A View From the Road: Unreasonably Dedicated

[300lb. Samoan]

What I don't understand - and what frankly has made me increasingly ashamed to call myself a PC gamer over the last few weeks - is the attitude. 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 don't believe this is the case. I believe the appeal in PC gaming has always been about the technological advantage. Some may take that as a point of pride, which can be VERY obnoxious, but I think most of us appreciate the heightened experience.

And the advantage of dedicated servers isn't purely technical, either. With a dedicated server there is always a central location for a group to meet, and that can as the foundation of strong gaming communities.

Think of dedicated servers as your local bar (let's call it a pub!) Match-making is equivalent to the local Wal-Mart. Both sell beer. Everyone and their neighbor goes to Wal-Mart, gets what they want, and they leave. Almost zero connections are made at Wal-Mart. The pub is completely different, some people come and go, some stick around for a little while, but a couple people keep coming back. A community develops around the regulars at that pub.

When I'm playing TF2 on my 360, I may see the same players from game to game but there's no acknowledgement. We just happen to be drifting down the same isle in the same supermarket. When I get home and can fire up TF2 on my PC, I'll be heading back to my ol' favorites list, and it's a good feeling to know that some of those players will remember me and welcome me back.

My problem with losing dedicated servers in modern games isn't as much about the technological implications, it's about the social ones.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Great article, but its not all that true

I could care less about call of duty, but what IW did is really a stab at PC gaming for a reason that I just don't get.

 

[CorpBlitz]

So he's basically saying "Yeah, it sucks that MW2 won't have dedicated servers or other features, just don't be so pretentious about it?" I guess I agree, although I understand why people are getting so angry. Like he said, PC gaming isn't a dominant market, so the outnumbered PC gamers feel like they need to be loud to be heard, even if it comes off as whiny.

And like Nimbus said, it's not like they're paying less attention to a smaller market. They are specifically changing the PC multiplayer system from what it used to be to something almost universally considered inferior. Infinity Ward and Activision are two video game giants. Many feel that they will open the gateway for more developers dropping dedicated servers, perhaps changing the face of PC gaming as we know it.

And therefore ruining fps multi player on PC forever. Dropping deticated server support is a mistake, and saying that it will be 'better' when it clearly is not is an even bigger mistake. I don't care if they don't make a game for PC, if they don't want to they just shouldn't not give us some PR drivel.

The reasons for dropping dedicated server support are fairly clear:

1. Most users cannot host a decent server as their upstream bandwidth is far to limited by ISP's not to mention the fact that running any form of 'server' is against most users ISP contracts.

2. Not having a server browser means you will almost always be playing with 'random' players.

3. 9 vs 9 player teams is the max, (for the very same reason as 1.) but even with that as the max, I can tell you right now most users will not be able to host a game that large.

 

[MR T3D]

I had a long detailed and reasonable post to put up, but Firefox crashed and lost it.

I'll drop it to three sentences.

We're not all elitists. We just want to stop the programmed obsolescence before it starts, and removing 15 year old standards without a reason stinks as bad as dropping licences that won't spawn sequels.
What does a PC owner do, who wasn't going to buy MW, when he knows that it will become a business model that others will use?

you've already bolded what i wanted to say: I wasn't going to buy MW2, i know my lil' brother IS going to get it this X-mas,(360) and I will almost certainly play it, and i have no doubt it will be somewhat fun, but what IW has demonstrated the past several weeks is scary, and i HOPE that others do not follow them, otherwise it will seem as though i will always just be playing CS & BF, until they too succumb (a very dark day) to the logic behind this shit.
I have no delusions that the system makes sense from their point of view, but i still have the right to hate what it means to ME

 

[saregos]

I think part of what makes PC gamers sore is that, in the past (and actually, in this case too, if I'm not mistaken), we haven't gotten the same thing as what other consoles get. We get something worse. Read: no co-op, no DLC in the majority of cases, huge delays in comparison to the console version, etc.

The issue is that we lose out on a lot of the strengths of the consoles, but usually there's been something to make up for that. True, graphics and the superior control system help, but that's just something fundamental to the console, just like support for an XBox 360 controller is something you should expect any 360 game to have. It's not a perk, it's a necessity.

So when we're told that features we've always anticipated having on a PC FPS like this (dedicated servers, large numbers of players allowed in multiplayer, console commands, no ability to kick someone out of a multiplayer game, etc) are completely unsupported, and also that we're expected to pay more than usual for the "privilege" of playing such a reduced game, it grates the nerves. Unfortunately, some of our PC brethren aren't exactly the best at articulating it, and there's no excuse for that.

That said, I think you're completely out of line here for attacking PC gamers, Funk... or at least out of line in saying these complaints are unfounded. The game is well below the level of quality we've seen in any other AAA game recently, and the only answer anyone has seen as to why is "because the game isn't balanced for that". It's a Neanderthal in everything but cost, and an absolute insult in that.

 

[saregos]

Not... really. In comparison to, say, COD4, maybe. But it isn't like there's stuff on the console version that they are actively withholding from the PC version.

Co-op called.

 

[moosek]

I've been a console gamer since the Playstation days. I've never cared for keyboard+mouse controls for FPS because of the most overlooked flaw in PC gameing; the keyboard. The mouse is fine, although I have gotten used to the resistance of an analog. The keyboard just doesn't feel very natural for movement after ten years of using an analog. I often forget what keys do what and lose hand position (though that's more of an issue with me than the input method).

 

[theSovietConnection]

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.

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.

Fair enough point, but there is a big problem with it. Nobody is forcing you to buy or play this game. As Funk said, if you were to have paid the $60 and then found out about all this, that is when you're argument can easily come into play unopposed. And I don't know, maybe you pre-ordered it before all this came out, in which place then I can see your anger. But the fact remains, until that is the situation, Activision isn't entitled to do anything for you. It's recommended they do so if they want to get anywhere, but they don't have to. Which is why you do the one thing you can. Buy other games. By supporting other games that still include all these features you hold near and dear, maybe Activision will get the message that these things are indeed important to the PC gaming experience. Or maybe they won't. And that's when the real focus of Capitalism will kick in, the real lesson it will teach them. Their sales will begin to deteriorate. Sure, maybe the PC version of MW2 wouldn't have been that large anyway, but it will still be money missed out on. Money going to other companies. And then maybe, as Activision starts wondering where there PC based profits have gone, they'll see what it is. And then they'll understand.

/rant

 

[sneakypenguin]

snip
The reasons for dropping dedicated server support are fairly clear:

1. Most users cannot host a decent server as their upstream bandwidth is far to limited by ISP's not to mention the fact that running any form of 'server' is against most users ISP contracts.

2. Not having a server browser means you will almost always be playing with 'random' players.

3. 9 vs 9 player teams is the max, (for the very same reason as 1.) but even with that as the max, I can tell you right now most users will not be able to host a game that large.

I have mid range dsl and I host matches on halo cod4 16 players perfectly fine. So surely the other millions with 30x faster cable modems would be fine.

 

[Chipperz]

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?

 

[Tony Harrison]

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.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

 

[Silva]

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.

 

[dippa]

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).

 

[Narcogen]

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.

 

[Georgeman]

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.