Why PC gamers aren't okay with the changes to MW2
- Thread starter Captain_Caveman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Woe Is You said:
I just read this. So... they've invested a fuck-ton of money to make life easier for PC players a-la battle.net and people are complaining?
Ha ha ha ha ha. Retarded. If its a choice between a xbl plus system vs the server scrolling nightmare of CS:S ... lost for words.
Seriously. Three weeks after the release no one will be complaining. I can't believe I wasn't aware of this. There actually making gaming easier for PC users and are getting stick for it? After everyone and his mum pirated CoD4 for the PC, then this, I wouldn't be surprised if IW just didn't bother with the PC next time round.
They made probably the best online game of the last five year, have spent thousands of man hours refining the process for a costly sequel and everyone thinks its going to be bad? I can't believe how stupid this is!
Apologies I wasn't aware of any of this.Woe Is You said:
From reading the thing it sounds like a blessing. PC players are being gifted with a system comparable to xbl for free and they're getting attacked for it. It's stunningly retarded. If I had a high enough spec PC to play MW2 this would be a reason for getting it not boycotting it.
Wow, people are terrified of change aren't they? This is such a massive boon for players. I'm outraged there's outrage.
Of course, when the developer says that the average ping is around that of an average game with an ISDN connection, it's clear that "making things easier" also has some clear disadvantages. And then we can question whether it's retarded at all that people aren't too delighted to hear that.rossatdi said:
You can invest a fuck-ton of money into something and still end up with a mistake. Look at the war in Iraq, and that mistake was made by qualified people. Ahem.rossatdi said:
Anyway, that's the thing, it doesn't need to be changed. Forgive me for sounding conservative, but I'm normally quite left wing. They are trying to make it easier, when everyone who plays it won't find it any harder than typing their name in a box. Really, it's not hard or daunting, and I can prove it with reference to my peer group.
From what I've read, the existing system is being sacrificed for a new one that cuts features we have become accustomed to. Ones that we enjoy, and that justify us spending hundreds of pounds on our PCs. We get these advantages as a kind of compensation. Other people have made all the lists, so I won't bore you with another one.
The game will be good, no doubt, but to us it won't be as good as it could have been. How about they spend the money that would've been for IW.net on specialising it for the PC. It's not that hard, other companies do it all the time. They have the code for the dedicated servers from the last game anyway.
I appreciate that they are trying to do something new and I really hope it works. I am still buying the game for PC, but damn, it had better be good. I don't want this game to be ruined by an experimental system. After all, I am paying more for it.
-Edit-
One of the main reasons (Including myself, before I calmed down) people are ranting is because this change is redundant. You could do all of the stuff they're giving us with IW.net before, and much, much more. It was a tiny bit more complicated, but not so complicated that an eight year old me couldn't figure it out.rossatdi said:
They say it gives us features, but it cuts them.
They say it makes it easier, which it does, but we don't need it to.
They are testing it on what is to be one of the biggest games of all time.
We really don't want it screwed up because, truth be told, a lot of us will buy it anyway and will have to deal with the faults.
-Edit-
The complaint is that, in almost everyone's opinion, it is not better.rossatdi said:
What is the complaint though? You a better system for free! XBL people have to pay £40 a year for a system like this. I'm sure there will outside dedicated server support within about 6 month of release date.Danny Ocean said:
Saying that I bet the reception will be: IW have done it again 10/10.
The lose? No gun game mods, hot damn, i'll cry myself to sleep.
It seems to me that Infinity-Ward is making a VERY big mistake. The development for the PC version is lazy; a stark contrast with how good CoD4 was by comparison. They are throwing virtually everything PC about the series out the window, they have focused only on developing for the consoles, and the only thing that differentiates the PC version from the consoles is;
You can use a keyboard and mouse.
You can use text chat.
You can adjust graphics settings.
That's. It.
Using a different control method is literally just swapping around a handful of lines of code! Text chat is piss-easy to implement, too! And graphics settings are MANDATORY for a PC game to accommodate people with lower-end computers, so they don't even COUNT.
You don't get access to the in-game console to change field-of-view or other useful things, you can't install mods, no custom maps, no custom game modes, no control over who plays on the servers, no control over how many people can play on the servers, no 'custom rules' to prevent people using seriously cheap tactics, no way to kick people who are just being pricks. You don't even get to control who hosts the bloody game.
I could understand if the IW.net thing was OPTIONAL to accommodate new PC-gamers who weren't comfortable with the server list (which is in itself a poor excuse. When I started PC gaming, I was dumped right into server lists, as were many others. THEY AREN'T HARD TO FIGURE OUT.), but it's NOT optional.
IW is forcing us to conform to stupid, dumbed-down console mechanics (No offense to console gamers, just so you know.), that simply aren't needed. They are removing all the control we used to have and that worked so well, and what was one of the driving forces behind PCs as a gaming platform.
Oh, and let's not forget that we are FUCKED when they decide to shut down the servers. There are STILL tons of people who play CS 1.6 thanks to being able to create and host servers yourself. There are still servers floating around the Internet for Aliens versus Predator 2, for the original Team Fortress, for Half-Life Deathmatch, and countless others. In many years time, there will still be CoD4 servers, in all likelihood.
MW2? No, because when they shut down their official IW.net support for MW2, that's the end of multi player on that platform. And even if that isn't the case, what about if and when IW goes under?
You can use a keyboard and mouse.
You can use text chat.
You can adjust graphics settings.
That's. It.
Using a different control method is literally just swapping around a handful of lines of code! Text chat is piss-easy to implement, too! And graphics settings are MANDATORY for a PC game to accommodate people with lower-end computers, so they don't even COUNT.
You don't get access to the in-game console to change field-of-view or other useful things, you can't install mods, no custom maps, no custom game modes, no control over who plays on the servers, no control over how many people can play on the servers, no 'custom rules' to prevent people using seriously cheap tactics, no way to kick people who are just being pricks. You don't even get to control who hosts the bloody game.
I could understand if the IW.net thing was OPTIONAL to accommodate new PC-gamers who weren't comfortable with the server list (which is in itself a poor excuse. When I started PC gaming, I was dumped right into server lists, as were many others. THEY AREN'T HARD TO FIGURE OUT.), but it's NOT optional.
IW is forcing us to conform to stupid, dumbed-down console mechanics (No offense to console gamers, just so you know.), that simply aren't needed. They are removing all the control we used to have and that worked so well, and what was one of the driving forces behind PCs as a gaming platform.
Oh, and let's not forget that we are FUCKED when they decide to shut down the servers. There are STILL tons of people who play CS 1.6 thanks to being able to create and host servers yourself. There are still servers floating around the Internet for Aliens versus Predator 2, for the original Team Fortress, for Half-Life Deathmatch, and countless others. In many years time, there will still be CoD4 servers, in all likelihood.
MW2? No, because when they shut down their official IW.net support for MW2, that's the end of multi player on that platform. And even if that isn't the case, what about if and when IW goes under?
You forget that the old system was more flexable. Sure, you need to pay £40 a year for XBL, but our old systems was still more flexable and capable than what you've got, and what IW is trying to force-feed us. Yes, there will be outside dedicated server support, but that won't be coming from IW, meaning that we might have to resort to pirating the game if we want to play on servers.rossatdi said:
You should cry yourself to sleep. The MW mods were the some of the best parts of the game.
No, you're not. 60 bucks is 60 bucks. It doesn't matter if they get 40 bucks profit from one sale and 50 from the other, both sales were exactly the same 60 bucks, and in this case, for the exact same content. You don't "pay an extra $10", that's bull.Captain_Caveman said:
If the argument was "from which do they make more money off?", then you would be "somewhat" right, but the argument is "how much do you PAY them?", and the answer is "$60" in both cases.
The point that matters is what it costs the PLAYER to play the game, not how much the MAKER gains for each sale. A movie ticket costs 5 bucks and a DVD costs 10 bucks, but that doesn't change the fact that the movie cost $150 million to make and the maker made $200 million profit off it.
One thing does not necessarily correlate to the other.
If your complain is that you're now paying $60 for something that in it's previous iteration cost you $50 and had more content, then yes, you have a case. But as of now, you are paying $60 for what everyone else is getting at the same price everyone is.
Actually, D.D. is starting to show up on the consoles. It's only a few games, but I have seen a few PS3 games up on PSN, although the only one I can remember right now is Warhawk.Captain_Caveman said:
Are you a PC gamer by any chance? If you are, I just facepalmed.rossatdi said:
Alright, if you hate server lists, then fair enough, but 99% of PC gamers are not complaining because the system is better; we are complaining because it is worse. It removes all possibility of customisation from the player.
Want a private password-protected server? Can't have it.
Want a server for a larget game than 9v9? Can't have it.
Want a server for a SMALLER game? Can't have it either.
No mods, no customisation, no control over what server you join or what groups of people you play with.
Most of us PC gamers will have a few servers we really like and keep going back to because we like the people or other sever features. The Lob(UK) servers on source games are an example from me.
IW is removing that, though.
If it works for you, then fine; be happy with it. But just because YOU are happy about it doesn't mean WE will be, and you have no right to call our personal opinions and feelings about being able to play games the way we want 'wrong'.
I personally prefer te console way, but i am a lazy bastard that hates to make a game or enter one hosted, and when i was a pc gamer, i used to hate some of the games you would end up
the most amazing approach i saw was for Halo 2 in the XBOX, it was great and i loved every match i was thrown into, as for Halo 1 in the PC, well... i hated that from 100 servers running, like 5 where wort your time, and those where Bungie based.
the most amazing approach i saw was for Halo 2 in the XBOX, it was great and i loved every match i was thrown into, as for Halo 1 in the PC, well... i hated that from 100 servers running, like 5 where wort your time, and those where Bungie based.
People like them. Why can't you accept that?rossatdi said:
It's not like this is some new innovation, they're miring the game in mechanics that were left behind YEARS ago.lord canti said:
I'm not a PC gamer (aside from the occasional TF2 match), but even I get what a huge step backwards this is. If they were trying something genuinely new, then you'd be right, and I'd defend IW along with you, but this isn't a new change, this is stuff PC gamers thought they left behind years ago.MetallicaRulez0 said:
Anyway, I decided not to get this game due to them dropping Party Chat for no adequate reason.
What the buyer pays is not the important statistic. It's how much money the buyer is giving the developer/publisher. And w/ the price the same, people who buy the PC version are giving them $10 extra profit per copy (as PC has no licensing fee).Cocamaster said:
Unfortunately for IW/Activision though; the amount they're going to lose in people deciding to skip the game is going to be more than they're going to recoup w/ the price hike.
Exactly. I remember playing Duke Nukem 3D, over a phone line. Dialing my friends house, he would type in the answer command and we would play versus 1 on 1. The original P2P hosted game, lol. but that was a lot different than modern games requirements.orannis62 said: