Infinity Ward and Activision crap on PC gamers

[ArmadonRK]

Let's assume that because of the sheer monetary difference, you can't class PC gamers and console gamers together.

I mean, sure "hardcore" players are the minority, they always are, but casual PC gamers are not really comparable to casual console gamers.

The casual console gamer doesn't seem to mind matchmaking. The same cannot be said for 'casual' PC gamers, as these are people who have spent money (and maybe time) on a PC for playing games rather than (or in addition to) a console. In other words, there's a reason a person chooses PC or console. If they were both the same, what would be the choice?

2 things to state:

1) The PC gamer (hardcore or casual) is looking for a different experience on PC than console.

2) On average, the PC gamer (casual or hardcore) has a better understanding of the technical side of their gaming experience than the console gamer.

And so the homogenizing of console and PC gaming is a mistake because there's already a disparity between the two groups. PC gamers have chosen PC gaming for a reason, and to assume that they want exactly the same things console gamers are okay with is not an intelligent way to design a game.

And let's face it, the capabilities of a PC versus a console are very different, and that's why online gaming is so different between the two platforms.

PC gaming benefits from dedicated server support, from server connection to customization to the player's ability to community building.

PC gaming has consisted largely of, if not mostly, servers building a playerbase. The most popular servers are predominantly played on by 'regulars'. People choose the best servers to return to, for whichever of the above reasons they wish.

Sure, matchmaking serves a purpose, but to NOT have dedicated server support alongside it AT LEAST is detrimental to a PC game. PC games have lived by dedicated servers for most of their lives, because of the more numerous options and technical superiorities that come with them. Ad hoc gaming was not created as a superior alternative, it was created as a simpler one. In the case of consoles, it was the more appropriate measure, while dedicated server support was not as feasible.

Another thing to note is how the popularity of games can often depend on communities (such as this one) supporting it. By running a server. Now that such communities and sites and groups and leagues can no longer do so, that's a fair-sized drop in the playerbase from what would be, essentially, 'word of mouth' advertising. Those who might find incentive to buy the game because they know of such a server might not anymore.

To be frank, I don't see the release going forward without a change to this policy, public opinion of this announcement has been pretty unanimous, and it's not just the "hardcore" gamers complaining. If it does go forward as is, I honestly do expect we'll see the outcome in reduced sales.

[Dyne]

Sorry, but I find Game Informer to be a pathetic excuse for a fanboy fest. Unless it's the biggest, baddest mainstream game ever to see the light of a release date, they take a crap on it. Nothing personal, but I've read Game Informer, and I don't like what I've read.

Also, it really sucks to be a PC player when it comes to dedicated servers for MW2 I suppose. Oh well, I'll stick to my PS3 or 360 copy (haven't decided yet, most likely PS3).

By the way, crying about something like this is really that, crying. Honestly, I never really got into the dedicated servers with CoD4: MW. Why? Meh, same reasons most everyone else, too many idiots, jackasses and cheaters, and a lack of interest since half the time finding a server that wasn't crowded was difficult for me. So they want to focus on the player experience, so what? Cry some more I say. Their game, their ideas, their way of doing it. If nobody likes it, don't buy the game, that's how you send the message. Not an online petition (who really thinks those work anyway?), nor angry hate mail or phone calls or BS like that. You want to make a dent in the machine? Boycott. Plain and simple, you hit them where it hurts the most, the wallet.

And if they get all angsty and cry and say "we're not makin' shit no mo'". Well, you can see where their loyalties lie at that point. But that's a worst case scenario.

Anyway, I look forward to the game.

[Strike911]

It'll be a little weird without dedicated servers, but I'm not a huge online gamer so I can deal. For me, I'm honestly looking forward to the single player experience more than the multiplayer one.

I, too, have never really got attached to any single dedicated servers. I can see the theoretical utility in having them, but more often than not it just facilitates digital cliques, which I loathe enough in reality, much less subjecting myself to playing/talking with them. Every once in a while on the old CoDs I could find a rifle's only dedicated server, but I honestly don't care that much to make a big hoopla about it for Modern Warfare 2.

I guess IW just wants more control over their game. Maybe they can more adequately control cheating this way, which I wouldn't be against.

[JoeFu]

Cheating will not be down at all. No kick/ban, they're using vac. Cheating will either go up or stay the same.

[ProjectJusticeX]

JoeFu knows his stuff, he is 100% right and I can't believe how quick people are to accept a worse setup for online gaming. This isn't something like "oh you don't know how it will be until it comes out" things, we got away from P2P FPS playing for a reason.

The only logical reason why IW is doing this is for money and control. Yeah I know "ALL COMPANYS WANT TO MAKE MONEY" but that doesn't change the fact that the game will be worse because of it.

[Schwaltzvald]

JoeFu knows his stuff, he is 100% right and I can't believe how quick people are to accept a worse setup for online gaming. This isn't something like "oh you don't know how it will be until it comes out" things, we got away from P2P FPS playing for a reason.

The only logical reason why IW is doing this is for money and control. Yeah I know "ALL COMPANYS WANT TO MAKE MONEY" but that doesn't change the fact that the game will be worse because of it.

I think it's safe to say they haven't lived through the horror of P2P FPS just yet; either that or haven't truly experienced a good time on a PC multiplayer game.

[Bahamut]

JoeFu knows his stuff, he is 100% right and I can't believe how quick people are to accept a worse setup for online gaming. This isn't something like "oh you don't know how it will be until it comes out" things, we got away from P2P FPS playing for a reason.

The only logical reason why IW is doing this is for money and control. Yeah I know "ALL COMPANYS WANT TO MAKE MONEY" but that doesn't change the fact that the game will be worse because of it.

And yet he did not once tackle the well-known problems that IW mentioned in that GI article (as shitty as the rest of it was). The current piss poor incarnation of dedicated servers in general needs some sort of massive tweak to address longstanding issues with online gaming that it devolved to. Just because someone may game hardcore and circlejerk into a hive mind doesn't mean that they share a view that's conducive to playing with others in an entertaining environment. Just the opposite, if you go look around, you will usually find most gamers being disenchanted with huge aspects of the current system.

As I said, there are massive flaws with the dedicated server setup that could use addressing for a better online experience for most. I'm not saying matchmaking is the cure, but at least IW acknowledges those issues and is trying to find a solution (although Activision probably taints the solution), unlike most hardcore gamers. This is exactly why I wouldn't want to hire a hardcore gamer for game design - the maturity & thoughtfulness needed for good game design is just few and far, and I think this thread illustrates that pretty clearly.

And even worse, lashing out at everyone for not sharing your view 100% just shows that you're full of rage & gives the impression you can't be taken seriously - at least show a degree of civility.

And before people say I don't know how dedicated servers or blah blah blah work - I run the OCR TF2 server, so yes, I know exactly what the environment is like, and what the problems are.

[ProjectJusticeX]

This is exactly why I wouldn't want to hire a hardcore gamer for game design

Then let us be thankful you don't aren't in charge of any game development.

cheaters, the insular communities, and huge skill level disparities

Cheating isn't going away on pc titles, people still cheat with VAC and they will cheat with the new system.

The "problem" of insular communties will be replaced with the problem of dealing with thousands of 12 year olds calling me a fag every time I kill them, which is exactly how it works when I play on Xbox Live.

Huge skill level disparities isn't a problem. As long as your game has some semblance of depth, there will be huge skill level disparities.

[Bahamut]

Then let us be thankful you don't aren't in charge of any game development.

Be thankful for yourself I guess, although I don't see how that validates ignoring the existing well-known problems as if they'll go away. Not once has this point been tackled by the whiners of the thread, which leads me to believe they have no answer. Those who aren't willing to even consider those issues are the ones with no business in game development, wouldn't you agree? If you aren't paying attention to the most gamers as possible, you've failed in game design in furthering product, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, most hardcore gamers trying to armchair game design don't understand the basics of game design and don't consider that they might be possibly in the minority. Trying to tackle the problem of making online gaming a better experience for most is suddenly a bad thing? The arrogance of some online PC gamers that only they know right is laughable.

[ProjectJusticeX]

Just because "the hardcore" haven't solved the problem doesn't mean a new solution is better just because it's new. This P2P system solves nothing and creates more problems. Case in point, Quake Live.

It uses a skill based match making system that is supposed to solve the problem of "huge skill level disparities". It doesn't work at all. People still complain because other people are "too good". There are still botters who are running up the leaderboards. People don't really talk unless it's to berate someone for being too good or not good enough. And then add the fact that people are now complaining about not enough maps and how they want new game types. How are things better?

However all of these problems are forgivable for Quake Live because it's in beta. They are trying to fix these problems, and moreover when they come out of beta they will release with dedicated server support because in the end dedicated servers are the best option we have at the moment for pc shooters. I'm not saying it's the best solution we will ever have, but I have yet to see any evidence once so ever that P2P is anything but inferior.

[SotSS]

P2P FPS multiplayer... sorry, but there's no excuse for that shit. None.

FPS' are (or should be) about skill. There is no skill in kicking someone's ass because you're the host, or getting cheap killed by the guy who is.

[Dunnowhathuh]

That said, I predict CoD8 PC (if it's even released on PC at all) will disable mouse & kb support for an "equal" experience.

Haha, that's so true. I'd probably kill myself if that happened to all FPS's though, part of the reason I'm still a PC gamer is because I don't like aiming with a controller.

In terms of this whole fiasco, this whole thing is an obvious fail (despite some of you seemingly defending it on its "merits" which confuses me slightly) but I don't think there's much point in debating it, Activision are pricks and they're gonna implement it regardless. Maybe back in the day when PC gamers ruled, yeh, complaining about it would've brought about change but 1. this is activition and 2. there aren't enough hardcore PC gamers who care left in the world to change their minds. Truth is, a good chunk of PC gamers nowadays will accept it regardless whether it be because they're too young to remember the days when PC gaming was awesome or because they just don't care anymore. Even the gaming media don't care anymore. Example - when was the last time anyone reviewed the PC version of a multiplatform game first? Not for a long time, that's when.

I'm gonna ignore the game (or at most not bother buying it until it's cheap) not because I'm trying a futile boycott but because it'll stop me from getting pissed off. No point whining about a game you don't own right? (at least for me anyway). As of this moment in time, I couldn't give a rat's ass if Activision and IW just gave up making games for the PC altogether.

[EdgeCrusher]

BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT!!

Wait, this isn't a L4D2 thread.....

[Schwaltzvald]

BOYCOTT BOYCOTT BOYCOTT!!

Wait, this isn't a L4D2 thread.....

It may as well be.

[Wina A. Kamlongera]

It may as well be.

L4D2MW...we...West side!!

Okay...that came out smarter in my head...damn, many things do...

[sephfire]

1UP.com just put up a story on the issue.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3176593

They covered it pretty thoroughly, including a pro/con list. Much better than having to read Game Informer anyway.

[Schwaltzvald]

1UP.com just put up a story on the issue.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3176593

They covered it pretty thoroughly, including a pro/con list. Much better than having to read Game Informer anyway.

Picking from the article~

the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 is littered with more than 125 1-star reviews, most all of which are complaining about IWNet and the perceived restraints it brings with it. It's clear that we're not dealing with a few fanboys who are crying foul, even if it is nothing more than the vocal minority.

"We're just prioritizing the player experience above the modders and the tuners." And clearly, the outrage is coming from the community that worships (more like actually have an awesome time with you stupid fuck nuts!) both mods and clan servers very highly. The simple solution would be to offer both server browsing and matchmaking, but West rightly concludes that doing so would "bifurcate the community."

why gamers should be happy with the move to IWNet -- most notably, fewer cheaters, a party system, and matchmaking.

SPECIAL NOTE*

It's important to know that the term "dedicated servers" refers to a server that is acting as the host for a game session, collecting and sending data to all of the players in that particular game. This is opposed to a peer-to-peer setup that has one player acting as the host, which is neither as efficient nor as fair as a dedicated server. Dedicated servers are often run by individuals or clans who opt to run custom content in the form of user-made maps, weapons, player skins, and so on. rarely if ever will you find a console game with the sheer number of servers that you do with many PC games. And "mods" don't necessarily refer to the cheats or hacks that a console gamer might think of when they hear the term -- they can consist of user-made maps, new weapons, re-skinned characters, and more (the screen above shows a zombie mod for Call of Duty 4).

What this really comes down to is a matter of choice. IWNet eliminates much of the choices and freedom that PC gamers have enjoyed for years, and it's also removing one of the greatest advantages to playing games on a PC in mod support.

For goodness sakes, CoD:MW makes the original Half-Life (in its ugly glory nowadays but with awesome content) look infinitely much more appealing. No amount of eye candy can make up for the bullshit thats occuring for CoD:MW.

Then again I've always looked at the CoD series as mediocre at best.

[Wina A. Kamlongera]

Really informative article. Nice.

Ah, I can imagine afternoon tea between Valve and IW...'You thought you guys could fuck them over? We out-fucked you here'

When a team starts multi-platforming, I guess they begin to take up multi-platform habits (earlier sequals, paving way for DLC).

So the option for dedicated servers still remains even after release, right?

[sephfire]

I get the feeling they could patch it in. Hopefully, the fuss will be big enough that they cave in.

I like that they're trying to solve some online gaming problems, but I'm not sure I understand why they don't allow both matchmaking and dedicated servers. Not wanting to "bifurcate the community" sounds pretty flimsy in the face of all this negative feedback.

[phill]

I get the feeling they could patch it in. Hopefully, the fuss will be big enough that they cave in.

I like that they're trying to solve some online gaming problems, but I'm not sure I understand why they don't allow both matchmaking and dedicated servers. Not wanting to "bifurcate the community" sounds pretty flimsy in the face of all this negative feedback.

It's more then a little flimsy, it's straight up ridiculous and smells of bullshit(piracy check?). The one thing that leaves me shacking my head is how including dedicated servers in the matchmaking process would improve things for everyone but instead they figure the console model is better. They could keep their piracy check if they just forced the dedicated server to report to the matchmaking server, or force players to connect through the matchmaking server(just initial connection) and the PC community could keep their custom maps, mods, and heavily tweaked game play settings.

[Schwaltzvald]

As PC gamers are complaining, why shouldn't predominantly console gamers demand dedicated servers as well? At the very least they would alleviate lag issues for the 360/PS3 among other things.

[sephfire]

As PC gamers are complaining, why shouldn't predominantly console gamers demand dedicated servers as well? At the very least they would alleviate lag issues for the 360/PS3 among other things.

The fact that we choose to play these games with controllers on consoles probably indicates that most of us aren't too bothered by it. Besides which, game companies have already conditioned us to accept paying for map packs and such, and I highly doubt they would give that up for functionality we aren't really demanding.

[DarkeSword]

All the stuff about prioritizing the player and improving the experience is just lip service. Activision just wants to sell map packs. It's not about cheating or hacking or anything like that. Activision's modus operandi is to "exploit" their properties, and the easiest way to do that is by charging us for content that would normally be available to PC gamers for free. There's no question in my mind that Activision is going to roll out some kind of IWNet Marketplace after this game drops. They want to cash in, so they're building an infrastructure that gives them control.

[phill]

As PC gamers are complaining, why shouldn't predominantly console gamers demand dedicated servers as well? At the very least they would alleviate lag issues for the 360/PS3 among other things.

It also requires a level of interaction with the game and console that console gamers aren't use to or interested in. I've never heard of dedicated server where someone hasn't sat down at some point and edited config files and I don't see many console gamers interested in that. And if you are suggesting running the dedicated server on a PC for the console, well I don't have a decent retort for that since I can see a number of bonuses to that.

[lazygecko]

I believe Quake 3 for Dreamcast supported dedicated servers.