Can someone please explain this picture to me?

Its much easier and cost effective for epic as gears is only on xbox. One platform to create an expensive dedi server. COD would have to do so for each console and the PC. Not cost effective for them.

Yeah time for them to get a jump on things and become the host.

Because Gears 3 is an xbox exclusive that has sold about 4 million copies, where as MW3 is multiplatform and at this point has about 15-17 million players across those platforms. Less people = less cost. The cost of hosting servers is not a small one, and
the lag problems were MUCH worse in Gears 2 than they were in MW2. More people complained = change in servers.

-

If Activision feels enough people will complain about the lag to warrant the cost of what would probably be one of the largest gaming server systems ever... then they would pony up the cost. However, I don't see that happening.

Because Activision doesn't care about your lag, or anyone's for that matter. The day they give us dedicated servers is the day we have yet another monthly/yearly fee slapped on.

Activision don't see a reason to. At the moment with CoD breaking sales records year after year they're in no rush to spend money on dedi servers, I suppose when CoD's popularity starts to wane they'll add dedicated server to entice more players.

and I like to add were do people get the idea that dedicated servers don't have lag? I've played games with dedi servers like GoW, Homefront and Battlefield and all those games still have some lag, maybe not quite like CoD but it's still exist.