Why PC gamers aren't okay with the changes to MW2

[Argonian21]

I've always been proud to be a pc gamer. The way we have so much more control over the customization of our games, modding and player made content etc etc. But now it seems even the developers of games are just cutting out that whole aspect of gaming and just pandering to the xbox generation. I have no problem with console games, but swear by the pc and now all the aspects of console gaming that I dislike have leaked into one of the best multiplayer shooters out there. What adds insult to injury, is that Call of Duty started out life as a PC game. This is a sad day indeed for the PC gamer.

 

[Cocamaster]

What the buyer pays is not the important statistic. It's how much money the buyer is giving the developer/publisher.

That what's important to you, maybe, but not to the person who made the initial argument (or the company making the game, for that matter).

He said "It's not like they (PC gamers) pay more." And he is 100%, irrevocably correct. They are not paying a cent more.

They are getting the exact same game everyone is getting for the exact same price. The point stands.

By your logic, console gamers should pay $10 more for their games to "make up" for the PC game's profit margin, and it would be as valid as dropping $10 from the PC version.

The profit margin does not represent the products actual cost.

 

[Wicky_42]

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!

"Server scrolling nightmare"
"Making things easier for PC users"
"Best online shooter"

HAhahahahHAHAHAH. Retarded.

Let me address these points.

One - server-scrolling 'nightmare'?! So the normal means of locating a game on a preferred map with a preferred number of people with a preferred ping is a nightmare? What about the hit-n-miss, fundamentally retarded pidgeon shoot that is auto match? It works all right on L4D because of it's casual gameplay, but I'm often sat for 15 mins trying to get a game on DoW2, and one in there's always absolutely CRAP latency because of its non-dedicated server system. It's bad enough on an RTS, but non-dedicated games on an FPS is just asking for an epic fail. Am I going to get pings of 23ms? No, unless I'm the host - and a ping of 0 is going to give me just a *teensy* advantage, no?

Two - making things easier. How so? By streamlining the process? Or dumbing it down to a 1990's level of simplicity? Oh - those are the same. Clan issues have already been pontificated over, again the issue of not being able to choose the game you want can be raised. I don't think that I'm the only casual PC gamer who quite likes being able to pick a game, not have one rammed down my throat.

Three - Best online shooter. Yeah, with no clans, tournaments, 18 people to a map, no server commands, no player regulation for hackers and exploiters... yeah, this is *really* going to go down well, I'm sure IW have made no mistakes in their map design for people to exploit. yeah.

Ironically enough for a PC gamer to be saying this to a console gamer, but get the fuck off your high horse, wake up and smell the ashes. Perhaps rather than insulting PC gamers for being horrified at having their multiplayer gaming staples removed you should be asking why console gamers are satisfied having less than PC gamers on a day-to-day basis?
_________

On another topic, as with spore I think this is one to pirate later - it's just not worth £60 for a single-player game. I just bought Mirror's Edge and Dead Space for £8.50 each - that's quality *and* quantity for money right there.

 

[Velocirapture07]

I've always been a console gamer, so I can't really understand what makes pc gamers so dang committed to their bijillion dollar machines. However, I will say I understand a little better after playing Oblivion on the xbox and then going online and seeing the awesome mods that you could get for the pc.

I guess the pc is all about customization, I've just never been that into that side of gaming, but I guess it does suck for the pc'ers out there. Hopefully it will be better than everyone thinks.

 

[ReepNeep]

What is the complaint though? You get a better system for free!

This is what you are having trouble understanding: we don't think it's better. People who game on PCs generally hate matchmaking and the only game I know of that succeeded on the platform is Left 4 Dead. I can name several recent games whose multiplayer was a ghost town in a matter of weeks because of matchmaking software.

Even speaking as someone who hasn't played in a clan, I'd much rather be able to flag a few servers who run maplists and settings I like as favorites with people I know than be thrown into a random match with a bunch of strangers.

Your argument that it's not worth offering different features for the pc version because it's too expensive in comparison to market size is directly contradicted by the fact that IW is dropping massive cash on IWnet. Most of the cut features would take almost no effort to include as they were already present and working in the game engine from CoDs 4&5.

I'm sure there will outside dedicated server support within about 6 month of release date.

They have said nothing of this. Some developers forget to include promised features *coughL4Dcough*. This one has been specifically removed. Won't happen, and I'll put money on that one.

 

[rossatdi]

Server lists are shit. What on earth is the fuss about.

"durr i are console gamer i no understand "

"Ha, I am an arrogant PC gamer who assumes people are stupid if they don't side with them."

I rather enjoyed many an hour spent playing Counter-Strike Source and Half Life 2 deathmatch. I understand the supposed attraction of server lists. What I remember is spending half my time searching for half decent servers with open games.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

What the buyer pays is not the important statistic. It's how much money the buyer is giving the developer/publisher.

That what's important to you, maybe, but not to the person who made the initial argument (or the company making the game, for that matter).

He said "It's not like they (PC gamers) pay more." And he is 100%, irrevocably correct. They are not paying a cent more.

They are getting the exact same game everyone is getting for the exact same price. The point stands.

By your logic, console gamers should pay $10 more for their games to "make up" for the PC game's profit margin, and it would be as valid as dropping $10 from the PC version.

The profit margin does not represent the products actual cost.

what? that makes no sense. If the game cost a bagillion dollars or 1 cent; and the dev got the same amount of money you'd have a point. But, The whole argument i'm dispelling is the "PC gamers arent paying THEM more money; so the devs shouldn't PCize the game." But they ARE paying them more. $10 more per copy. What is occurring at the end transaction is irrelevant to the pricing structure.

You also seem to be missing the whole point of this thread. I guess you didn't even read the article in the OP.

 

[rossatdi]

What is the complaint though? You get a better system for free!

This is what you are having trouble understanding: we don't think it's better. People who game on PCs generally hate matchmaking and the only game I know of that succeeded on the platform is Left 4 Dead. I can name several recent games whose multiplayer was a ghost town in a matter of weeks because of matchmaking software.

Even speaking as someone who hasn't played in a clan, I'd much rather be able to flag a few servers who run maplists and settings I like as favorites with people I know than be thrown into a random match with a bunch of strangers.

Your argument that it's not worth offering different features for the pc version because it's too expensive in comparison to market size is directly contradicted by the fact that IW is dropping massive cash on IWnet. Most of the cut features would take almost no effort to include as they were already present and working in the game engine from CoDs 4&5.

I'm sure there will outside dedicated server support within about 6 month of release date.

They have said nothing of this. Some developers forget to include promised features *coughL4Dcough*. This one has been specifically removed. Won't happen, and I'll put money on that one.

I really just can't see the fuss. Its a change and a risk, but it'll probably come for the better.

As for the smaller map sizes its clear that IW have desiged a game that'll be fun for 9 v 9, which makes sense with a focus on smaller engagements. They probably figure to leave the big conflicts for the Battlefield series.

 

[rossatdi]

[
If you don't want to be mistaken for a consoletard then don't talk like one.

Perhaps one shouldn't walk around judging people on an internet forum. Especially when you're about to engage in childish mimicry humour. Pot, meet keetle.

In general console players are looking at this whole furore with an odd expression of confusion and wonder. For the first time console players aren't being treated like second class citizens by a developer.

 

[cyber_andyy]

Console gamers, can you empathize w/ PC gamers?

PC gamers, does this article worry you about the future of PC gaming?

The fact the market is smaller and more prone to piracy means the returns for companies are lower. Accept the change and pray for mice/keyboards to be added to consoles.

For the biggest budget games, consoles are just going to be the standard now. I'm sorry, you can piss and moan about it as much as you want but its not going to change the fact.

Then, every one will pirate consoles, and the loop will start again.

 

[shadow skill]

What is the complaint though? You get a better system for free!

This is what you are having trouble understanding: we don't think it's better. People who game on PCs generally hate matchmaking and the only game I know of that succeeded on the platform is Left 4 Dead. I can name several recent games whose multiplayer was a ghost town in a matter of weeks because of matchmaking software.

Even speaking as someone who hasn't played in a clan, I'd much rather be able to flag a few servers who run maplists and settings I like as favorites with people I know than be thrown into a random match with a bunch of strangers.

Your argument that it's not worth offering different features for the pc version because it's too expensive in comparison to market size is directly contradicted by the fact that IW is dropping massive cash on IWnet. Most of the cut features would take almost no effort to include as they were already present and working in the game engine from CoDs 4&5.

I'm sure there will outside dedicated server support within about 6 month of release date.

They have said nothing of this. Some developers forget to include promised features *coughL4Dcough*. This one has been specifically removed. Won't happen, and I'll put money on that one.

I really just can't see the fuss. Its a change and a risk, but it'll probably come for the better.

As for the smaller map sizes its clear that IW have desiged a game that'll be fun for 9 v 9, which makes sense with a focus on smaller engagements. They probably figure to leave the big conflicts for the Battlefield series.

You can't see the fuss because your head is up your own ass. Regardless of whether you like this functionality or not, it is obvious that functionality that many people enjoy is being removed for what amounts to no reason. It wouldn't have been hard to include matchmaking and dedicated servers. It's going to be better for international players to lag extra hard when playing with their buddies across the ocean when the last game let people use dedicated servers which helped mitigate connection problems? The solution for diminished return due to the perceived impact of piracy is to do your best to make the game unappealing to the fan base?

Why has no one suggested that they allow the rental of PC games? They honestly expect people to just buy these things all or nothing when it takes so much more effort to make sure it runs smoothly? If they want to mitigate piracy they should be figuring out how to make PC game rental work so that there is less incentive to pirate the products.

 

[rossatdi]

is being removed for what amounts to no reason.

And here we have the essence of the argument.

On one hand we have an industry leader in its field experimenting with something new. Something it has undoubtedly tested for thousands of hours of gameplay.
vs.
Fanboys. The masses who haven't used or seen it.

One assumes the Infinity Ward are not so stupid as to intentionally and expensively knee-cap themselves. Just because you don't accept a reason, does not mean they're not damn sure of them.

Seeing as IW are a little raw about, fairly or not, the perceived piracy on CoD4 its not too surprising they've been a little non-cuddly on the PC community communications this time round.

They know it will sell. They are hearing the bleats of a legion of angry fanboys. They probably would prefer they just shut their mouths and give them the chance to demonstrate ... their reasons.

 

[Cocamaster]

what? that makes no sense. If the game cost a bagillion dollars or 1 cent; and the dev got the same amount of money you'd have a point. But, The whole argument i'm dispelling is the "PC gamers arent paying THEM more money; so the devs shouldn't PCize the game." But they ARE paying them more. $10 more per copy. What is occurring at the end transaction is irrelevant to the pricing structure.

You also seem to be missing the whole point of this thread. I guess you didn't even read the article in the OP.

First, don't turn this in a pissing contest. Disagreement does not condone offenses.

Second, here's the full quote:

Why should PC gamers get more than console owners?

They certainly don't pay more.

No where does it say there that they "pay THEM more", so you are reading into things that don't exist.

And even if it did, that still doesn't give validity to your point. Profit margins do not define a product's value, if they did, some things would be a lot cheaper.

Here's the problem with the "paying $10 more" argument: you don't define the worth of the game, they do. They determined that the price should be the same for the same amount of content. For you, it looks as a price hike ONLY because previous games were cheaper, but for them, it?s just the games worth.

When you say ?PC games give them $10 more bucks?, for starters, that?s just an assumption based on the lack of licensing, but you are also assuming that the PC version's costs and profit somehow apply only to the PC version of the game. Unfortunately, that?s not how multiplatform releases work.

All the costs of the game are pooled: all the licensing, the distribution of the game in all its platforms, printing materials, etc, they are ALL paid by the same budget. There?s no ?PC version costs? Vs ?Console version costs? during the development of the game, and in this case, even less because the added costs of PC maintenance, which are usually budgeted separately from the actual game?s development, are not even a factor. All the profit the game makes goes to paying the development of their next game (minus commissions and stuff).

So no, PC gamers are NOT paying them $10 extra; they are paying for all the licensing, printing and distribution across ALL platforms, like everybody else. In the past they may have passed their savings to the consumer, but that may be over. Welcome to capitalism.

Do PC gamers get the short end of the stick? Arguably, yes they do. But Heck, console gamers have been subsidizing PC games for YEARS now and no one has complained.

 

[ReepNeep]

I really just can't see the fuss. Its a change and a risk, but it'll probably come for the better.

Now that we've established that despite first hand experience you don't get it, maybe you should stop telling everyone who does like the traditional system that they should just bend over and take it because your preferred system is just so much better. Even if dedicated serverless matchmaking nonsense vanishes in the pc space you'll still have your xbox live. Be merry.

As for the smaller map sizes its clear that IW have desiged a game that'll be fun for 9 v 9, which makes sense with a focus on smaller engagements. They probably figure to leave the big conflicts for the Battlefield series.

Oddly enough, I agree with you on this. If there's no way to add custom maps, there's no reason to be able to change the player limit. One of my biggest pet peeves is overloaded maps. Admins putting wetwork and shipment in the maplists of 32 player servers is just mindbogglingly stupid. They were bad enough maps when they weren't host to double the normal number of players.

 

[rossatdi]

that's right, Im surprised that the whole controversy is over whether or not PC gamers get "Their Version", even after IW has stated, numerous times, possibly while banging their heads on their keyboards in disgust at the rampant fanboyism that the game is the exact same across all platforms, and that they wish people would look at it as a single game, not by 'versions'

Whenever a high end gaming PC costs the same as console, then we'll talk about platform equality.

Perhaps the issue here is which is the direction to move:
1) Keep a strata of top-end elite games, playable only by $1000 machines.
or
2) Allow mouse and keyboard (or other!) functionality on consoles. Levelling the hardware field for a low low price.

 

[rossatdi]

Spoiler: snip

what? that makes no sense. If the game cost a bagillion dollars or 1 cent; and the dev got the same amount of money you'd have a point. But, The whole argument i'm dispelling is the "PC gamers arent paying THEM more money; so the devs shouldn't PCize the game." But they ARE paying them more. $10 more per copy. What is occurring at the end transaction is irrelevant to the pricing structure.

You also seem to be missing the whole point of this thread. I guess you didn't even read the article in the OP.

First, don't turn this in a pissing contest. Disagreement does not condone offenses.

Second, here's the full quote:

"Why should PC gamers get more than console owners?

They certainly don't pay more."

No where does it say there that they "pay THEM more", so you are reading into things that don't exist.

And even if it did, that still doesn't give validity to your point. Profit margins do not define a product's value, if they did, some things would be a lot cheaper.

Here's the problem with the "paying $10 more" argument: you don't define the worth of the game, they do. They determined that the price should be the same for the same amount of content. For you, it looks as a price hike ONLY because previous games were cheaper, but for them, it?s just the games worth.

When you say ?PC games give them $10 more bucks?, for starters, that?s just an assumption based on the lack of licensing, but you are also assuming that the PC version's costs and profit somehow apply only to the PC version of the game. Unfortunately, that?s not how multiplatform releases work.

All the costs of the game are pooled: all the licensing, the distribution of the game in all its platforms, printing materials, etc, they are ALL paid by the same budget. There?s no ?PC version costs? Vs ?Console version costs? during the development of the game, and in this case, even less because the added costs of PC maintenance, which are usually budgeted separately from the actual game?s development, are not even a factor. All the profit the game makes goes to paying the development of their next game (minus commissions and stuff).

So no, PC gamers are NOT paying them $10 extra; they are paying for all the licensing, printing and distribution across ALL platforms, like everybody else.

Do PC gamers get the short end of the stick? Arguably, yes they do. But Heck, console gamers have been subsidizing PC games for YEARS now and no one has complained.

The amazon.co.uk site is retailing MW2 10 quid cheaper on the PC.

 

[shadow skill]

is being removed for what amounts to no reason.

And here we have the essence of the argument.

On one hand we have an industry leader in its field experimenting with something new. Something it has undoubtedly tested for thousands of hours of gameplay.
vs.
Fanboys. The masses who haven't used or seen it.

One assumes the Infinity Ward are not so stupid as to intentionally and expensively knee-cap themselves. Just because you don't accept a reason, does not mean they're not damn sure of them.

Seeing as IW are a little raw about, fairly or not, the perceived piracy on CoD4 its not too surprising they've been a little non-cuddly on the PC community communications this time round.

They know it will sell. They are hearing the bleats of a legion of angry fanboys. They probably would prefer they just shut their mouths and give them the chance to demonstrate ... their reasons.

Something which has already been tried on the platform and failed is new? It is worth trying? It is worth attempting when even the platforms that have this kind of connection scheme as the standard experience lag up the ass because of a bad host, or poor matchmaking algorithms that fail to find people with good connections or people with the same skill level? I play fighting games online sometimes trust me when I say that matchmaking and p2p connection systems are crap when you need precision.

 

[rossatdi]

I really just can't see the fuss. Its a change and a risk, but it'll probably come for the better.

Now that we've established that despite first hand experience you don't get it, maybe you should stop telling everyone who does like the traditional system that they should just bend over and take it because your preferred system is just so much better. Even if dedicated serverless matchmaking nonsense vanishes in the pc space you'll still have your xbox live. Be merry.

What's sad to see is the aggression at a developer trying something new. Defending a tradition without witnessing the alternative is a bad bad sign for a community. Hell if it comes out and it doesn't work, no big deal, experimental failed why does it equal rage-splosion?

The PC community needs a big deep breath and then to wait and see.

Change is good.