PC version now WORTHLESS. No mods OR dedicated servers!

#101 Posted by Mikemcn (6955 posts) -
@jakob187 said:
"@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! "

Seeing as i now am going to preorder L4D, i bet valve is really happy too. (A 45 dollar game with good multiplayer and PC support., or a 60 dollar one with nothing but matchmaking, hmmmmmm)
#102 Posted by Symphony (1912 posts) -

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...

#103 Edited by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Binman88 said:

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?

Again, I'm not sure what all features it will have.  Like another poster said, party systems let you go from game to game with a friend, you'll both automatically be in every game.  If that feature isn't present it could obviously cause more problems.
 
@jakob187 said:

@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.

Call of Duty 1 came out in 2003 and it was a WW2 shooter...
 
@jakob187 said:

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

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.
 
@jakob187 said:

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

Me too man, I bought more games for PC this year than any other platform, but too many people aren't like us.  There are even people on forums gloating about how they'll pirate MW2 because of this.
 
@jakob187 said:

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.

These companies don't owe anyone anything, I learned that a long time ago when Nintendo stopped making as many games I cared about.  Who created what is completely irrelevant.  Nintendo created the directional pad, but people give them grief.  They're not taking away from the PC version, they're just not adding anything extra to it.  I definitely agree this is a degradation of standard PC game features.
 
@jakob187 said:

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

The opposite has always been true as well.  John Carmack's first game was a port of Super Mario Bros to PC.  Hell, most games stole dozens of concepts from Dungeons and Dragons and noone is bitching about that.
 
@jakob187 said:

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

Absolutely, and that's the part people should pay attention to.  Nothing about being 'owed' features.  If making shitty shovelware was always profitable, we'd never get any good games anywhere.  People have to put their money where their mouth is.
 
@jakob187 said:

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.

At this point the question is about bringing out the product on PC at all.  Personally I'm honestly surprised they still make PC versions of many multiplatform titles.  This isn't a insult against PC games or PC gaming, I'm honestly surprised companies can still afford to make PC games at all.  Locking down mods & not developing dedicated server support (that is, just porting the console version code to PC) is the best way for the companies to make money.  It's not right, but that's the way all gaming works.  It's business.
#104 Posted by SunKing (686 posts) -
@Symphony: That is completely plausible.
#105 Edited by Darniaq (43 posts) -

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)

#106 Edited by SunKing (686 posts) -

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.

#107 Posted by CandleJakk (766 posts) -

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.

#108 Posted by Hamz (6846 posts) -
@jakob187 said:
"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."
Completely agree with you. I would gladly throw down money on MW2 DLC as long as I still had dedicated server lists. But match making is not something I am greatly fond of even though I do now own a PS3. It just seems like a bit of a strange decision to go with match making for MW2 on the PC when COD4 had a brilliant dedicated server list option.
 
Somewhat conflicted now as to whether I want this game on the PC or PS3.
#109 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -
@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. 
 
@Symphony said:
" 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... "
To be honest, I can see that a lot of people are going to try finding a way to crack the code for allowing dedicated server play, and then they'll try to mask it via the private match setup and just do what they are already doing.  Regardless, BF2 offered a good dedicated server setup as well, and it's not like that game wasn't ridiculously successful...to the point that it is STILL being supported!!!
#110 Posted by SunKing (686 posts) -

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.

#111 Posted by Darniaq (43 posts) -
@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?
#112 Edited by SunKing (686 posts) -

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

#113 Posted by Binman88 (3684 posts) -
@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.
#114 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@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.
#115 Posted by SuperfluousMoniker (2907 posts) -

I'm not buying this game any more.

#116 Posted by Darniaq (43 posts) -
@Binman88 said:
" @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. "
Holy crap, really?
 
Ok, here's me joining the noise. 
 
Still not sure it'll really suck for me. I'm already on a couple of servers advertising their MW2 support. Guess it just means I write some shit down to connect to those servers.
 
But I'm definitely getting a Harrison Bergeron vibe here. Instead of making the X360 and PS3 versions have server lists with dedicated support, they instead gimpt the PC version. Probably because someone said "eh, fuckit, it's only a few nutjob PC users anyway".
#117 Posted by mordukai (7133 posts) -

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.

#118 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -
@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. "
This.
 
For as much shit PC gamers get away with, they sure like to bitch and moan when something doesn't go their way. 
#119 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -
@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.
 
Personally, I don't really care.  I don't play a lot of multiplayer, and when I do I don't give a shit about 'getting to know people' on servers anyway.  But I can see why those people would be pissed off about it.
 
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 there was a PC dev cycle operating at a loss and a console dev cycle operating at a profit then I would agree with you.  
 
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.
#120 Edited by mhkjtha (429 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL: This doesn't live up to the standards that pc games have had for years and years, why the hell should it become acceptable now?
if a game was released on a console without hd support or something else that is a given standard on consoles it wouldnt be acceptable either. this is the same thing
#121 Edited by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Jimbo said:

" @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.
True, they are investing money in a way it will give them the most returns.  Maybe to an extent it is an act of unnecessary greed too, I couldn't tell you what their bookkeeping exactly looks like.
 
@Jimbo said:

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.

The point is the console versions clearly sell the most.  Just making a PC, or PS3, or any version of a game isn't free, so sharing the same development cycle isn't relevant.  It would cost less to not make the game on PC, but they'd lose whatever sales they make, they must figure that amount is still worth it.  The point you got wrong is the making of the assets in general.  If it wasn't for the massive 360 and still respectable PS3 version sales, the game wouldn't be made at all, at least how it is.  PC gamers are paying for the PC port (as it is) and then some, while console versions are paying for the majority of the development.  PC gamers pay the same towards the game, but there are just less paying for the game (and not just because of piracy).
 
@Jimbo said:

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.

Obviously, but as we've seen in this thread, some PC gamers believe the PC platform's contribution to the series warrants special treatments outside the bounds of the business world.  The games wouldn't exist without the contributions of the first computers and consoles.  They wouldn't exist without id and probably wouldn't without Bungie making a new FPS market on consoles.  They wouldn't exist without gun makers and soldiers.
#122 Posted by mhkjtha (429 posts) -

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.

#123 Posted by Sticky_Pennies (2019 posts) -

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

#124 Edited by Famov (768 posts) -
@jakob187 said:

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.

#125 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -
@mhkjtha said:
" 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. "
Yeah well shit changes, deal with it. 
#126 Posted by ajamafalous (11847 posts) -

I will no longer be buying this game.

#127 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -
@Hamz said:
"Somewhat conflicted now as to whether I want this game on the PC or PS3. "
At this point, the only question to ask yourself is "mouse and keys...or controller"?
#128 Edited by mhkjtha (429 posts) -

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.

#129 Edited by jakob187 (21642 posts) -
@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. 
 
@mhkjtha said:
" 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 :\ "
I believe my original statement was that PC gaming has led the way for MODERN gaming.  Fighting games and action titles have been around for as long as the PC has... 
 
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".
#130 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -
@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.   
#131 Posted by PowerSerj (987 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL: Shut your whore mouth.
#132 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@jakob187 said:
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.
Well, this gives IW more money, so the PC side of sales can better justify a PC version existing.  I'm glad you recognize PC gamers aren't owed anything, but IW/Activision will have more control over the PC version this way.  As Jimbo pointed out, DLC sales and anti-piracy measures.  It also gives PC gamers reliable stat tracking, and will probably help anti-cheating control as well to an extent (in that you can ban people from even playing the game if they cheat and are caught).
 
@jakob187 said:
The POINT of PC gaming is that it is an open source.  Limiting that OPEN SOURCE is destructive to gaming in general.
PC gaming isn't open source, it's just more open.  Open source means you have the source code.  When a game is open source it dramatically increases cheaters as well.  As far as the PC version goes it will obviously limit modders making free content for PC gamers, and that's purely a business decision.  It's a feature PC gamers have come to expect, but as we both understand, shouldn't.  It's a reducing of features true, and not good for PC gaming or PC gamers.
 
@jakob187 said:
Without a mod community, Left 4 Dead wouldn't have existed...as it originally started as a mod.  Portal is another case.
Left 4 Dead and Portal existed on consoles without a mod community.  Left 4 Dead started as a mod Valve made within their own studios.  In house development doesn't require a modding community.  Some of Valve's people started in modding though and a lack of any modding community would decrease talent in games development which would in turn definitely hurt gaming as a whole to an extent.  Another example of in house development, by the way, was Mirror's Edge.  It started as a modified version of BF1942.  It wasn't a mod in the traditional sense, it was in house development, of course.  The point is developers are free to modify their own games without their own studios, obviously.
#133 Posted by Daimao (13 posts) -
MAN_FLANNEL is a troll. Don't even bother answering him.
#134 Posted by Symphony (1912 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL said:
" @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.    "
Goddammit, why am I getting all the replies to this stupid quarrel showing up in my inbox? I'm not even being @'d to and I keep clicking "Delete Permanently"
#135 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@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.
#136 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL: So all you've got is a load of personal attacks and complaints that aren't at all oriented to the actual discussion at hand? 
 
You are right.  I've bitched about connecting to matches in a fucking video game.  This is a video game forum, right?  I mean...I just wanted to make sure that I was in the right place.  If this is a forum about dog competitions and I'm bitching about video games...then I guess I'm in the wrong place.
#137 Posted by Jimbo (9772 posts) -
@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.
#138 Posted by mhkjtha (429 posts) -
@Diamond said:
" @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. "
what he's "hoping" for is stuff that has been standard for years. thus its more then hope, its having decent expecations.
#139 Posted by bjorno (1411 posts) -

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

#140 Posted by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@Jimbo said:
@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.
True, I'm not arguing from the consumer side, I'm arguing from the business side because that's what some people in this thread need to hear.  I don't disagree with those people on their points, but the hyperbole in the thread went too far.  BTW, I am not solely a console gamer, but I don't have the problems with console gaming some people have. 
 
Very true what you say that console gamers should be paying less, we really should.  I guess in a business sense they should also crank up PC game costs, but I'd be much happier if games just cost $20 new.
 
On the business side all platforms are not created equal.  I think we're at a point where IW/Activision probably don't care if their PC sales tank.  For what it's worth I believe PS3 gets a disproportionate amount of development focus as well, usually 2-3 times the programmers yet it sells less in most cases.  Maybe on a business side they support PS3 the way they do in hopes of not turning off PS3 owners as they have to PC gamers with this today.
#141 Edited by jakob187 (21642 posts) -
@bjorno said:

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

If I can have dedicated servers, I won't miss Prestige mode.  lol
#142 Edited by General_D23 (1201 posts) -

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. and from the looks of it, many other people aren't either. If someone wants to take this to the next step (I can't believe I'm suggesting it, but its getting a bit much), I'll be all for it.
#143 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

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

#144 Posted by lucas_kelly (769 posts) -

Well that's fucking stupid.

#145 Edited by Diamond (8634 posts) -
@General_D23 said:

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.

The best thing people that are upset about this can do is take their money and put it directly into another title they want to support.  Simply not buying it, buying it for a console, buying it later at a lower price, or pirating the game will ONLY make the situation worse for what you believe in.
 
 
@jakob187:  You want to get mad at someone and put them down, here's the kind you should be after, and not me :
 
 @Ahmad_Metallic said:
" no reason to buy it then... piracy is it ! "
#146 Posted by General_D23 (1201 posts) -
@Diamond:
I think it comes with the territory of absolutely not buying it that I'll take my money elsewhere and not buy it. Not going to pirate it and my Gamefly Q is full anyway.
#147 Posted by PowerSerj (987 posts) -
@bjorno said:
" they were necessary changes required for the implementation of prestige mode which is a big part of the game. "
What in the flying fuck are you talking about?
#148 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2462 posts) -

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

#149 Posted by PowerSerj (987 posts) -
@MAN_FLANNEL: You're not very good :/
#150 Posted by Darniaq (43 posts) -
@bjorno said:
" they were necessary changes required for the implementation of prestige mode which is a big part of the game. "
Why? I ask honestly. I have no idea.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.