BO3 Plutonium?

[sisematters]

Bo3 multiplayer is completely unplayable nowadays, there are also 0 servers in the multiplayer server browser to supplement matchmaking

[kurtfm]

sisematters yes indeed pls plutonium ppl

[WolflexZ]

If you did a simple search on the Plutonium forums the answer is No. We had BOIII client but was ceased and desist.

[bacon_xoxo]

WolflexZ

But BOIII only received a cease and desist from Activision because it was associated with X Labs which was using Patreon as a way of monetizing from it.

It maybe a good idea to pin in the relevant forums why you're not going to support it, whether its from having people have access that gives you everything that may hurt Activision's profits, unlike bo2 bo1 etc.

People are going to keep posting and asking regardless even if the Plutonium team has said no in the past, even for a highly sort after feature.

[Xerxes]

The only thing hurting Activision's profits is Activision and it's managers.

If you want boiii I can only recommend to use t7x, as FutureRave is one of the few people with the whole source code and not just forks of the public part of boiii.

[Peggster]

I understand some staff feel annoyed being asked about this all the time. But things change. If t7x, t7patch, cleanops, boiii and all the other knockoffs can do it, and all can work with legit copies of the game, then what is the issue? You guys already do it for bo2, bo1 and more. Nothing is stopping you, the cease and desist standpoint seems fair at face value but makes no sense when you point everything out. And isn't now the best time to ever do it for bo3?
The reason people come to plutonium is because you guys do it right. How can bo3 have way way more active players, but no matter what client you use, the server browser is dead despite the way higher player count?. Plutonium as a whole and bo2 specifically just works and there's way more lobbies with actual players playing.
We ask here because we know plutonium can do it and would do it best, and I think it would end up being the way people play bo3 on pc.
But is plutonium being complacent is the question. Are they telling people to accept the other BS clients and just overusing cease and desist as a simple way of saying "never"? Is it because plutonium think that if they went along to work on bo3, that it would somehow make all their previous work like bo2, bo1 less relevant/lower those player counts?
It sounds like I'm being standoffish but that's not the intention. Many people have asked, even asked for a discussion. Being annoyed over this is a choice, since there hasn't been a 'real' discussion. Why can all these other subpar clients that offer fixes, keep running throughout the years? They dont really bring anything to the table. Security patches for what? To play the same 1-2 lobbies if you're lucky? Or play offline? And ultimately just get bored and uninstall the game because there's no real remedy. There's a big playerbase that can't even play the game because no one can do it right. I bet theres a lot of people who uninstall bo3 just to go play bo2 plutonium- is that something plutonium staff think about?
I mean I myself have tried to go back to bo3 on multiple occasions and I keep coming back to bo2 plutonium cause it's good, it works and has good maps. But if I had the choice, I'd like to experience the same on bo3 because it literally is an upgrade from bo2 and has almost the same maps if not all of them.

Yeah it's a long reply, but like let's talk about this because we sure did talk back in the days to get all these other games like bo2 to run well and have support with plutonium.