It's the End of the War as We Know It

[scotth266]

You know what? If it weren't for what Funk mentioned: that ridiculous sense of ENTITLEMENT that's been on full display with some ragers around here, everyone WOULD be taking this VERY seriously. But when you get people acting like dicks around an important issue, everyone focuses on hating the dicks, and the issue gets neglected.

I don't like the complete dropping of dedis myself (being a avid TF2 player, I can appreciate their ups and downs), but I've been forced to play Devil's Advocate for Infinity Ward. There were too many people who just automatically started raging over the issue instead of offering constructive criticism, and that turned the moderates/console gamers against them. Nobody is taking the lack of dedis seriously thanks to the ragers, and because the ragers won't shut up, they're making themselves (and therefore their position by extension) hated more and more. You can see this with the increasing numbers of "Shut up about MW2/Dedis and just enjoy the game" posts that have been showing up.

Once the ragers are gone/shut up for a few days, you'll find that there will be a lot more people against dropping dedis. As the saying goes: cool heads will prevail.

 

[BenzSmoke]

I knew dropping dedicated servers was a bad thing. But I didn't know it was that bad!
But remember, just because MW2 and Rage dropped dedicated servers doesn't mean every game will.

 

[tobyornottoby]

I mean no disrespect but this all kind of sounds like a horse drawn carriage enthusiast complaining about automobiles.

It's actually automobile enthusiasts complaining about being forced to ride a horse drawn carriage because "All the Amish do it, we just wanna let you have the same great experience. Also Amish don't lean."

No, the automobile enthusiasts are forced to ride horse drawn carriages because gasoline has become too expensive. Whether automobiles or carriages are superior is irrelevant, the automobile just isn't sustainable in today's world

 

[Woe Is You]

I mean no disrespect but this all kind of sounds like a horse drawn carriage enthusiast complaining about automobiles.

It's actually automobile enthusiasts complaining about being forced to ride a horse drawn carriage because "All the Amish do it, we just wanna let you have the same great experience. Also Amish don't lean."

No, the automobile enthusiasts are forced to ride horse drawn carriages because gasoline has become too expensive. Whether automobiles or carriages are superior is irrelevant, the automobile just isn't sustainable in today's world

That analogy fails simply because this issue isn't about cost at all. IWNet is actually more expensive now and in the long run than doing it the old-fashioned way.

 

[tobyornottoby]

What was IW's reason for removing dedicated server support from the PC version, anyway?

Greed <.< They still want the money from PC gamers however small the community is ($60 price tag) but they dont want to put in the leg work to make it different than the console versions. So to sum it all up they are greedy sons of bitches. (mind you id be more than happy to give them the extra $10 if they kept the multiplayer like that of Cod4:MW)

You might've, but the problem probably is that not enough people would to make it feasible

 

[tobyornottoby]

I mean no disrespect but this all kind of sounds like a horse drawn carriage enthusiast complaining about automobiles.

It's actually automobile enthusiasts complaining about being forced to ride a horse drawn carriage because "All the Amish do it, we just wanna let you have the same great experience. Also Amish don't lean."

No, the automobile enthusiasts are forced to ride horse drawn carriages because gasoline has become too expensive. Whether automobiles or carriages are superior is irrelevant, the automobile just isn't sustainable in today's world

That analogy fails simply because this issue isn't about cost at all. IWNet is actually more expensive now and in the long run than doing it the old-fashioned way.

But then, what is the reason?

 

[Woe Is You]

But then, what is the reason?

They gain the ability to control what the players are playing. Being able to sell you map packs because they're the only source for them since there's no player-made content. And if they get lucky enough to have gamers getting used to playing on such a closed system, they might just try to start charging for it.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I am not the biggest PC gamer, so pardon me for asking:

Isn't the communities linked to the games a big flaw in the PC as a gaming platform? Should game companies really cater to a flawed platform if that doesn't really bring any increased revenue?

And lets face it, the PC is no longer the superior platform it once was, the consoles have gained so much ground the past few years, and most gamers are not so elitist that they "can't see how you can play without a mouse and keyboard"...

Besides if you are serious about keeping a game community going like the one you see on PS3 and 360 why not figure out ways to do so?
You do know steam is more than just a game store right? It's also a good way to keep in touch with other gamers...

In the end all the whining about PC being left behind is just reinforcing the stereotype PC gamer as an Elitist Jerk that looks down upon other gamers for choosing a different platform...

 

[Woe Is You]

Besides if you are serious about keeping a game community going like the one you see on PS3 and 360 why not figure out ways to do so?

Activision isn't making an effort there, really. They started running their own proprietary system (for one game) that has nothing to do with Steam. And the thing with Steam is that it's just one system, plenty of others around: Direct2Drive, Impulse and a couple others are competing for the same market.

It's all well to suggest that all PC gamers should be buying their games from one source and use a unified system but then you're basically getting rid of what makes the PC unique in the first place: the fact that it's an open platform.

 

[Aurgelmir]

Besides if you are serious about keeping a game community going like the one you see on PS3 and 360 why not figure out ways to do so?

Activision isn't making an effort there, really. They started running their own proprietary system (for one game) that has nothing to do with Steam. And the thing with Steam is that it's just one system, plenty of others around: Direct2Drive, Impulse and a couple others are competing for the same market.

It's all well to suggest that all PC gamers should be buying their games from one source and use a unified system but then you're basically getting rid of what makes the PC unique in the first place: the fact that it's an open platform.

You do not have to buy the games through Steam to enjoy the benefits... I add games to the steam launcher all the time, lets others see what I am doing, without me having bought the game through there.

Also the open platform is unique for the PC, but its also one of the reasons it's getting left behind. It seems you want an open system and yet the same benefits a closed system gains... isn't that a bit much to ask?
That is why I suggest the PC community stop complaining and look for solutions, that doesn't involve special treatment from the game developer. Where there is a will there is a way.

As for some of the other parts that the original post talks about, mods leading to games and such. Yeah that I agree is an issue, it is a shame, but again there needs to be solutions to this problem as well?

 

[Spitfire175]

I feel like someone read my thoughts and wrote them down. Line by line.

I'm going to start posting a link to that article whenever I see a thread about MW2.

Ninja'd big time.

I cannot put enough emphasis on the point made about mods and modding.

 

[tobyornottoby]

But then, what is the reason?

They gain the ability to control what the players are playing. Being able to sell you map packs because they're the only source for them since there's no player-made content. And if they get lucky enough to have gamers getting used to playing on such a closed system, they might just try to start charging for it.

ic oh well in the end it's always about the munneh

 

[Woe Is You]

You do not have to buy the games through Steam to enjoy the benefits... I add games to the steam launcher all the time, lets others see what I am doing, without me having bought the game through there.

Sure but here's the thing: what if all my friends are on XFire (or another similar software/protocol) and none of them are using Steam? People like these exist and... while a person might convince one or two friends to move, if he has say 20 of them, it'll be a nigh impossible task to do.

Anyhow, this is only one of the points that were being discussed and a lot would argue that the former, open way wasn't too bad after all.

It seems you want an open system and yet the same benefits a closed system gains... isn't that a bit much to ask?

What are these benefits from closed systems that are being asked?

That is why I suggest the PC community stop complaining and look for solutions, that doesn't involve special treatment from the game developer.

You know, I'd understand this kind of suggestion if it weren't for the fact that their current solution was far more expensive (and will continue to be far more expensive in the long run) than the past system they were using for COD4. Dedicated servers for these sorts of games are largely community-operated, so after a while server costs basically drop down to nothing as IW themselves don't have to host any servers at all.

As for special treatment, I'm all for console gamers getting the benefits PC players have been used to having. Not the other way round where a game has to be gimped on one platform to achieve the exact same experience everywhere. I personally hate the idea of an open platform being squandered like this. The idea that once I got a game, I can do just about anything I want with it. Being able to dick around with a game once I've gotten tired of playing it vanilla... well, that's partly what fascinates me about games in the first place.

 

[Alux]

Now see, I'm curious, just how much extra would DS support cost? Because if it's some outrageous amount, IW could just charge some "nominal" monthly fee for access.

Myself, I haven't bought Modern Warfare 2 yet but only because it's too expensive, but I think I'd be willing to pay something like $4.99/month for DS support.

I intend to get it anyway when it drops in price, but they could lower the price, charge the monthly bugger, and still rake in the money at the rate it's been selling.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Now see, I'm curious, just how much extra would DS support cost? Because if it's some outrageous amount, IW could just charge some "nominal" monthly fee for access.

Would be a lot cheaper than what they invested in IWNet. Dedicated servers were already in Modern Warfare, and MW2 runs on the same base code. Wouldn't have taken very long and it would have been much cheaper in the long run. But, money talks and I'm sure the $300 million+ Infinity Ward made in the first 5 days is pretty loud right now.

 

[Chrissyluky]

These things make me glad i no longer preorder anything not made by valve and bioware.

 

[VanBasten]

IW could just charge some "nominal" monthly fee for access.

Access to what exactly?

Dedicated servers cost nothing to IW as players themselves run them.

Now if you're suggesting IW host the only servers and charge access to them that's another thing and I'm afraid we're most likely going to see this in MW3. And that will be so wrong on a whole other level.

 

[PlasticTree]

Yeah yeah yeah. The entire article is made of truth, but it isn't made of anything we didn't know yet. I generally like your articles, but this one is definitely below average.

 

[Chadling]

If there's a code for an "applause" smiley, I'd be using it right now. Numbers 3 and 7 are by far the ones that I'm worried about the most. There are a number of servers on just about every game that I've played that I prefer--they generally promise a low-lag game where I can expect to be challenged and still have a lot of fun. Plus, they attract a lot of regulars.

And as for Number 7, that could kill PC gaming. I'm serious. The most popular multiplayer games are known as much for their user created content as they are the original game. I don't need to give examples.

And I'd love to see a PC handle a 64-player game of Battlefield. By "love", I mean that I'd be facepalming every five seconds, because that's one of the worst ideas that I've ever heard of.

 

[TheEggplant]

I realize things have a tendency to change after 20+ years, but does anyone remember when Activison were the trailblazing good guys?
They were taken to court by Warner Bros. Communications (Atari's parent company) and won. They broke the control of money-suits over proprietary platforms and ensured the legality of third-party development. Even the mighty Nintendo couldn't kill this idea no matter how hard they tried. Gamers have past-Activision to thank for the explosion of the hobby.
But present-Activison is now run by those same types of money-suits. Sociopathic Control Freaks whose fathers never hugged them. Freedom brings progress and profit. Chains bring stagnation and ruin.