• PUBG creator under fire for charging players a fee to play on custom servers.
    78 replies, posted
It's absurd for PUBG because it's the only option you're given as players. Even putting aside the fucking absurd notion that he has the gall to go 'we can't provide people with free servers' when PUBG is one of the biggest sellers in its genre and already has monetization methods in place, let's ignore that lunacy for a minute. If money really is such an issue, release server tools. But no, that doesn't get you even more money. Better to just force your players to pay for it.
The gun play is enjoyable if it wasnt for the bob the building contests just to shotgun the other guy.
It's the only option? Isn't it the same for other games? If you can't host a game locally, your only option is to rent a server. Like I said, releasing the server tools is a massive security risk. The game was never created with privately hosted servers in mind. Please quit your raving madness about money. This really is just people like you blowing up the whole situation. What Bluehole actually said was something different. They said custom matches, in it's beta phase, are limited to 10,000 concurrent players to ensure a stable service. Creating custom games won't have an associated cost during this phase. However, due to the extremely large amount of resources required to allow custom games to be available to all players, they may change this in the future to ensure everything runs smoothly and the system remains sustainable long-term. "We're open to your feedback on this system and we'll have more details on this aspect of the system later."
what gun play? It's arguably one of the games with the weakest gunplay out there right now
I bought PUBG way back when most people still had no idea what it was, and I have loosely kept up to date with it on the whole. PU just isn't a likeable guy imo, 90% of what he says just makes him look worse in my eyes and it seems like he is either purposefully ignorant or just kinda stupid. It always comes to mind when he was against letting people reconnect to games even though PUBG was extremely unstable and kept stating the reason of 'if people can reconnect then they will just use it to disappear when in danger!' even though anyone that spends 1 minute thinking about it let alone the 'ideas guy' of the game could come up with the solution of keep characters in-game on DC like the game did already anyway. I like the idea of PUBG but its so easy to see why Fortnite is seeing skyrocketing success while PUBG player counts are falling month on month (Not saying it's dying, just its nowhere near the sensation it was a year ago). While PUBG has stagnate and still suffers a lot of issues Fortnite is consistently doing interesting events, has a very fair monetization model on the battle passes and looks/plays very smoothly.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't he talking about hosting servers rather than playing on them? There article isn't terribly clear and I heard the fee is just for hosting customs rather then playing in them. I don't get the severe hate for PUBG. Bluehole have made some stupid publishing decisions with the lawsuits but otherwise it's just a fun game to me with a cosmetic system no worse then TF2. I understand it's not everyones cup of tea but hoping that it dies is childish imo
Man, every time there's news about PUBG it seems like it's always something bad. It's a shame really, I still love PUBG's core gameplay, I just wish instead of shoving more stupid paid stuff in an already retail priced game, they'd, y'know, fix the problems the game already has? The worst part is that the custom games were easily the coolest thing about it, get a big group of friends together and play some stupid modes or just see who can beat each other. But if it's behind a paywall I ain't gonna do it, that's for sure. They're not getting another cent of my money.
Almost every other multiplayer game with dedicated servers has dedicated server software that you can host on your own PC. It is absurd that PUBG doesn't give you the option to even self host on your PC if you wanted to. Its about the option. On top of my head I don't really know any game that only gives you the option to rent servers with one exception, Battlefield games. BF games only gives out server software to "licensed" hosters, so you still have more choice just not choice to host your complete own. In the end, PUBG doesn't want others to host servers, would take away from their revenue since you can't make them ranked or connect them with anything really. Sorta like GTA Online, people had to practically hack their own server together, T2 doesn't want players to have stuff as they please, they want the to spent money on Shark Cards. Whatever BHS says they doing is mostly just talking around the bush, they don't want to put any work in a server browser for custom games. I mean just look at the development history, its clear they barely spend anything on the game.
I suspect it's actually because they don't have the technical capability to let others run a server. PUBG's servers are some of the worst in the modern multiplayer space right now, and it's one of the few that actually have hours of down-time for updates. They even have a blog post explaining why it took months to add.... a third map choice in the UI.
Tooth extraction is better tbh.
I really wonder how COD's and Battlefield's BR modes will shake things up. Fortnite has it's cartoony look and building (which I'm not a huge fan of) but PUBG might be fucked because there could be 2 new "realistic" BR games done better on a technical level.
The best Battle Royale in the market right now is unironically Totally Accurate Battlegrounds
“This is something I really feel the need to address,” Greene says. “I was a modder for many years, and I didn’t expect ARMA to provide me with free servers to mod on, and it’s the same with this. We can’t provide people with free servers. There has to be a way to pay for servers through some sort of wall - either points, BP or money.  “We just can’t provide free servers for everyone, it’s just not a sustainable business model. I still pay for ARMA 3 servers to this day, because that’s just how the world works.” What I'm getting from this is a weak-ass excuse to avoid actually saying that they can't release the dedicated server binaries because: a) it means cheat authors will have an ideal sandbox to develop new cheats and probe the game for exploits (and their anticheat situation is already dire), b) they fear people will mod the server and bypass all their microtransactions, or even worse steal those microtransaction benefits and use them as donator benefits and completely cut the devs/publisher out of the post-purchase revenue stream, and c) they insist on monetizing private server access instead of allowing people to do it themselves for their own hosting and offer it to their communities for free, because why give up profit and control? In other words, we won't give up control of the servers to the community because our business model and anticheat can't survive a public release, and we are going to make the community pay for our paranoia by passing on the predetermined hosting costs to them instead of letting them choose their own hosting services and plans.
Honestly the only hope we have right now is to wait until someone better comes along and makes a game that beats PUBG in their own playing field. I mean Fortnite is fun too but it's not a replacement for PUBG.
If people are dumb enough to give this cunt money after everything about him has been laid bare, that is entirely on them. A fool and and his money.
Security through obscurity isn't security.
It's cute to watch you argue while knowing nothing about what you are arguing about.
Fortnite doesn't even have the ability to run private games yet. Pubg have at least been nice (for now) and have been running them when we need it. But still waiting for anything from epic from private games.
You can continue acting dumb, but allowing people to host their own servers would require a lot of work on Bluehole's end to properly function. Just a few years back there was some Garry's mod exploit where IIRC a script could access any file on the PC, not just in the game's folder. Either way, Bluehole hasn't released an official statement that custom games will cost money. You're being ridiculous.
Ironically. That was Valve’s fault and it wasn’t just limited to Garry’s Mod. Please get some facts straight.
Whose fault it was is literally irrelevant. The fact that such an exploit could take place is my point. Valve had years of experience with security in their online games, but Bluehole hasn't. What are you even complaining about? PUBG is one of the only games in it's genre that is experimenting with custom games, and it is doing just that. Experimenting. Nothing they're doing or saying is final. They only said there was a chance you'd have to pay for custom games. And now people are losing their shit over it? Grow up.
At this point, I'm almost convinced joost1120 is the result of some weird scientific experiment to create a person who can only sustain himself on contrarian shitposting. Because lord knows, that's the only he EVER DOES!
realm royale is the only remotely fun *Royale game out there and id still rather rewatch Battle Royale 50 times in a row
Can you not be such a dick about it? Hosting custom servers for free isn't something a lot of games do. Either they allow you to host the game yourself, or there are no custom games whatsoever. PUBG is one of the only games in it's genre that is even experimenting with custom games. Quit giving it so much flak just because they say there is a chance of it costing money.
The game itself costs money. It has lootboxes. It released an event pass. When you are this determined to squeeze pennies out of your player base, I will give it as much flak as I goddamn please, no matter how many insipid wankstains come out of the woodwork to defend this, let alone the mentally deranged acting like it's daddy PU doing us a favor.
So what? Go whine at Blizzard if you hate squeezing pennies out of players. Nobody is forcing you to do buy anything. They said right now custom games are free, despite costing a lot of resources. If it keeps being so expensive to maintain, they MIGHT charge for it, depending on player feedback. Imagine Blizzard just giving free WoW servers to some guys that used to host illegal ones. Doesn't make much sense either, right?
People wouldn't be dicks about it if your posts in this thread were not: A. Misinformed. B. Stubborn all the way. C. Can't do research. D. Was not a dick to everyone else who countered your argument. It's as if you're being a dick then going "oh jokes", but this is really boring now. I'm fairly sure that way back this game had modding support as one of it's features and since then we've still yet to see modding. Also what are you on about? I still see quite a few games throw out their dedicated server files quite happily. Let's also take an example where modding + custom servers has actually revived a game like Battlefield 3. Like this isn't actually hard to do.
Can you maybe put on your big boy pants and actually put some effort into arguing instead of bringing in completely unrelated bullshit?
Right, like I said, many games offer dedicated server tools for free. Then again, a lot of games don't. I personally believe most games are better off with free dedicated server tools. But there are some exceptions. Games with terrible security, like PUBG, create a massive security risk if they allow anyone to host a server in it's current state. It would require a lot of work before they could safely release it, and requires even more to maintain it. The team working on PUBG isn't that large, so it would take away from more important work.
Thank god that Fortnite and Islands of Nyne, or literally any other battle royale game exists. Would rather play the mod at this point, the game's just a shitty recreation of it that charges way too much for what it offers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.