A View From the Road: Unreasonably Dedicated

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Just like the fact that you have a moral problem with piracy and not with boycotts doesn't mean they will have a different impact on the decisions of profit-driven corporations, the fact that you see asking for dedicated servers as an entitlement while asking for equal mulitplayer in Borderlands as justified will have no bearing on how companies behave.

Well, I suppose that stems from me thinking pirates are tools, and a boycott is perfectly legal within the confines of the law. I think that if you find that a game is not worth the asking price, you shouldn't buy it - but that also means you shouldn't get to play it.

Sure, and some people don't believe in condoms because they don't believe in premarital sex, but that doesn't mean condoms are useless in preventing the transmission of AIDS. You're engaging in similar thinking if you believe that because pirates are tools and boycotts are legal that there's a difference when it comes to the decisions of profit-driven corporations.

Now, if your conclusions stem from a belief about how video game companies are IRRATIONALLY influenced by piracy numbers, or that video game companies are concerned with PR and will find it harder to shrug off a respectful boycott in a way that doesn't drive down stock prices, that's different.

OK, how about this? the more games are pirated by PC gamers, the less people will care about appealing to PC gamers in the future.

When I go out and buy Modern Warfare 2 tomorrow, I will play it. If you go out and pirate it, are you honestly going to tell me you deserve to play it as much as I do?

Chipperz:

Cheeze_Pavilion:

Just like the fact that you have a moral problem with piracy and not with boycotts doesn't mean they will have a different impact on the decisions of profit-driven corporations, the fact that you see asking for dedicated servers as an entitlement while asking for equal mulitplayer in Borderlands as justified will have no bearing on how companies behave.

Well, I suppose that stems from me thinking pirates are tools, and a boycott is perfectly legal within the confines of the law. I think that if you find that a game is not worth the asking price, you shouldn't buy it - but that also means you shouldn't get to play it.

Sure, and some people don't believe in condoms because they don't believe in premarital sex, but that doesn't mean condoms are useless in preventing the transmission of AIDS. You're engaging in similar thinking if you believe that because pirates are tools and boycotts are legal that there's a difference when it comes to the decisions of profit-driven corporations.

Now, if your conclusions stem from a belief about how video game companies are IRRATIONALLY influenced by piracy numbers, or that video game companies are concerned with PR and will find it harder to shrug off a respectful boycott in a way that doesn't drive down stock prices, that's different.

OK, how about this? the more games are pirated by PC gamers, the less people will care about appealing to PC gamers in the future.

What's the financial difference between a boycott and piracy if you will buy the game if the feature that prompted you to pirate or boycott is put back in? The people who own these companies are the stockholders. Do you think stockholders care whether the company turned pirates into customers or met the demands of a legal boycott if it means the company can afford to pay them a bigger dividend or they just watched their stock price go up in value?

Stockholders "care about appealing to" anyone that will drive the profits of their corporation higher.

When I go out and buy Modern Warfare 2 tomorrow, I will play it. If you go out and pirate it, are you honestly going to tell me you deserve to play it as much as I do?

Why are you asking me about whether people 'deserve' to play a game when I'm talking about the profit seeking behavior of publicly traded corporations? You may as well be asking me who deserves to get AIDS more in a debate about the effectiveness of condoms.

You're using the console version as a benchmark when the discontent PC users are instead looking at conventional PC games. They are not examining the console game and then demanding more. From the viewpoint of the PC gamer, established features are not being included in a massive release.
That the PC version is little more than a console port indicates where IW has it's priorities, and that shows the disregard they have for the wallets of the PC gamer.

I'm not convinced that the arugment is that IW owes anyone anything. They removed a feature that has long been a cornerstone of PC FPS games. While IW has a perfectly reasonable explanation (they really need to say nothing other than piracy rates for the PC game were atrocious and they'd like to do something to control that), the end state perception is that yet again PC gamers have gotten the shaft.

In the case of many developments that have caused an uproar, the publisher and developer seems well within their rights. They do, afterall, want to be paid for a product that they slaved over and dedicated several years of their lives to. But often the most direct result is that draconian DRM techniques hinder our ability to play a game. While I hardly think that call of duty will be unplayable without the benefit of dedicated servers (since I myself have only played the console versions of the games as I only know one person in my group of gaming peers that owns a PC capable of playing most modern games), the removal of such a feature cannot possibly be cast in a light that makes it a positive step from the gamer's point of view.

IW has counter arguments of course, but once we move past the "we'd like to get paid" part of their stance I find little reason to support them. Controlling cheaters was cited as a reason for example and while this may be admirable there are certainly tools available that allow the dedicated server host to curtail things as well. In the great arms race of cheaters and hackers, the advantage generally lies in the hands of the exploiters, and as such mods and admins come into the picture to corral the activities. Such things are hardly a burden - those who have run servers in the past have long shouldered the burden without complaint.

Still, the core of the article is that IW doesn't owe us anything. The last time I checked, their game was not handed out as a charity (if you recall, they do cite piracy as a reason for the change). This means I will be expected to expend my own resources to procure the game. As a consumer, I'm fairly certain it's well within my rights to make demands. I don't expect such demands to always be met however. In such cases I can bite the bullet and accept what's given or I can simply not purchase the game. In a way the article is correct - IW doesn't owe anybody anything, unless of course you'd like to get people to purchase the game.

I suspect that the furor will have little impact on the sales however, and their move will likely be rewarded with more money that they may have made otherwise (console gamers don't care, and PC gamers will have to purchase all those premium maps if they don't enjoy being kicked from the match ever round or two). From a business standpoint, I can see no fault in such a course. Even as a gamer I can see little reason to fault their reasoning. But let's not try to dress this as anything other than a move that will generally diminish the game experience for some that is motivated by little more than pursiut of monetary gain.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

What's the financial difference between a boycott and piracy if you will buy the game if the feature that prompted you to pirate or boycott is put back in? The people who own these companies are the stockholders. Do you think stockholders care whether the company turned pirates into customers or met the demands of a legal boycott if it means the company can afford to pay them a bigger dividend or they just watched their stock price go up in value?

Stockholders "care about appealing to" anyone that will drive the profits of their corporation higher.

Why are you asking me about whether people 'deserve' to play a game when I'm talking about the profit seeking behavior of publicly traded corporations? You may as well be asking me who deserves to get AIDS more in a debate about the effectiveness of condoms.

There are a number of key differences between piracy and a boycott, but the end state effect is the same.

For example, piracy is actually illegal (being theft and all) and a boycott is simply an organized attempt by the consumer to influence the market (which is perfectly legal and expected - the consumer should influence the market).

If one goes a bit further, to join a boycott is to state that a product is not worth purchasing in it's given state. Unless I missed something along the way, this is a completely fair stance to take. Piracy makes a statement as well, which is "I want this game but not enough to pay for it". In the first case we have an attempt (regardless of the attitudes of the members of a boycott) to influence the market though the power of the purse, in the second you insult the every person who was involved in producing the game.

Of course, none of this is meant to be condescending - I'm sure you recognize all of this. I honestly don't really follow the argument in general that I quoted here. You defend the rights of the corporation, you acknowledge that they will pursue profits and you seemingly dismiss the consumer in the picture.

I think there can be a general consensus that piracy is a key reason why PC gaming is in decline. Once you tack on the lower number of systems in the hands of consumers that can play most modern games I can see little reason for a developer to support the platform.

But, if you are going to support it, even with a glorified port, and then add features that harm my ability to play or use my computer, or remove features that have been common in such games for longer than most of these people have been developers, don't feed me a platitude as to the reason. I can accept that a decision has been made to serve the bottom line.

On the surface, I think that dedicated server support looks very simple and easy to implement/port from another game with small adjustments, not to mention cheap to maintain. Maybe it's not. But gamers don't necessarily know that. More communication between developers and their consumers would mitigate such dramas.

I'll try not to rehash anyone else's argument, but I'm sick and tired of gaming development turning into a global conveyor belt.

COD is starting to turn into FIFA - in 5 years time we'll still have the same level up system, and the SP will just change every now and again as IW/Activision milking gamers every 18 months with a new release and every 2 or 3 with average DLC.

Look at Halo. I can't play it online anymore because I haven't purchased all the rest of the DLC that everybody else has.

That's not what I want my games to be. Alas, what can I do? Not purchasing them isn't going to change a future business model, no matter how much I starve myself (metaphorically of course).

vivaldiscool:
Funk, entitlement doesn't mean what you think it means.

Entitlement isn't even a word that applies in consumer culture. The entitlement argument could be an argument against piracy, but for someone who's shelling out $60 for the game, they are perfectly entitled to say we want a good game. If the dev was making it for free, and we complained, that would be entitlement.

In summation, you say dedicated servers are a good thing, but we paying customers are not entitled to them.

This isn't fucking altruism funk, the devs are getting payed for this, we give them our money, we are entitled to the best game they can make. That's the basic concept of capitalism.

I'd argue that Funk is entirely within the proper definition of "entitlement".

Unless you preordered before these announcements were made, you haven't paid anything, and are therefore not entitled to anything.

If MW2 is not the game you want, then you are entitled to not purchase it. It is not mandatory.

Where entitlement comes into the picture is where PC gamers say to Infinity Ward-- I'm here with my $50, give me the game I want-- not the game you're making, but the game I want. I bought your last game, and it had features X and Y at price Z, so I'm offering you Z now for a game with X and Y, so make the game with X and Y.

This is still, in a broad sense, a proper function of the marketplace, but when fans start saying they helped create the game because they brought the prequels, and considering the removals of these features worthy of a boycott which will almost certainly have either no effect or the opposite effect of that intended (less emphasis on the PC as a platform), the word "entitlement" does spring to mind.

The segment of the gaming population that is this dedicated to the PC as a platform is a minority. Those who feel that competitive mods, the console, and dedicated servers are mandatory are a minority in that minority. That they expect their complaints to be listened to and their desires catered to, regardless of the developer's intent or even-- gasp-- the possibility that what they are doing is in the best interest of the broader player population.

Those who feel strongly on this issue are the very definition of vocal minority. They speak mostly to each other on this issue, forming an echo chamber that reinforces the belief that a great misdeed has been done which demands redress. The developers themselves have, I think, been pretty soft in their defense of their decision, probably in the interest of politeness, and the broad majority in this case has no strong feelings about it one way or the other because they never saw the server browser as a "feature"-- it's just how you get into a multiplayer match, and a method that's pretty clumsy for all that. A lot of gamers don't play multiplayer. A lot don't ever use mods of any kind.

Eclectic Dreck:

Of course, none of this is meant to be condescending - I'm sure you recognize all of this. I honestly don't really follow the argument in general that I quoted here. You defend the rights of the corporation, you acknowledge that they will pursue profits and you seemingly dismiss the consumer in the picture.

Heh--I do recognize all of it, and took none of it in any way as negative. What I guess I didn't state clearly enough was the context of it being known that if there's a huge uptick of piracy and a downturn in sales, it's because of those discontent with the company's behavior. I would modify:

Piracy makes a statement as well, which is "I want this game but not enough to pay for it".

to

Piracy makes a statement as well, which is "I want this game but not enough to pay for it at the price you have set considering the features you have included".

I think there can be a general consensus that piracy is a key reason why PC gaming is in decline.

I think differently--the Nintendo DS gets the bejesus pirated out of it, and it's basically the brightest star in the gaming firmament.

I'm one of those people who...doesn't think pc gaming IS in decline. And even if it is, it's not piracy that's responsible for there not being another Master of Orion.

I think pc gaming just *looks* like it's in decline because the pc can no longer justify a top-level game's budget. Of course, I don't know if pc gaming could *ever* have justified (even adjusted for inflation and such) the kind of budgets we see for Gears of War or Fallout 3. To me, it's like pc gaming interest has kept growing at the same arithmetic rate it always has, while the pc gaming *budgets* have been growing *exponentially*.

That's my naieve, non-numbers backed guess. I think people confuse pc gaming being in decline with pc FPS gaming being in decline. The FPS is like the flagship of gaming, and I notice the people who tell us pc gaming is in decline are the kind of people who want the pc to still be the center of the FPS world.

Me? I'm a 4X guy at my core. I could care less about dedicated servers and ping times and yada yada yada. I hope people who play FPSes on the computer are happy and well taken care of, but sorry--I really don't care if they're not the center of the gaming universe anymore. Because those are what I call entitlement issues ;-D

Unfortunately, both developers and publishers are big, fat hypocrites. Even if gamers just don't buy it, they'll still dig up the battered up excuse of piracy. And this is not a case of entitlement. This is a feature that many PC games had till now. To remove it without offering a clear reason (i.e. to make the game better? Who's gonna believe that?) will certainly infuriate people. The developers' attitude doesn't help either.

And you know what? The gamers could care less whether this will cost the company money or not. This is a harsh world full of competition. Do something to anger a part of your customers and they will flee towards another game. A game that has this feature intact. They won't give a shit whether you have bills to pay or your family to feed. You didn't do your job well.

Personally, I think that the developers just get lazier and lazier with the year. Who's to say that they won't cut something more important next time because they can't be arsed with it? Can you trust them? Hell no!

While this won't affect people who play games for the single player, it should be a warning sign.

The PC has always been head and shoulders above consoles, that's just fact. Granted we don't have to act like pricks, but we do have the superior platform for gaming, better graphics, more customisation, etc than consoles. That will never change most likely. Now when you realise that a game is making more on "dumber" consoles and basically take a shit on the gamers that may make up a small part of the market but who ultimately DID start things for you back in the day and start removing features to make everything even across the board then new lows have been met.

PC gaming isn't easy, it never will be easy, it's not meant to be easy, heck running a computer isn't easy on a day to day basis unless you know what you're doing. Those who game on the PC know what they're doing, if they can't be fucked to learn how to simply click "join server" then they deserve to go pick up a console, insert the disc and play, that's their strenuous task for the day over. What you don't do is try and change a formula that's been working on the PC for over a decade and ignore the people it(inevitably will)upset, that's douchebag behaviour.

When PC gamers say "oh, you console people wouldn't understand" that's exactly what we mean, because you don't. It's not about being above ourselves or elitest, it's called fucking common sense and standing up for it, why fix what isn't broken? Or why not incoporate both? Seems the smart kid at IW who made this decision clearly didn't think it through enough.

CantFaketheFunk:
There is what seems to be a strong current of entitlement beneath it all, and the message from many of the protesters is clear: We deserve something above and beyond the call of duty (har har har) because we are PC gamers, and our platform of choice is special. In other words, "You owe us, Infinity Ward."

I agree that some people sound like this but I've mostly seen those types of reactions form some PC gamers in response to some console gamers posts dismissing any legitimate arguments against changes. This is just another battlefield in the ongoing PC vs Consoles war, and laying the blame squarely on the PC gamers is a bit harsh.

It is also understandable that PC gamers are angry, and for a good reason. For the past two years there has been hype, more hype, and then some more hype in regards to MW2, a sequel to CoD4:MW, one of the most fun PC multiplayer experience ever. Many PC gamers preordered the game on blind faith that IW, maker of CoD, CoD2 and CoD4 will yet again deliver a fun PC multiplayer experience.
And then a few weeks before release IW basically says: "Hey, remember those awesome things that made you love our previous games? Yeah, we're removing those. Here, have this console shooter!"
Now I'm not trying to star another fork of the old PC shooters are better or worse than console shooters debate(they're better for me) but the experience IS different.

It isn't so much "You owe us, Infinity Ward.", as much as "You lead us to believe we'll be getting one thing, Infinity Ward, and then you flaked out on us at the last minute."

Betrayed expectations cause irritability, irritability leads to anger, and anger leads to the dark side...

That's why there isn't so much backlash on Rage, there were significantly less expectations there.

CantFaketheFunk:
It doesn't change the fact that IW reps have admitted that the PC - and the hardcore subsection within the PC market, to be precise - is their smallest base of users.

While this is true, it's sort of a corollary of the fact that consoles sell more games than the PC in general.
The last two Call of Duty games were still bestsellers on the PC. Now I haven't checked the numbers, but barring WoW and Sims behemoths, I'd wager a guess if not THE best selling PC games of the last two years, then definitely very close to the top.

CantFaketheFunk:
So what sense does it possibly make to allocate extra time, money, and manpower to their smallest fanbase, which is coincidentally the group most likely to pirate the game anyway?

But they did exactly this, which is kind of weird, they allocated more time money and manpower to swich to this new system on the PC, than simply using the same system that has been here since the first CoD game.

Regarding piracy, why is it that it's always used as an excuse to screw over people who actually buy the game, and never the pirates themselves?

CantFaketheFunk:

Now, by all means, return to your regularly scheduled protests, but remember that the most powerful protest tool at your disposal is your wallet. If it infuriates you so much, don't buy the game. Don't be a tool and pirate it - that just gives developers more reason to flee the PC platform entirely - but a refusal to purchase will speak louder than angry internet rants ever could.

This I can wholeheartedly support.
Unfortunately it may also mean the death of the Call of Duty franchise on the PC.

Nonononononononono.

Just no. I have pride in being a PC gamer. I have pride in my many long nights spent modding Morrowind or STALKER or Neverwinter Nights or hell even Duke Nukem. I have pride in the online clans and the IRC chatrooms and the websites devoted to the most obscure way to get around a specific bug.

I'm proud of the way that on PC, if there's a problem with your setup, you can bet your ass that there's someone else somewhere else who knows how to fix it. I'm proud of the lack of red rings of death or over-heating issues (unless you're an idiot and forgot to put a fan next to your quad core). I'm proud of many many things but for fucks sake, I'm not proud of the way that EA acts or more recently the way that Activision acts or more recently the way Infinity Ward acts.

And the PC community might be bitching, I thought that L4D2 gig was crap, but for gods sakes this is the difference between us and the console crowd! We grew up ranting on forums at five in the morning, complaining about the pally nerf and the warlock buff, we make ourselves look like asses some of the time, but you saw what happened with the L4D2 boycott, you can watch what happens on WoW every two weeks they change a core gameplay mechanic just because of the ten thousand fat ass Chinese gold farmers storming the forums.

We bitch because it's the only way to get results and yeah sometimes we make the rest of you "higher class" PC gamers look bad, but if the difference between being higher and lower class is the same difference between being vocal and being mute, shit I'll look like an ass and have my dedicated servers, thank you very much Mr.Funk.

Erh. Rant over now...

Edit: Forgot to mention. Why is it that pirates are the most common reason for the rest of us to get the big dick? Basically what you're saying is that we should tell the Muslims that they shouldn't get upset when we call them towel heads because a few of them blow shit up.

Cant stay on thread to allergic to pretentiousness. but seriously you all make me ashamed to call my self a pc gamer or a gamer in general. I suggest you put on your big boy pants cry me a river build a bridge and get over it =).

Baron Khaine:
image

Just thought i'd post this, for people who still think this is "just about the dedicated servers"

oh well cant complain thats just the multiplayer game anyway single player is where the real action is
but i am still lamenting the dramatic change in multiplayer though

This isn't about PC gamers or a holy then though attitude, game companys are screwing over gamers in genral.

How would you feel if most games for the Wii didn't support motion sensor technology? It would be completely stupid NOT to support the hardware.

What if Sony released games for the PS3 that were NOT in HD? It would be completely ludicrous.

Releasing games for the PC that go peer to peer when you can harness the power, versatility and customization of a dedicated server is simply not even a question. Your shooting yourself in the foot, on purpose.

Not to mention this is a war against publisher attitude in genral. They don't want games to live as games, they want them to live as products, to be used then cast aside so we buy the next product.

Can you imagine a world were Valve did the same thing with Half-life as Infinity ward did with MW2? with total control there would BE no Team fortress, there would BR no counter strike or no gravity or zombie mods and earth special forces.

This is like Nazi gaming, "We would rather you play the game the way we intended it to be played" that's their response, Since when should anyone support a Soviet Russia gaming environment where the game plays YOU instead of the other way around.

PC gamers don't need to get over themselves, Game Developers do. It's been a slow downward spiral but this is a plunge towards the darkness were games dictate how you play them.

Screw this matrix crap of "We want to revolutionize", they want to control. Forgive us PC gamers if we imagine a world with no borders or boundry's. it's a good place folks, turning away from that to support less effect means to play together...

completely stupid article in my opinion.

Donnyp:

On the article. I loved the screaming whining part. Cause personally i have looked at the mother and Told her to Raise her child right lol. A firm hand makes a Firm Man lol.

I couldn't agree with you more. If you don't like it don't buy it. No ones forcing you to. I know there will always be a circle of gamers on all platforms that flip out, but people are more likely to listen to a calm well thought out response than an angry rant and sense of entitlement.

It's a company. Like all companies, they want to make the highest profit with the lowest cost.

jigs160:

Baron Khaine:
image

Just thought i'd post this, for people who still think this is "just about the dedicated servers"

oh well cant complain thats just the multiplayer game anyway single player is where the real action is
but i am still lamenting the dramatic change in multiplayer though

have fun with your 4h game.

I might get it for PC just because of SPEC-OPs though. Co-Op is where the action is at. =D

And about Pirates, there ain't going to be any fucking way you will stop them unless the PC system itself is changed in the most draconian way possible so that PC users can be monitored to find out what games they are playing and if it's a legit copy of said game. Pirates are not going anywhere, and they will NEVER be consumers like us the people who bother to purchase the games. It's time the industry understand that, and move on. Pirates are not and will never be YOUR target audience.

I don't agree with you, but I do see where you're coming from.

I agree that there is too much attitude involved, but I don't think it's just PC gamers who have the attitude. The vocal minority has always been loud and obnoxious: just hop onto Xbox Live or Playstation Home and see how obnoxious people can be. For every person yelling how this isn't fair and we deserve better, there are 10 more who are just willing to live with it and 100 more who don't even know there's a difference.

But the people who are angry have a good point, and I think it goes further than dedicated servers. There was a time when PC games had many qualities that consoles just couldn't provide. Mods and skins, custom maps, voice chat, and dedicated servers (even player-owned servers) are just a few of these things. But lately, we see more and more games that are developed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. This may save developers money, but it makes PC games inferior to their console cousins, because the games are designed with the console in mind, not the PC. Nice features like mods, custom maps, and now even dedicated servers are disappearing, to the point where PCs are stuck with the same limitations of the consoles. But worse yet, we have controls and gameplay that assume you are using a gamepad, not a keyboard and mouse. How many PC games have you seen where the dialogs say "Press (A) to continue"? The annoying menu system in Borderlands was a great example of this and Assassin's Creed had it many places too.

The problem isn't that PC games aren't given special treatment, it's that they are an afterthought; ported as if they were running on an emulator. All of the PCs strengths are lost because the game was designed for a console, not a PC.

The PC may not be the dominant platform it once was -- largely because consoles are up to the specs where they can challenge the PC gaming market; more than you could say 10 years ago -- but that doesn't mean the PC should be a second-rate platform. There is still a market and companies who aren't willing to keep that market happy -- even if it means making PC-aware games -- are going to see lost potential profits.

PS: I think the piracy argument is a red herring, for two reasons. For one, no matter how high piracy rates are on the PC, there are still people paying money for PC games. If a hundred people pirated the game on the PC for every one who bought, that one still paid money. Piracy may mean the loss of a potential sale, but you don't end up in the negative for it; those who pay, pay, and everybody else may as well have not bought the game at all. But making a second-rate game for an entire market segment will result in the loss of those paying customers. You won't get money out of most pirates by making piracy harder, but you will lose money from paying customers by making an inferior game.

Secondly, consoles are not immune to piracy. In fact, with a small investment (the cost of the modchip), pirating an XBOX 360 or Wii game is nearly as easy as it is on the PC. But there are two differences. First, it's currently easier on PC (no modchip required), so pirates will probably go for the PC version first. Second, people willing to pay $300 for a console are probably willing to buy games for it too, but everybody has a PC, even people who aren't willing to pay $70+ for a new game. The demographics are very different, so it's impossible to compare the two.

In the end, piracy is a smokescreen. It's used to justify draconian laws like the DMCA and the three-strikes rule, lower quality releases, games that are less featureful than their predecessors, increasing prices, and every other penny-pinching, margin-increasing effort that the entertainment industries make. It's the same argument that was thrown after cassette tapes in the 80s and libraries even before that. Any profit-driven company won't stop until they can sell you a single button and charge you every time you press it. Piracy is just there excuse to make you pay more for less.

Oh yes, I should add, despite everything I said above, John is right -- pirating the game isn't the answer. If you really believe it's a shitty game that's not worth paying for: don't play it. Pirating just makes their claims about piracy legitimate, and still makes it a popular game. A game only truly fails if nobody plays it, plays the demo, watches the trailers, or even speaks well of it. Vote with your wallet and your attention.

But feel free to speak up too, because companies are terrible at taking subtle hints.

Nice article, and whilst I do think the sentiment is right, I have some issues....

CantFaketheFunk:
Now, by all means, return to your regularly scheduled protests, but remember that the most powerful protest tool at your disposal is your wallet. If it infuriates you so much, don't buy the game. Don't be a tool and pirate it - that just gives developers more reason to flee the PC platform entirely - but a refusal to purchase will speak louder than angry internet rants ever could.

Really? One person not buying it is going to make IW go 'Oh noes, we have to work hard to get his money back!' - lets be honest, the game has been pre-ordered so very, very, very, very much that there is nothing anyone who reads the article can do aside from either not buy the game and lose out or buy the game.

Nimbus:
Y'know, I wouldn't really mind it if IW had spent LESS effort in making MW2 for the PC. I mean, we are the smallest group, and therefore deserve the least amount of effort. However, it seems to me they have gone out of their way to create a system (IW.net) which will be detrimental to the experience of most players.

Indeed, this too John - they've spent more money on the pirates than they would have if they wanted to just keep the customers happy.

Baron Khaine:
image

Just thought i'd post this, for people who still think this is "just about the dedicated servers"

And finally, this - we pay more money for a game that is, in multiplayer at least, pretty inferior.

Don't get me wrong, it'll probably still be a great game, and I'll buy a second hand copy more than likely (unless Activison have locked CD Keys to PCs or something), but I am angry at the shit treatment PC customers are getting these days and yet expected to pay more.

CantFaketheFunk:

Baron Khaine:

Just to go back to my original point in this, the problem is not a sense of entitlement, its the fact that the PC Community feel's that Infinity Ward has turned there back on us, after everything we did for them in the early day's, they've run off with there new hip friend's, the 360 gang. It's exactly the same as happened and is still happening with the Wii, it's pandering to casual gamer's, and the "hardcore gamer's", if such a term can be used for the Wii, feel left out, and dejected, by a company that they helped support by buying the Gamecube, Mario series etc.

Infinity Ward turned there back on PC Gaming, on the thing's that made us unique from the console's, and people won't just forget that.

Er, to be fair, that's *exactly* what I mean by sense of entitlement. That people feel the company owes you something, and are put out when it tries to cater to another group as well.

Oh I thought the sense of entitlement was about PC Gamers being elitist and wanting better than the console boy's. Thats not why were pissed, the reason is, this is a step backwards for PC Gaming, they should be taking steps forward for console gamers, to bring them up to the same game that we played in CoD 1,2 and 4, not taking us back down to the dark ages. This game is going to have worse multiplayer than 1,2 or 4, did you see the image I linked with the amount of features removed? Those are staple feature's of PC Gaming, if they want everyone to be equal, they should work towards improving the console experience, not dumbing down the PC experience.

Feel's like that short story where all the intelligent people had to be dumbed down so everyone had the same intelligence, strength, everything (anybody help me out with this, I forget the name).

Step's backwards are never in the right direction.

Don't plan on buying the game myself, going to wait to see how this p2p works out. My ping is usually 100-120 as I live in Canada in the middle of nowhere.

/begin opinion

With regards to the articles comment about the whole keyboard/graphics thing. That is NOT a big improvement and is no way superior when everyone has those options. Sorry, but last time I checked it was a matter of preference. Being able to change graphics is not a big superior OMG it makes the game so much better!!! Technically having graphic options could be seen as 'unbalanced' and IW should remove that too since people with better machines would get better frame rates, higher resolutions, etc making them superior on the battle field.

The article COMPLETELY ignores how IW handled this issue. What, it released this change less then a month away from release? Does that NOT show their intentions? Does that NOT show that they knew the PC community would be extremely hostile/disappointed and this was a PR move? I argue that they did this just so they could say 'Sorry PC gamers, but IW.net is already done and there is no way we're changing it now since we spent all this money on it. We apologize.'. That has been the biggest slap to my face wrt gaming. I was really excited about this game and this poor decision by IW has broke my heart.

/end opinion
/Begin rambling

Maybe the escapist forums shouldn't be moderated, that's a pretty good way to get rid of spammers and trolls right? If you don't get my point how is IW going to immediately remove hackers and grievers? They're not, that's how. GL PC gamers, especially when there is no way to ensure that once a hacker is caught that they don't just pirate another copy or buy another disk like the 360 can do. Crap, I hope no one important is reading this, that is the next step - a PC global gaming service that you need to pay to play any of the games you own. Damnit.

/end rambling

vivaldiscool:
Funk, entitlement doesn't mean what you think it means.

Entitlement isn't even a word that applies in consumer culture. The entitlement argument could be an argument against piracy, but for someone who's shelling out $60 for the game, they are perfectly entitled to say we want a good game. If the dev was making it for free, and we complained, that would be entitlement.

In summation, you say dedicated servers are a good thing, but we paying customers are not entitled to them.

funk:
Gamers don't deserve good games

This isn't fucking altruism funk, the devs are getting payed for this, we give them our money, we are entitled to the best game they can make. That's the basic concept of capitalism.

actualy the basic concept of capitalism is to give ppl the least you can and make the most you can doing it

LazerFX:

And nothing annoys me more than people thinking that because PC gaming 'started' all this, it should be the key brand. Did you hear that about the Amiga? The Commodore? The Spectrum? The Atari? What about the Arcades?

Yes, we all remember playing Spy versus Spy on dedicated servers. Or Mario with custom levels.

Yes, of course, they all started multiplayer gaming as we know it. And they also started the STANDARD of dedicated servers allowing people to host clan vs clan matches or just a server for a group of friends.

Also, yes, we are entitled to the things we are used to. You know why are we used to them? Because we like them. I like being able to choose my favorite Team Fortress 2 server, or which maps would I play in Enemy Territory. They just went for the easy solution - just say "screw it" and raise the price.

Oh, and thanks for the picture:

Now I can use it as my main argument.

MGlBlaze:

Woodsey:
The L4D2 match-making is a pain in the arse, and that's just with the demo at peak times, nevermind what it's going to be like when people have gone out and bought it. The only reason I feel its used in L4D2 is because it's the only real way to sought it out, but it's a co op game, not a multiplayer.

Actually, I felt the L4D and L4D2 system was awesome. You had the benefit of just being able to click maybe twice and join a game right away (a few more clicks if you wanted something more specific), yet it still had all the benefits of dedicated servers, and if you had the IP then you could still access that server whenever you liked.

Well maybe I'm confined to the minority experience (who knows?), but I've had a fair bit of trouble a number of times with the Match-making - being connected to God awful servers that crash for no reason, despite everyone having brilliant ping and whatnot. Like I said I accept that, given the nature of the game, the match making system is the only real way it can be done.

In CoD's case, dedicated servers are best - no question. If I play online, I like to drop in on a familiar server, where I know the sort of people that go on and that I can have a good game with.

Numerous times in L4D2, if I want to join in a match it's quite likely for me to get into a foreign server, which of course makes the game redundant if you can't communicate.

alot of truth in this, apart from the last bit 'speak with your wallet'

its a drop in the ocean, even petitions will be...

...see the diablo art style boycott...you just know everyone in that boycott will have the game on preorder already

I don't have a sense of entitlement, I just want dedicated servers! And preferably mods. I understand why mods might be more work for the devs, but I don't beleive that adding dedicated servers could add THAT much more work, although I may be wrong on that.

TMAN10112:
I'm not buying the game at this point, so I don't really care anymore.

But just to clarify:

GonzoGamer:
They aren't depriving the game of content like some other companies do to their pc versions.

Yes, they are.

They've gotten rid of the ability to use mods (Not to mention that the max player count is 9v9 now), removing dozens of hours worth of play time and free content. As a matter of fact, the Nazi-Zombies mode in COD:WAW was inspired by a zombie mod for Modern Warfare.

No mods?!
Really?!
You mean they aren't going to support mods or they aren't going to allow mods?
If it's the latter, I would be boycotting it too; that is, if I had any interest in it to begin with. I don't really like MFPSs.

That's why you play on a PC, for the mods.

Edit: On top of that, I just found out they're charging console prices for it too.
Now I'm just glad I'm not amongst the thousands who were anticipating this one.

I'm ashame you call a pc gamer. We don't think we are superior. Is a fact that we have best hardwares and its more easy develop to PC. Companies that try to make PC game look console-like should just say: "we are not going to make it for PC", and not come up with this crappy console-like-port.

To me this article is all backwards. It's not why are PC gamers whining about a lack of dedicated servers but more why haven't console gamers demanded them yet?

I honestly thought that the large amount of money paid for xbox live was used to maintain game servers until I bought my 360. I wasn't half disappointed.

I still don't quite understand their reasoning behind not opening the game up to modding. it seems to be a dick reason on their part by saying that simply they want the player to play the game the way they intended it to play.
Economically it still makes sense for Infinity Ward to put in the extra bit of work to capture the pc gaming community portion of the demand curve. And raising the price for PC gamers while reducing the overall quality of the product in comparison to MW1, reduces incentive for gamers to go out and buy MW2.

After looking through these comments I can't help but think that you guys took the topic "skin" of MW2 and blew up over that instead of thinking about the "meat" that they are a very whiny bunch that needs to seriously take a good long look at how they react to such thing. They have a point with content being removed but they don't need to be so flippant about it.

jigs160:
oh well cant complain thats just the multiplayer game anyway single player is where the real action is
but i am still lamenting the dramatic change in multiplayer though

Yes, but I don't pay full price for a game that's only half good. And judging by how badly the game is bombing on the metacritic user reviews, I'm not the only one who thinks that.

Frank_Sinatra_:
After looking through these comments I can't help but think that you guys took the topic "skin" of MW2 and blew up over that instead of thinking about the "meat" that they are a very whiny bunch that needs to seriously take a good long look at how they react to such thing. They have a point with content being removed but they don't need to be so flippant about it.

It's not only the last minute changes that pisses 'em off, it's also the fact that there a lot of people who confuse them with 'PC elitists' and tell them to just get over it and let IW walk all over them.

I'm not the slightest bit interested with MW2 but almost the same thing happened with Brawl, so I kinda know the feeling. HAL told us they were going to do this and that and never did it, then they extended the release date by a couple of years and just before it was released, the fans found out all the flaws. Not to mention it was hyped to death!

There shouldn't be that attitude "just get over it" or "I don't care because I just play it for this", everyone should be working together to improve the experience.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here