost gotten to the point where tvs are large enough where 4 player co-op doesnt require you sit right in front of the tv. still dunno how we were able to play golden eye on our old ass sub 30 inch crts with non-hd graphics lol
Will there be a multiplayer reveal in the near future?
Will there be a multiplayer reveal in the near future?
The Official PlayStation Magazine UK May 2015 edition will feature Call of Duty: Black Ops 3 on the cover as their feature story. The edition is set to go on sale in Europe starting on May 8th, 2015.
Ghosts and AW didnt use only dedicated servers. They used most P2P in Australia. They called it a hybrid system and it was mostly laggy as fuck because you either connect to someone out of region or in region with shit internet. I didnt bother reading the rest of your post since the first thing you stated was wrong.AW, Ghosts, and Black Ops II, the three most recent titles, all use dedicated servers for matchmaking, whatever issues you have with the connection quality in those games, "P2P bullshit" is not the culprit. A player host doesn't always result in a worse networking experience than a server host either, by the way. You say let people pick and choose their servers - that's what matchmaking already does with playlists - one pick's what they'd like to play, one's preference for games in progress, and is then placed into a game by geographic region that's determined to provide the lowest apparent latency when pinged. Maybe you think that's not enough, perhaps you'd like to play the same map again and again (browsing by map name), or join a game in progress that is close to being empty, rather than full (browsing by player count ascending) - if that's the case then you probably would prefer a server browser, but you're in the minority on that one.
There's plenty of room for improvement with matchmaking systems, though. There's also no need to have just one solution but not the other, server browsers have their own benefits and MW3 showed how it's possible to offer both at the same time. That said, from launch until today MW3 matchmaking playlists have absolutely dominated as the most utilized means of finding games relative to the server browser with player-controlled dedicated servers, 99% of those playing MW3 on PC at any given time are found in the matchmaking playlists.
You claim that rentable servers haven't been features in recent COD titles because Activision wants to discontinue the games, but the statistics available to us from Steam don't support that assertion. Relative to every other title from MW2 onward (except Ghosts, because it was simply an awful game), Black Ops has a lower concurrent player total and monthly average. This is in spite of Black Ops having a significantly higher concurrent peak in players at launch relative to every entry in the series to follow, all of which use matchmaking exclusively. Even MW2, Black Ops' older brother that also uses matchmaking, sees higher monthly averages in player count. If the powers that be are indeed trying to compromise the longevity of COD titles, and their chosen method of accomplishing that task is to implement matchmaking rather than a server browser as a means of finding a game, they ought to adopt a new approach because the numbers show it's having the opposite effect on PC.
https://support.activision.com/articles/en_US/FAQ/How-does-matchmaking-work-in-Public-Match/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rowbZzfPMKk&t=2m41s
http://steamcharts.com/search/?q=call+of+duty
Reading the OP is always wise.Any official news on which platform is getting DLC first?