"@rateoforange said:

" This isn't about some console vs. pc pissing match. Do we really need to rehash that battle here for the thousandth time? "

This IS a pissing match.  It's very much a pissing match of that type.  The feature set for MW2 on PC is now that of the consoles, which is NOT the correct option.  Why would the PC industry honestly allow consoles to influence them when PC has always been the leading platform of innovation in gaming?  It's everything to do with business.  I'd be perfectly fine with having to pay for the damn map packs on PC...so long as I don't have to deal with matchmaking and can instead have the option of dedicated servers and modding. 
 
I'll be honest:  Gearbox has to be jumping for joy at this announcement right now!  LOL  Their PC community just grew a little more! "

This raises an interesting question -- Would people be willing to pay a monthly fee for dedicated servers? Wouldn't that be crazy if charging a "maintenance" fee for such servers is in the cards that Activision might play...

That's what I thought. So if it's just me and one friend who want to join an already populated game in progress, we're pretty much fucked?

@Diamond: PC gaming hasn't helped innovate in the last three years?  You are ABSOLUTELY right...and you're welcome for Call of Duty even existing, by the way.

I also can't help it that companies would rather dull down their online with horrid matchmaking setups plagued with lag.

As for buying games, I'm completely anti-piracy.

I mean, what's next?  EVERYONE is able to install and partition a hard drive, build a killer gaming rig?  Should we honestly dumb down the PC?  That's what is happening right now:  this is a slap in the face to the community that has helped to create what is modern gaming.

Here's the issue:  PC gaming has constantly influenced console gaming, even to this point...and now companies are trying to reverse it.

the BUSINESS part is what's going to do PC gaming in.

Trying to improve the way business is handled should NOT come at the reduction of quality in the product, and this new setup - no dedicated servers, adding matchmaking, no mod capabilities - defeats the purpose of EVERYTHING that the PC is about.

I'm retarded. Does "dedicated servers" means Activision hosting servers that get listed in the matchmaking lobby along with all the private servers?
 
I ask because I honestly couldn't tell the difference in CoD4. So I'm currently not sure how this'll affect me in MW2. I'll only be playing this on PC. I don't like console controls.
 
Edit: Oh, and does their "No mods" dodge mean no mods at all or just no mod support (read: players will do them anyway but Activision won't stand in the way)

Dedicated servers are servers set up by users or a third-party, usaully rented, which generally are online 24/7 and are configured specifically by those who own them or are renting them.
 
From what it sounds like, Activision will be actively preventing mods from being used in the game.

Can I throw my two cents in here, even as a console, non PC gamer? IW recently said that they only made Call of Duty 2 in order to get console development, as they didn't want to remain a PC developer, which is something Activision didn't really agree with. Infinity Ward wants to be a console focused developer, not PC.
 
As far as I can tell, the reason IW are doing this is since Activision allowed them console development, and the ability to set it in modern combat situations, they are trying to mainstream their business model to become a console only-developer by standardising across systems. This to me, means that IW are trying to pull away from Activision as a publisher, in order to gain better controls over their IPs. 
 
 They are merely creating the PC version from a business view point. (As far as I can tell). They create it on a another platform, which requires more work, only for those extra man hours to retail at a lower price. With consoles being relatively cheap these days, this does make some slight economical sense, buy trying to pull away from Activision, they can create better games, where they have full control, even under a (possibly) different publisher. This could, in turn cause more people to buy games consoles, meaning that there is less extra work for the coders to do, whilst getting an increase in revenue from sales, and a possible bonus for luring people in to buying new consoles.
 
On a side note, as far as I'm concerned, the lack of dedicated servers doesn't make the game worthless, you will still get a rich single and multi-player experience, just with some more limitations. Also, I never understood how people say keys and mouse are a better control system, okay, the mouse is more responsive, but the keyboard I find a lot more inefficient in terms of use of inventory, etc.

"I'd be perfectly fine with having to pay for the damn map packs on PC...so long as I don't have to deal with matchmaking and can instead have the option of dedicated servers and modding."

" This raises an interesting question -- Would people be willing to pay a monthly fee for dedicated servers? Wouldn't that be crazy if charging a "maintenance" fee for such servers is in the cards that Activision might play... "

IW was bought by Activision in 2003, so they can't just choose to leave the bossum of their loving lord and master. I can only assume that when they bought IW they also bought the Call of Duty IP along with them.

" Dedicated servers are servers set up by users or a third-party, usaully rented, which generally are online 24/7 and are configured specifically by those who own them or are renting them.  From what it sounds like, Activision will be actively preventing mods from being used in the game. "

Sounds like that's what's going to happen. No server browser; only matchmaking and private servers.

" @SunKing said:

" Dedicated servers are servers set up by users or a third-party, usaully rented, which generally are online 24/7 and are configured specifically by those who own them or are renting them.  From what it sounds like, Activision will be actively preventing mods from being used in the game. "

Ok thanks. So if a dedicated server is set up by players, what is Activision doing to prevent them from showing up in the main list of game servers?  Or is it that there won't be a main list of game servers at all? "

@Diamond: Why the FUCK do I bother with you?  You play devil's advocate every single time, and instead of looking at the WHOLE of an argument, you always want to fragment it.  Moreover, your arguments seem to care more about supporting the ideas of BUSINESS than the ideas of GAMING.

I'm not buying this game any more.

" @Darniaq said:

" @SunKing said:

" Dedicated servers are servers set up by users or a third-party, usaully rented, which generally are online 24/7 and are configured specifically by those who own them or are renting them.  From what it sounds like, Activision will be actively preventing mods from being used in the game. "

Ok thanks. So if a dedicated server is set up by players, what is Activision doing to prevent them from showing up in the main list of game servers?  Or is it that there won't be a main list of game servers at all? "

From what I gather, a dedicated server cannot be set up by players anymore. That functionality is completely gone, along with the server listing. "

I am not a pc gamer and I have no intention of buying or playing MW2, but as an outside observer it seems to me like Activision are intentionally trying to hurt the sals of the pc version. I have a weird feeling that the Medal of Honor games are going to be better in the future.

" @jakob187 said:

@Diamond: Why the FUCK do I bother with you?  You play devil's advocate every single time, and instead of looking at the WHOLE of an argument, you always want to fragment it.  Moreover, your arguments seem to care more about supporting the ideas of BUSINESS than the ideas of GAMING.

Because I'm rational and you know that?  I play devil's advocate because that's all there is in the business world of gaming.  I'll sum it up, when PC gamers learn they aren't owed anything by these companies, they aren't a privileged upper class of gaming they'll realize their responsibility towards gaming is to support the products they want to see succeed.  COD4 did not sell enough on PC, that's all there is to it. "

"It's not that they're downgrading the PC version, rather that the money isn't allowing them to add extra features in a version that will get minimal sales. "

" @Diamond said:

"It's not that they're downgrading the PC version, rather that the money isn't allowing them to add extra features in a version that will get minimal sales. "

Sure they are; they're adding IW Net as a means to control how people use the product.  IW Net will cost them significantly more to implement and maintain than just making the Dedi. Server software available, which is old tech that would cost them next to nothing to make available.  It's not a matter of them not being able to afford to develop it; they have chosen to remove that support and replace it with a more costly alternative, in the hope that it will limit piracy, make the game easier to support post-release and facilitate a profitable DLC market on the PC.

I don't think it's accurate to say that console gamers have been subsidising PC gamers either, because they share the same development cycle.  It is essentially the exact same product in a slightly different box.  (The relatively small costs involved in releasing a PC version - assuming you're already making a 360 version - are obviously more than covered by the profit from the PC version or they wouldn't bother with PC at all.)  Ultimately, one paying PC gamer contributes just as much to the development as one paying console gamer - and all of us subsidise the pirates.

If you mean that MW2 only exists in its current form because of CoD4's success on the consoles, then I agree with you - with the proviso that you can obviously take that argument back a step and say that CoD 4 and IW only exist in their current form because of prior success on the PC.

as for people saying they water the pc version down for economical purposes: youre wrong and retarded. pc games dont even sell close to bad enough to not make up for the extra work of giving people the ability to put up dedicated servers or modding tools. especially since adding these things requires virtually no extra work whatsoever (assuming they release the same sdk they used to make the game)
 
cross-development between 360 and pc is by far easier then cross-development between ps3 and 360. 360's API is a modified version of dx9 for crying out lud.
 
and its not about "special priveligies" for starting fps's etc, its about living up to the standards we've had for years.

Holy shit, no dedicated servers? That's bullshit.

Why would the PC industry honestly allow consoles to influence them when PC has always been the leading platform of innovation in gaming?

This is where, as usual, the PC guys take things too far.
  
The PC is (and in some cases, was) the leader of innovation in a number of key areas, but to so ridiculously understate the way consoles have shaped games is so absurd it makes the people perpetrating this revisionist history seem delusional.

" as for people saying they water the pc version down for economical purposes: youre wrong and retarded. pc games dont even sell close to bad enough to not make up for the extra work of giving people the ability to put up dedicated servers or modding tools. especially since adding these things requires virtually no extra work whatsoever (assuming they release the same sdk they used to make the game) cross-development between 360 and pc is by far easier then cross-development between ps3 and 360. 360's API is a modified version of dx9 for crying out lud.  and its not about "special priveligies" for starting fps's etc, its about living up to the standards we've had for years. "

I will no longer be buying this game.

"Somewhat conflicted now as to whether I want this game on the PC or PS3. "

i agree about jakob taking that statement way way to far. pc has deffinetly been THE leading innovator in online gaming. it was around on the pc for what, like a decade before other systems? and its still by far the best system for online gaming in my opinion.
the pc is and has also also been the leading innovator of many genres like fps's, rts's, mmo's, flight/space sims etc (the three latter of which have never really seen a successfull adaption to consoles, and neither of which have ever been as good on consoles as on pc)

but as far as other genres and types of gaming consoles and arcades have been the leading innovators. you cant say that things like fighting games or devil may cry grew out of or was influenced by pc gaming :\
 
 anyobody who claims that this is acceptable for the pc is nuts, because it doesnt live up to the standards of that system. if something was released on consoles that didnt live up to those standards it wouldnt be acceptable either. 
for example: what if a multiplayer focused game was released on consoles but lacked split-screen support, just because another system that its also being released on (pc) usually doesnt have that feature. would that be acceptable? HELL NO! its the same thing here.

" @jakob187 said:

@Diamond: Why the FUCK do I bother with you?  You play devil's advocate every single time, and instead of looking at the WHOLE of an argument, you always want to fragment it.  Moreover, your arguments seem to care more about supporting the ideas of BUSINESS than the ideas of GAMING.

Because I'm rational and you know that?  I play devil's advocate because that's all there is in the business world of gaming.  I'll sum it up, when PC gamers learn they aren't owed anything by these companies, they aren't a privileged upper class of gaming they'll realize their responsibility towards gaming is to support the products they want to see succeed.  COD4 did not sell enough on PC, that's all there is to it. "

"This.  For as much shit PC gamers get away with, they sure like to bitch and moan when something doesn't go their way.  "

" i agree about jakob taking that statement way way to far. pc has deffinetly been THE leading innovator in online gaming. it was around on the pc for what, like a decade before other systems? and its still by far the best system for online gaming.the pc has also also been the leading innovator of many genres like fps's, rts's, mmo's, flight/space sims etc (the three latter of which have never really seen a successfull adaption to consoles, and neither of which have ever been as good on consoles as on pc) but as far as other genres and types of gaming consoles and arcades have been the leading innovators. you cant say that things like fighting games or devil may cry grew out of or was influenced by pc gaming :\ "

" @Diamond said:

" @jakob187 said:

@Diamond: Why the FUCK do I bother with you?  You play devil's advocate every single time, and instead of looking at the WHOLE of an argument, you always want to fragment it.  Moreover, your arguments seem to care more about supporting the ideas of BUSINESS than the ideas of GAMING.

Because I'm rational and you know that?  I play devil's advocate because that's all there is in the business world of gaming.  I'll sum it up, when PC gamers learn they aren't owed anything by these companies, they aren't a privileged upper class of gaming they'll realize their responsibility towards gaming is to support the products they want to see succeed.  COD4 did not sell enough on PC, that's all there is to it. "

It has NOTHING to do with being owed something, for fuck's sake!!!  It has to do with the PLATFORM IT IS BEING RELEASED ON!  PC gaming with matchmaking is absolutely senseless.  The next thing you'll be fucking telling me is that all PC gamers should be using a controller for every game!!!  The POINT of PC gaming is that it is an open source.  Limiting that OPEN SOURCE is destructive to gaming in general.  Without a mod community, Left 4 Dead wouldn't have existed...as it originally started as a mod.  Portal is another case.  Battlefield 1942's lifespan wouldn't have been NEARLY as long with the release of the Desert Combat mod (and IN TURN, leading to a majority of that mod's studio staff BECOMING EMPLOYEES AT DICE AND WORKING ON BATTLEFIELD 2). 
 
MW2 doing this means that they are trying to lead a trend in limiting the PC community's abilities to BE FUCKING CREATIVE!!! 
 
@MAN_FLANNEL said:

"This.  For as much shit PC gamers get away with, they sure like to bitch and moan when something doesn't go their way.  "

It's amazing how much console gamers will bitch about something they don't understand. "

It has NOTHING to do with being owed something, for fuck's sake!!!  It has to do with the PLATFORM IT IS BEING RELEASED ON!  PC gaming with matchmaking is absolutely senseless.

The POINT of PC gaming is that it is an open source.  Limiting that OPEN SOURCE is destructive to gaming in general.

Without a mod community, Left 4 Dead wouldn't have existed...as it originally started as a mod.  Portal is another case.

" @jakob187 said:

" @Diamond said:

" @jakob187 said:

@Diamond: Why the FUCK do I bother with you?  You play devil's advocate every single time, and instead of looking at the WHOLE of an argument, you always want to fragment it.  Moreover, your arguments seem to care more about supporting the ideas of BUSINESS than the ideas of GAMING.

Because I'm rational and you know that?  I play devil's advocate because that's all there is in the business world of gaming.  I'll sum it up, when PC gamers learn they aren't owed anything by these companies, they aren't a privileged upper class of gaming they'll realize their responsibility towards gaming is to support the products they want to see succeed.  COD4 did not sell enough on PC, that's all there is to it. "

It has NOTHING to do with being owed something, for fuck's sake!!!  It has to do with the PLATFORM IT IS BEING RELEASED ON!  PC gaming with matchmaking is absolutely senseless.  The next thing you'll be fucking telling me is that all PC gamers should be using a controller for every game!!!  The POINT of PC gaming is that it is an open source.  Limiting that OPEN SOURCE is destructive to gaming in general.  Without a mod community, Left 4 Dead wouldn't have existed...as it originally started as a mod.  Portal is another case.  Battlefield 1942's lifespan wouldn't have been NEARLY as long with the release of the Desert Combat mod (and IN TURN, leading to a majority of that mod's studio staff BECOMING EMPLOYEES AT DICE AND WORKING ON BATTLEFIELD 2). 
 
MW2 doing this means that they are trying to lead a trend in limiting the PC community's abilities to BE FUCKING CREATIVE!!! 
 
@MAN_FLANNEL said:

"This.  For as much shit PC gamers get away with, they sure like to bitch and moan when something doesn't go their way.  "

It's amazing how much console gamers will bitch about something they don't understand. "

Your right, I am the one who is bitching.  I am the one who wrote three pages of text about connecting to matches in a fucking video game.    "

The argument that Diamond is trying to make...somehow...is that since the console version sells the most, that's the model that should be followed through and through.  He solely looks at it from a BUSINESS aspect.  That's Bobby Kotick speaking.  I'm looking at it from the aspect of what is best for the GAME!  On consoles, sure...this IW.NET thing and matchmaking is probably the best option, as consoles are limited in what they can actually do.  PC is NOT limited...until now!  There could've been someone who made a mod for the game that would make IW go "man, we should hire those guys, as they've got some killer ideas".  Instead, they are now giving the pretentious "we know what's best for you".

" @jakob187 said:

The argument that Diamond is trying to make...somehow...is that since the console version sells the most, that's the model that should be followed through and through.  He solely looks at it from a BUSINESS aspect.  That's Bobby Kotick speaking.  I'm looking at it from the aspect of what is best for the GAME!  On consoles, sure...this IW.NET thing and matchmaking is probably the best option, as consoles are limited in what they can actually do.  PC is NOT limited...until now!  There could've been someone who made a mod for the game that would make IW go "man, we should hire those guys, as they've got some killer ideas".  Instead, they are now giving the pretentious "we know what's best for you".

You want me to argue what's best for the game?  I believe the game should have graphics twice as good as Crysis, be coded at assembly level specific for every piece of hardware available.  The game should take 40 hours to beat with NO downtime or backtracking BS we see in games.  It should ship with 100 MP maps all designed as well as the classics of gaming.  DLC should be free forever, and they should ship you the hardware to play the game optimally for free because that'd be awesome as well.  It's pointless to argue the ideal because it's impossible.  It's fine to argue for what you want, but don't start believing things are likely or true when they're not.  It's nice to be hopeful, but you should have a grounding for your hopes. "

they were necessary changes required for the implementation of prestige mode which is a big part of the game.

@Diamond: All true, so the individual console gamer does not subsidise the individual PC gamer in any way at all.  The console market as a whole may be (is) most responsible for the game existing in it's current form, but that seems to be a different point to saying 'Console gamers have basically been supporting PC gaming financially for the last 3 years'.  That isn't the case: you, as a console gamer, are not paying more as a result of the PC market - if anything you should be paying less, because the (almost) identical development costs are spread over more customers, even if it is only 10% more.  So long as the dev cycle is shared, seperating the end user into 'console gamers' and 'PC gamers' seems completely arbitrary.  In the current multi-play business model, we are essentially identical.

" they were necessary changes required for the implementation of prestige mode which is a big part of the game. "

no reason to buy it then... piracy is it !

Well that's fucking stupid.

Jesus people, calm down. Writing walls of text and insulting each other is not going to get us anywhere.   With the way Activision has been running things into the ground, I'm personally not even considering buying the game.

" no reason to buy it then... piracy is it ! "

" they were necessary changes required for the implementation of prestige mode which is a big part of the game. "

EVERY ONE STRIKE THIS GAME!!! EVEN 360 AND PS3 GUYS, BECAUSE ACTIVISION SUCKS!!!!11
 
HALO 4 LIFE BITCHES!!!111111111  AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!1
 

" they were necessary changes required for the implementation of prestige mode which is a big part of the game. "