What is up with the d*ck moves by game companies this year?

[Shintsu2]

So to name the ones I know exist as of now; we have Modern Warfare 2 who decided to shaft PC customers out of an additional $10 for no reason, remove dedicated servers, lower the number of online players, and remove party chat on the 360; we have Forza 3 who decided to remove custom lobbies in favor of popular user lobbies; you have L4D2 with that whole spiel; and we have even more cases that I can't recollect or don't know of (Anyone else welcome to add to the list). Why are companies hellbent on pissing all over their fanbases? Did the game companies get together and decide "Hey, people are happy with our games. What can we do to change that? Let's just see how many features we can remove and options we can add in that no one likes and see if they all keep buying it." It seems to me as if game makers think games have too much "fun" to sell as is and need to lower the "fun" factor until it is equal only to a marginal amount of profit (Or do like Activision with MW2 - if this game is so great then you'll pay an extra $10 to play it just because it is what it is). The only way a game can be too fun is if the company that made it didn't follow with the master plan or if the game makes massive profit on an epic scale (But not if it's MW2).

I just don't understand it. It's really annoying the way game makers are just abusing their fan bases. We can't even get a proper Battlefield title out of DICE, just that totally rubbish Bad Company series. Anyone else have a theory about why these bad changes keep being made? Who are the changes supposed to benefit (Other than being different from the last version so you can't say it's just like the last one - as if that was ever a problem...)?

 

[Radeonx]

You fail to understand the object to a business.
They want to make money.
Some things are more of a "Fuck you, I'll do what I want" kind of thing, but they can do that because, well, with famous titles like Call of Duty, they can. L4D was simply blown out of the water due to a lack of an Episode 3.

I just don't understand it. It's really annoying the way game makers are just abusing their fan bases. We can't even get a proper Battlefield title out of DICE, just that totally rubbish Bad Company series.

You also misunderstand opinions.
While you disliked Bad Company, I liked it.
But, obviously, since I disagree with you, you are automatically right.

 

[Avatar Roku]

Being fair, the controversy with L4D2 was completely overblown, but the others really piss me off. With MW2, I suppose it can be summed up as "well, we can get a way with it..." but I don't know why they're starting now.

 

[Leorex]

no, people got spoiled. and now are whinney brats.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Though it only bothers me slightly

The 1st day DLC thing on DA:O is a tad bit annoying

 

[Avatar Roku]

no, people got spoiled. and now are whinney brats.

In the case of L4D2, you're absolutely right, but do people not have the right to expect that A)the standards of the past decade are adhered to or B)a core feature of Xbox live isn't thrown out for no reason?

 

[Zetona]

The obvious answer is that cutting features saves money.

With the case of MW2 on PC, it's not that they're ruining the PC game, it's just that they're making it as identical to the console game as possible in terms of pricing and features, presumably to increase profit margins. Since PC gamers are used to so much more, they got really pissed. Then again, why should a company add all sorts of extra features to the PC version if 60% of people playing its predecessor pirated it? (Slightly off topic, I know, but I had to get this off my chest.)

As for Forza 3's change in the lobby system, that's more relevant to me and I didn't know about it before. I'd be pissed if I played the multiplayer more often.

 

[shadow skill]

no, people got spoiled. and now are whinney brats.

In the case of L4D2, you're absolutely right, but do people not have the right to expect that A)the standards of the past decade are adhered to or B)a core feature of Xbox live isn't thrown out for no reason?

Of course not, they are supposed to take whatever the companies give them.

 

[Shintsu2]

To clarify, I had no problem on the L4D2 issue. I don't have L4D so a new one coming out is just as well to me. What's funny is how none of the "boycotters" will really boycott the game.

Bad Company is garbage - I'm comparing to the classic Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 (Although being a fan of the organization of Battlefield 1942, I find it superior to the successor). But Bad Company is no where near as...well, casual gamer-eqse and lame than Battlefield Heroes. I know it's supposed to be a new market game for some different group of people but to even put the Battlefield name on that...yuck. It's like NFS with that three branch thing - NFS Nitro for the fakey bad graphic Wii and DS only version, NFS Online for the online oriented one, and NFS Shift for the arcade racer that tries to act realistic (But fails horribly). Can't we just get a Battlefield 3? I don't even care what the setting is - it's the basic architecture of the game that allows for the mods that I enjoy far more than the original game. I played the Forgotten Hope mod so much on BF1942 that by sheer association with the title made me love BF1942 (Not to mention you did have other classics like Desert Combat).

Bad Company is no Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield 2...maybe okay to those of you who played it as the first experience with the Battlefield series but I've been playing since 1942 (Also including the failure that is Battlefield Vietnam).

 

[shadow skill]

The obvious answer is that cutting features saves money.

With the case of MW2 on PC, it's not that they're ruining the PC game, it's just that they're making it as identical to the console game as possible in terms of pricing and features, presumably to increase profit margins. Since PC gamers are used to so much more, they got really pissed. Then again, why should a company add all sorts of extra features to the PC version if 60% of people playing its predecessor pirated it? (Slightly off topic, I know, but I had to get this off my chest.)

As for Forza 3's change in the lobby system, that's more relevant to me and I didn't know about it before. I'd be pissed if I played the multiplayer more often.

Because taking out features is not going to make people buy the product. Something is very wrong with the all or nothing nature of the PC market. Piracy is a rebellion against being unable to resell or rent PC games which may not even work well on their PC even if the PC meets the requirements.

 

[Zephyros]

You fail to understand the object to a business.
They want to make money.

This is so wrong, I don't know where to begin. I'm so irritated it by it I had to retreat from lurker status and say something. I'm in general agreement with most of this thread, but this. If a company tries to make profit its number one priority, you get industry implosion like what happened to the music industry - the customers turning against them. By pursuing profit over and over again, the customers got more and more pissed off at their tactics and just turned against them entirely. Customers wanted good music, not one good song on a bad CD. The industry began to harmful to the genre, and people just wanted music. Just talk to any musician in the business and they will all say in unanimous unison just how awful/out of touch the suits at the top are.

The point of a business is to make and retain CUSTOMERS, not high profits. This is a very common misconception that is scaringly often touted as fact.

The reason why you are seeing game companies turning against you, the customer, is because that is indeed what they are doing. By pursuing profit and nothing but, they will end up with a shrinking and more pissed off fanbase. People will realize "Why should I take this?" and leave.

The companies that are and remain most succesful have a priority of making and retaining customers. It's absolutely no surprise whatsoever that Nintendo is making more money than the industry as a whole, and further that PS3 was doing awful until it cut its price down to a more manageable level and got a strong lineup of games. Apple is the same story, as well Valve.

In fact, Valve falls under the other extreme. They were TOO good to their custoemrs and they got greedy, whiny.

If a business does not try to get customers, it will see no profit. If it pursuies profit, eventually, they will inevitably start to remove freedoms from the customer in an effort to either make or money or stem costs from a bad financial/company move; in the end, they will have much less customers and a drastically shrinking profit margin in the long run.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

no, people got spoiled. and now are whinney brats.

Um, no.

Let me use MW2 as an example, which is basically the only one I cared about (notice the past tense as I'm not buying it anymore). Dedicated servers are and have been the benchmark of online pc gaming since it began. ALL COD games up to this point have employed the use of dedicated servers, why stop now? If you look at it from all angles, there is no beneficial reason to remove the use of dedicated servers in favour of this new IW.net thing. Best buy hosted an online chat session with a few members of MW2's dev and the general public. Here are some examples of the shit that went down:

Josh111: PC Question... What will the max amount of players per map be for PC multiplayer on IW.net

Vince-IW: 9v9

Okay. This is one where you are correct (somewhat) and we have been being spoiled a bit. Max players for COD4 was 64, and I'm sure the other games in the series had some amount close to that. Why such a short amount of player support per map? IW have basically said "fuck you" to clans, who, if large, can't possibly hope to enjoy medium-large scale clan v clan battles, and this whole 9v9 business is going to be a problem with even casual gamers aswell. It may be ok for many people who enjoy small scale battles, but why remove the flexibility?

Q: Is there a console in the PC version of the game, so we can change our field of view from the xbox's default 65 FOV to 80 also can we tweaks the weapon damage for each gun, removes perks, graphical debris, breathing sway, also thru console like we where able to before or is this all gone?

Vince-IW: We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it.

No console? Huh. Guess us PC gamers have just been "spoiled" with that one eh. Oh wait a second, access to the console in order to alter/tweak a game to your liking has looooooong been a fundamental asset of PC gaming.

kaRMa: Please give me a direct answer. On the PC version. Are all games hosted by players, and is there a five-second delay when host migration is in effect?

Vince-IW: yes.

Okay, this one doesn't seem as bad, but as further mentioned in the chat, players have no control over who hosts the match. This means if someone who lives halfway across the world and runs a dial up connection happens to host the match, the whole server is fucked until that player leaves, at which point someone else will, without request, have to host it. This means big lag issues are bound to become prominent.

Surely the kicker is this one:

Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?

Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.

Hmmm.... Okay.....I'm....No... I won't comment on that; you can decide for yourself whether or not we have a right to be "whinney brats"

Short answer yes
Long answer YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

 

[archyoda77]

still no episode 3.

 

[LoopyDood]

Spoiler: Snip

no, people got spoiled. and now are whinney brats.

Um, no.

Let me use MW2 as an example, which is basically the only one I cared about (notice the past tense as I'm not buying it anymore). Dedicated servers are and have been the benchmark of online pc gaming since it began. ALL COD games up to this point have employed the use of dedicated servers, why stop now? If you look at it from all angles, there is no beneficial reason to remove the use of dedicated servers in favour of this new IW.net thing. Best buy hosted an online chat session with a few members of MW2's dev and the general public. Here are some examples of the shit that went down:

Josh111: PC Question... What will the max amount of players per map be for PC multiplayer on IW.net

Vince-IW: 9v9

Okay. This is one where you are correct (somewhat) and we have been being spoiled a bit. Max players for COD4 was 64, and I'm sure the other games in the series had some amount close to that. Why such a short amount of player support per map? IW have basically said "fuck you" to clans, who, if large, can't possibly hope to enjoy medium-large scale clan v clan battles, and this whole 9v9 business is going to be a problem with even casual gamers aswell. It may be ok for many people who enjoy small scale battles, but why remove the flexibility?

Q: Is there a console in the PC version of the game, so we can change our field of view from the xbox's default 65 FOV to 80 also can we tweaks the weapon damage for each gun, removes perks, graphical debris, breathing sway, also thru console like we where able to before or is this all gone?

Vince-IW: We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it.

No console? Huh. Guess us PC gamers have just been "spoiled" with that one eh. Oh wait a second, access to the console in order to alter/tweak a game to your liking has looooooong been a fundamental asset of PC gaming.

kaRMa: Please give me a direct answer. On the PC version. Are all games hosted by players, and is there a five-second delay when host migration is in effect?

Vince-IW: yes.

Okay, this one doesn't seem as bad, but as further mentioned in the chat, players have no control over who hosts the match. This means if someone who lives halfway across the world and runs a dial up connection happens to host the match, the whole server is fucked until that player leaves, at which point someone else will, without request, have to host it. This means big lag issues are bound to become prominent.

Surely the kicker is this one:

Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?

Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.

Hmmm.... Okay.....I'm....No... I won't comment on that; you can decide for yourself whether or not we have a right to be "whinney brats"

Short answer yes
Long answer YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

You have just made my day. Why on earth are these people making such horribly misguided decisions? MW2 is definitely NOT on my wishlist, and I WON'T be buying it. They just don't give a shit.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

Spoiler: Snip

no, people got spoiled. and now are whinney brats.

Um, no.

Let me use MW2 as an example, which is basically the only one I cared about (notice the past tense as I'm not buying it anymore). Dedicated servers are and have been the benchmark of online pc gaming since it began. ALL COD games up to this point have employed the use of dedicated servers, why stop now? If you look at it from all angles, there is no beneficial reason to remove the use of dedicated servers in favour of this new IW.net thing. Best buy hosted an online chat session with a few members of MW2's dev and the general public. Here are some examples of the shit that went down:

Josh111: PC Question... What will the max amount of players per map be for PC multiplayer on IW.net

Vince-IW: 9v9

Okay. This is one where you are correct (somewhat) and we have been being spoiled a bit. Max players for COD4 was 64, and I'm sure the other games in the series had some amount close to that. Why such a short amount of player support per map? IW have basically said "fuck you" to clans, who, if large, can't possibly hope to enjoy medium-large scale clan v clan battles, and this whole 9v9 business is going to be a problem with even casual gamers aswell. It may be ok for many people who enjoy small scale battles, but why remove the flexibility?

Q: Is there a console in the PC version of the game, so we can change our field of view from the xbox's default 65 FOV to 80 also can we tweaks the weapon damage for each gun, removes perks, graphical debris, breathing sway, also thru console like we where able to before or is this all gone?

Vince-IW: We would like you to play the game the way we designed and balanced it.

No console? Huh. Guess us PC gamers have just been "spoiled" with that one eh. Oh wait a second, access to the console in order to alter/tweak a game to your liking has looooooong been a fundamental asset of PC gaming.

kaRMa: Please give me a direct answer. On the PC version. Are all games hosted by players, and is there a five-second delay when host migration is in effect?

Vince-IW: yes.

Okay, this one doesn't seem as bad, but as further mentioned in the chat, players have no control over who hosts the match. This means if someone who lives halfway across the world and runs a dial up connection happens to host the match, the whole server is fucked until that player leaves, at which point someone else will, without request, have to host it. This means big lag issues are bound to become prominent.

Surely the kicker is this one:

Moriarte: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?

Mackey-IW: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.

Hmmm.... Okay.....I'm....No... I won't comment on that; you can decide for yourself whether or not we have a right to be "whinney brats"

Short answer yes
Long answer YYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

You have just made my day. Why on earth are these people making such horribly misguided decisions? MW2 is definitely NOT on my wishlist, and I WON'T be buying it. They just don't give a shit.

Glad to hear. Seriously, the only plausible explanation is that a band of jealous console gamers hijacked the studio and have been changing shit around for the past few months; otherwise IW are just retarded and want to sabotage their own loyal PC fanbase

 

[MiracleOfSound]

They all watched Ubisoft make millions from making shitty games that pissed off thier customers and thought, 'How can we top that?'

Fuck Prince of Persia 2008 right in its ear.

 

[Robert632]

i think the whole MW2 is to deal with pirates, but i'm not sure. it might be an eloborate joke, though.

 

[jigs160]

by removing all the advantages of the pc why would people buy the pc version
they would buy the console version anyway
if all the games were to follow this route it could effectively kill pc gaming.

 

[Doktor Merkwurdigliebe]

I'm quite tired and lazy, so I'll do my favourite economic post.

You fail to understand the object to a business.
They want to make money.

This.

I was with you until you called Bad Company rubbish.

This.
[/thread]