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

[Toastymctoastmen]

I'll toss my hat into this thread, and see what happens.

PC users are generally upset with MW:2 because a lot of the games the company made before, had a lot of features that made the game great to them. Now with their newest and latest game, a lot of said features have been removed, and to the players, this is a big step back.

I think it can be viewed like, taking away the ability to form parties on consoles, so you can't play with friends outside of luck. The reasoning being they want you to get into the game quicker, and not waste time trying to organize something you may enjoy more.(Not the best example, but hopefully you get the idea)

Does this apply to everyone? No, it does not. There are some people that would be fine with no more parties with friends, others would rage at the change.

 

[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).

if you're going to use the argument of what people are paying for it (as flawed as that is as it implies the retailer and not the developer is the provider of value, the very fact that you're arguing they shouldn't get more means you admit they're getting LESS than what was promised), then how come PC gamers should pay the same amount for a game not designed for PC? console gets a game designed for console for the same price right? The very fact that console systems dont work on PC means PC is getting LESS with the SAME system. Why should PC gamers pay the same but get LESS then? see, even though the logic behind that original quote ur trying to defend was flawed to the bone; even that flawed logic leads to the same conclusion.

either way you spin it, PC gamers are getting screwed. no ifs, ands or buts.
Your whole argument is based on the premise that they would be operating at a loss if they created the game the way a PC game should be; and that is an argument based on a lie. The vast majority of their budget goes towards art, level design, game engine tweaks (it is just a derivative of the cod4 engine; huge cost savings there already), voice work & mocap, music and marketing. paying programmers is only a fraction of that, and paying programmers to add those PC features would be a fraction of that fraction.

The real (& nefarious imo) reason they're doing this is to remove power from the player community & place it all in IW.NET so they control how content is distributed and what content is allowed. mods might interfere w/ their own DLC; so this is them killing the competition. they know this will make the game worse, but they're relying that people are naive enough to fall for empty promises.

it reminds me of a post i saw on another forum

View Post
Me: "Hi, I need to replace my tires?"
Salesman: "Hey, these new tires are made of wood!"
Me: "No thanks, that sounds stupid."
Salesman: "You won't know until you try them!"
Me: "No, I'm pretty sure that wood tires don't work very well on a car."
Salesman: "Ohh, come on, try them!"
Me: "Well, alright. Let me try."
Salesman: "No, you have to buy them first."

p.s. PC maintenance isnt higher, it's lower. Game devs/Pubs have to pay MS & Sony to 'check and certify' every single patch or DLC bit before it gets released. There is no overlord on PC that charges tolls for use of the platform.

You REALLY like to spin things, do you. I told you I wasn't playing your pissing contest.

I never claimed the retailer is the provider of the product; you said I did. (But you seem to forget they are part of the chain that does.) I think I typed up there pretty clearly that the developer/publisher is the one that defines the value. Crying "how come we pay more for a game not made for the PC?" won't change that. They set the price and they said "same content, same costs". Just because you've had it easy untill now and they CHOSE to pass on their savings in licensing in the past to the PC buyer DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ENTITLED TO THEM. Don't like it? Bummer. Again, capitalism.

Second, I DID say PC gamers get the short end of the stick. But not because you get "less value", that's pure bull dropping. You get the same value that everybody else. You're just so accustomed to get MORE for LESS that when you have to actually pay the same as everybody, you feel offended. So yes, you got screwed; no more freebees. Buying a $2000 gaming PC does not entitle you to cheaper games any more than buying a million dollar car gets you cheaper gas.

And THAT is why the original quote is STILL valid. You get the same as everybody else for the same price.

You are NOT entitled to savings because the PC platform has no licensing fees.
You are NOT entitled to the "extra" features that got removed from the PC version.
You are NOT entitled to private servers.

The developer gave them to you at their own cost, and for cheaper, because they wanted to, and NOW THEY DON'T. Deal with it.

Your whole budget rethoric is bull too. The developer doesn't pay for the game, the publisher does, and they manage things under one budget. The publisher gets the money, and then spreads the love. I don't care if the PC features "cost a fraction of a fraction" of whatever arbitrary number you come up with; they are all still under the same budget, collected by the publisher, who sets the price of the game. I guess you would also expect that the MSRP didn't include the store's cut, huh?

One. Budget.

Save you spin about their intentions and the quality of the game to yourself. Nobody cares, unless you are in there with Infinity Ward recording their evil plots.

...and your pointing your little anectode about the wheels to the wrong guy too.

Damn, it appears I did play in your pissing contest. Ok, tell you what: You win, if you enjoy being the biggest d*ck.

 

[Katana314]

You are NOT entitled to savings because the PC platform has no licensing fees.
You are NOT entitled to the "extra" features that got removed from the PC version.
You are NOT entitled to private servers.

The developer gave them to you at their own cost, and for cheaper, because they wanted to, and NOW THEY DON'T. Deal with it.

That's their decision.
Here's mine.
(cancels preorder)

Stop using the word 'entitled' in a thread about exchanging cash value for an object of cash value. There is no 'loyalty' here. This is a market.

 

[shadow skill]

So basically you are not entitled to a cheaper game even though in terms of distribution the manufacturer needs to pay less to distribute on the PC? The game should cost more than usual for essentially no reason whatsoever....YEEEAHHH BOOOOOOYYYYY!

 

[Cabisco]

Thank you, i'm more enlightened on why PC gamers are so annoyed at this news. Still i find it hard to care too deeply whilst i'm being told i have to pay £55 if i want it on the console, it's not like PC gamers are the only ones getting screwed over.

 

[olicon]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/11/id-probably-no-dedicated-servers-for-rage/

My biggest gripe is that it's a very slippery slope. Developers don't like people to be able to play without going through their servers, because it makes pirating easier. It can probably cut some costs as well.
So yeah, MW2 did it. Others will follow suit. Soon, this will become a norm, since they know that the game will still be fed by the less particular, mainstream fans. That's the way of the world--gaming finally goes mainstream, and it's diluting the quality of games that we loved. We asked for it, and we are getting it.

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/11/id-probably-no-dedicated-servers-for-rage/

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

IW...look what you've started..........

 

[Dys]

These quotes are becoming long and irritating

The removal of console and dedicated servers is no small thing. PC gamers do not have the stability console gamers do. Really, I don't know how I can make that any clearer, by limiting the PC markets ability to tweak and optimize their game on a vast array of systems, you are giving the console gamers an incomparibly better gaming experience. I don't really care if other people want to sit there and ***** about different control schemes, the fact is that not all PCs are born equal, and it's going to become a very apparent pain in the ass when the guy with the best ping has a peice of shit computer that regularly crashes. This is a dick move to deliberately force those with the choice to buy the game on PS3/xbox 360 over PC in what was originially a PC series. This isn't, and never has been, about "OMFG MY PLATFORM OF CHOICE IS TEH BEST NOOBZZZ", it's that a percentage of the gaming community are being dicked because the devs can't be fucked spending an extra two weeks doing a proper port for the PC, and it's bullshit. Either release it properly or not at all.

Just because you had bad experiences with CS:S doesn't make it so for all other games, the DoW2 matchmaking takes in excess of 10 minutes to put me in a game, and I'm damned lucky if any one of the players isn't from across the pacific. Same deal with universe at war and company of heroes. Of course, this can be beaten by the use of programs such as hamachi and various game tweaks, in MW2, it seems that is no longer an option. As I said above the, the removal of dedicated servers is far from the only thing this game is lacking.

I'd suggest you go back and read this and actually think about what I'm saying

You don't seem to have read to bulk of what I had to say, so here's a nice, short summary:

Torrent downloads are not an accurate representation of piracy (or intented theft), as a significant but unkown portion of the downloaders own the game and merely want to crack it (less true for console torrents presumably, but true none the less). This has cost the company nothing, they have not lost a potential sale, they have merely sold a copy to person A who wanted the game to run in a different way than the devs, what they are doing may or may not be illegal, but it sure as all fuck isn't going to affect their profits in the same way piracy is alledged to. If it's a crime (which technicially 'piracy' is not, 'theft of intellectual property' is) then it is a different (far less) crime.

MW2 has not been released yet, of course it's digital sales will not be higher than it's pre-orders, who the fuck bothers pre-ordering a game online? Wait until a month after it's release, I'd be amazed if the hardcopy PC sales exceeded the digital. You can't just 'assume' to double the sales, what if it actually does go against the trend of modern games and only sell 50% of it through digital distribution? What if it sells in the same way as <link=http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46624/Demigod-Status-Update-So-Much-For-Piracy>Demigod did and have over 90%? How can you possibly predict it? The number is completely mute for both platforms as it's measuring pre-orders, not sales. Oh wow, that's surprising, the game I mentioned, demigod, was 'pirated' more than the black pearl, yet was still a sucess, what a coincidense.

Right, I'll enlighten you with regard to console sales exceeding PC sales
Do you have any proof of that? A reliable source perhaps, one that doesn't exclude the main medium through which PC games are sold? They very well might, but from where I stand it's completely impossible to tell, and if they did I can't imagine the gap being anywhere near what retailers such as gamestop report (<link=http://www.videogamer.com/news/call_of_duty_4_sales_smash_past_10_million.html> They aren't particularly specific,where are you sourcing these claims from?).

Piracy rates higher among PC games? The real world strongly disagrees, more games are downloaded illegally on PCs if that's what you mean (well, maybe excluding the DS/PSP, nobody really talks about piracy on those anymore, we can't handle numbers that large). Though the illegal games trade is far more sucessful on consoles (go to an open market, preferably in southeast asia, and have a look at how many pirated games are for sale. Hell, you probably don't even have to go overseas, I know there are heaps around greater melbourne) people still only seem to associated piracy with PCs, the reason for this is, of course, because PC piracy is far easier to fight.

The development cost of having PC specific game features (lean, larger maps) and dedicated servers is larger - and IW must have made a profit based judgement call that they would not lose sales equating to the difference by not including them.

Maybe, I have a hunch that you've had no more experience than me producing PC games compared to console games, so I doubt your opinion is any more valid than mine. However I recignize how little experience and knowledge I have about it so I'll largely leave it alone, I will however, take out the time to again point out that the indy and mod community on consoles is negligable compared to that on PC, in my mind at least that suggests that it's easier to work with PCs. Also all the complaining from Devs about the PS3s arcitecture (which is very different) being annoying to work with (the xbox is basicially a standardized computer, so porting from Xbox 360-PC is far easier than to or from PS3, thus why they share so many titles).

I've ignored the lean comment, more or less because it's complete bullshit that they took it out in the console version of MW to begin with. I'm fairly sure it was present in the xbox 360 version of CoD2, so why the fuck take it out at all? It isn't a huge feature to implement and balance and it makes the gameplay a whole lot better, they've done it before so what's changed?

As far as the dedicated servers comment goes, do you have any idea how much work goes into the matchmaking by sony and microsoft for their live platforms? It's no secret that PC games sporting matchmaking are inferior by far, not to mention there's no easy skeleton with which to build the matchmaking code, I'd contend that IW have tried to be innovative with the matchmaking, wrongly thinking it's what PC gamers want. There is no way (in my mind) that it could be cheaper than recycling code from previous CoD games including a console and server browser.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

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).

if you're going to use the argument of what people are paying for it (as flawed as that is as it implies the retailer and not the developer is the provider of value, the very fact that you're arguing they shouldn't get more means you admit they're getting LESS than what was promised), then how come PC gamers should pay the same amount for a game not designed for PC? console gets a game designed for console for the same price right? The very fact that console systems dont work on PC means PC is getting LESS with the SAME system. Why should PC gamers pay the same but get LESS then? see, even though the logic behind that original quote ur trying to defend was flawed to the bone; even that flawed logic leads to the same conclusion.

either way you spin it, PC gamers are getting screwed. no ifs, ands or buts.
Your whole argument is based on the premise that they would be operating at a loss if they created the game the way a PC game should be; and that is an argument based on a lie. The vast majority of their budget goes towards art, level design, game engine tweaks (it is just a derivative of the cod4 engine; huge cost savings there already), voice work & mocap, music and marketing. paying programmers is only a fraction of that, and paying programmers to add those PC features would be a fraction of that fraction.

The real (& nefarious imo) reason they're doing this is to remove power from the player community & place it all in IW.NET so they control how content is distributed and what content is allowed. mods might interfere w/ their own DLC; so this is them killing the competition. they know this will make the game worse, but they're relying that people are naive enough to fall for empty promises.

it reminds me of a post i saw on another forum

View Post
Me: "Hi, I need to replace my tires?"
Salesman: "Hey, these new tires are made of wood!"
Me: "No thanks, that sounds stupid."
Salesman: "You won't know until you try them!"
Me: "No, I'm pretty sure that wood tires don't work very well on a car."
Salesman: "Ohh, come on, try them!"
Me: "Well, alright. Let me try."
Salesman: "No, you have to buy them first."

p.s. PC maintenance isnt higher, it's lower. Game devs/Pubs have to pay MS & Sony to 'check and certify' every single patch or DLC bit before it gets released. There is no overlord on PC that charges tolls for use of the platform.

You REALLY like to spin things, do you. I told you I wasn't playing your pissing contest.

I never claimed the retailer is the provider of the product; you said I did. (But you seem to forget they are part of the chain that does.) I think I typed up there pretty clearly that the developer/publisher is the one that defines the value. Crying "how come we pay more for a game not made for the PC?" won't change that. They set the price and they said "same content, same costs". Just because you've had it easy untill now and they CHOSE to pass on their savings in licensing in the past to the PC buyer DOES NOT MEAN HE IS ENTITLED TO THEM. Don't like it? Bummer. Again, capitalism.

Second, I DID say PC gamers get the short end of the stick. But not because you get "less value", that's pure bull dropping. You get the same value that everybody else. You're just so accustomed to get MORE for LESS that when you have to actually pay the same as everybody, you feel offended. So yes, you got screwed; no more freebees. Buying a $2000 gaming PC does not entitle you to cheaper games any more than buying a million dollar car gets you cheaper gas.

And THAT is why the original quote is STILL valid. You get the same as everybody else for the same price.

You are NOT entitled to savings because the PC platform has no licensing fees.
You are NOT entitled to the "extra" features that got removed from the PC version.
You are NOT entitled to private servers.

The developer gave them to you at their own cost, and for cheaper, because they wanted to, and NOW THEY DON'T. Deal with it.

Your whole budget rethoric is bull too. The developer doesn't pay for the game, the publisher does, and they manage things under one budget. The publisher gets the money, and then spreads the love. I don't care if the PC features "cost a fraction of a fraction" of whatever arbitrary number you come up with; they are all still under the same budget, collected by the publisher, who sets the price of the game. I guess you would also expect that the MSRP didn't include the store's cut, huh?

One. Budget.

Save you spin about their intentions and the quality of the game to yourself. Nobody cares, unless you are in there with Infinity Ward recording their evil plots.

...and your pointing your little anectode about the wheels to the wrong guy too.

Damn, it appears I did play in your pissing contest. Ok, tell you what: You win, if you enjoy being the biggest d*ck.

OK..; so let me get this straight. your giant posts so far are composed of.

- insult me by accusing me of being irrational and engaging in a 'pissing contest' and act offended at some insult i never gave. (then litter your posts w/ tirades and barbs)

- insist that even though what the developers provide a player should be of value equal to what the player is paying; that PC gamers should suck it up and be happy with what they're given because "it's capitalism". attempt to reinforce this w/ fuzzy math (while ignoring all explanations why said fuzzy math is built on untruth) & ignore that the game has a ginormous budget and could have easily catered to PC gamers needs too. Continue to insist it's "good business", because "all costs are rolled into one".

- if you went to a car dealership and you went to the salesmen

you say; "i'm interested in buying a jeep wrangler; i'd like to modify it to do some rock climbing."
salesmen says: "well i can offer you this chrysler 300M, it has more room and a smooth easy ride; it's very popular. trust me it's the same thing; you'll like it once you try it."
you say: "No im sorry that's not what i'm interested in, couldn't you just show me a jeep?"
salesmen: "They're all made by chrysler, chrysler is the same company with the same development costs. Look, they both cost $30k to you, you're even getting away with paying chrysler less for the 300M, 'it's a deal' (the dealership is selling the 300M for invoice, the wrangler for 5k over invoice). You should just buy it and be happy with it, that's capitalism."....

does that make sense to you?

as for your assumption that the publisher sets the budget, and that making the game cater tO the PC crowd would be overly expensive. you couldn't be more wrong.
read: http://www.develop-online.net/news/33181/Infinity-Ward-snubbed-ridiculous-MW2-budget
Infinity Ward TURNED DOWN extra funds, and dictated the direction of the game. The had NO budget constraints, and ZERO programming constraints.

And the fact that you're wording my explanation of how game cost is broken down as "whatever arbitrary number you come up with" (as ironic as it is w/ ur initial pissing-contest comment) proves you have zero experience w/ software development and no understanding of cross-platform game development. why dont you go to gamedev.net and ask them how realistic your perspective is?

 

[Russian_Assassin]

snip

You know what the problem is? I really wanted to buy it. I did. But this bullshit made me reconsider and that's why I feel bad. It's like waiting for a delicious pizza and having it brought to you without ham, or mushrooms. It's still a pizza, but it is somewhat lacking and that is a buzz kill. Anyways, off to pirate bay! Just kidding ...or am I?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

snip

You know what the problem is? I really wanted to buy it. I did. But this bullshit made me reconsider and that's why I feel bad. It's like waiting for a delicious pizza and having it brought to you without ham, or mushrooms. It's still a pizza, but it is somewhat lacking and that is a buzz kill. Anyways, off to pirate bay! Just kidding ...or am I?

The irony is, more people will probably pirate this game than any before it.

Probably not what Activision had in mind. Serves them right.

 

[Iron Mal]

Well you know what...if you don't like it then you don't have to buy it or play it (sorry if you don't want to hear that but I'm afraid those are your options).

You have plenty of other games avalible so why does it matter if one doesn't quite live up to your expectations? (I think that all of this fuss around MW2 confirms what myself and a few others have often said in that PC gamers are no longer the center of attention or master race of the gaming world anymore, your significance in the greater scheme of things has gone down)

I normally don't care about the differences between PC and console games (in my opinion, I like both platforms but don't like the players) but the points that have been made supposedly elevating the PC above the sonsole make me ask the following:

If the PC has such a vast superiority when it comes to shooting games then surely the downfalls in this one should be inconsiquential? You should (in theory) have a vast collection of other games that you can choose from and choose to ignore MW2 altogether.

I'm not going to buy it, but I'm still going to voice my displeasure with the crappy product. Your argument makes sense, but it's an argument for us not buying it, not an argument for us to stop complaining about the game.
The downfall of MW2 is very consequencial; not for me personally, but for the industry. The gauranteed success of this game basically gives the big name developers a free pass to not preform their jobs up to professional standards. I am going to ignore MW2 altogether, but that won't really help when this market presidence is set and developers/publishers feel that it is ok to cut features from every version of game as long as it's a sequal to a GotY.
PC had not been the master race of gaming for a long time. Since the beginning of the century I would say. The problem is that, in IW's point of view, PC ha ceased to be a platform.
In my opinion, IW's take on MW2 was simply to make the PS3 version, which happens to have the least amount of features because the PS3 doesn't have as nice of an infrastructure, and then prompty do a direct port of that version to everything else. Of course, adding some awesome stuff like XBL capabilities to the X360 version and some of mouse+keyboard support for the PC version. So nice of them, including the mouse and keyboard support. I, as a PC gamer, wasn't really even expecting them to go thorugh the trouble of adding a control scheme for our version of the game, seeing how we're no longer the masters of gaming anymore.

Both of us have solid and valid arguements but I still have to return to my point of this just being one game out of many.

I'm pretty certain that Halo 3 didn't come out on the PC until quite a while after the Xbox release (and is easily one of the most popular and famous titles it has) yet no major controversey was started over this.

Recently, Borderlands has the big problem of making multiplayer a nightmare for PC gamers even though I remember them at one point claiming that they were going to put a lot their effort and attention into the PC version of the game, it is also widely famous and applauded as a great game (still, no wide controversey).

I'm certain that there have been many other games in which the PC version has either been completely forgotten or has been largely overlooked and made at a low standard yet I have never heard a huge fuss being made over these games, I understand you're point of the potential consequence of sub-par games attaining popularity and the neglect of the PC but why is it that there's only been a mass outrage and boycott now?

 

[Iron Mal]

snip

You know what the problem is? I really wanted to buy it. I did. But this bullshit made me reconsider and that's why I feel bad. It's like waiting for a delicious pizza and having it brought to you without ham, or mushrooms. It's still a pizza, but it is somewhat lacking and that is a buzz kill. Anyways, off to pirate bay! Just kidding ...or am I?

I personally don't think a game disappointing you is something worth feeling bad about (I should know, I've been let down by games on many occasions, example: Chronicles of Riddick: Assault on Dark Athena, I actually thought it looked pretty good but once I played it it just felt...lacking).

By making sound like you're hard done by you're showing the elitist side of PC gamers (and their stereotypical 'entitlement' to the best stuff for free), console gamers have had to deal with missing content for a long time (Doom 3 was shorter on the Xbox and missing levels, Team Fortress 2 updates are not avalible on the 360 and mods are not avalible at all, you want extra content then you'll have to pay for DLC), from a console gamer's perspective I could justifiably see such an attitude as some people throwing a hissy fit and feeling sorry for themselves (you don't hear us whine anywhere near as much).

P.S: I appologise for the double post and also, some people have made valid reason for why they are concerned, my previous 'elitist with issues' statement doesn't really apply to them.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Take that PC master race! Down with the oppressors!

 

[Pingieking]

*snip*

Firstly, Halo 3 did not come to PC, hence the lack of controversy on that one.
I have yet to play borderlands, so I'm going to speculate on that point. From what I understand, Borderlands did have multiplayer issues. However, the game did not lack all of the other features that PC games usually have. Perhaps the developers have patched the game to fix the issues.
Before I start I will make clear to everyone that I am not pissed off about the dedicated servers being gone. I'm disappointed, but somewhat hopeful that IW.net might have a chance of catching lightning in a bottle and somehow pulling this thing off.
The mass outrage now stem (at least my style of outrage) stems from three main factors:

1) Many features were removed, with many of them guaranteed never to be patched back in. PC gamers are use to getting unpolished game releases (Borderlands multiplayer issues is an example, Hearts of Iron 2 was pretty broken upon release), but the modding community have always worked with the devs to fix up the game and make an overall improvement to it. IW has taken the approach of "What you see on the box is what you get", meaning that MW2 can not be improved with player input. Your example of Borderlands is not a case of the developers not paying attention to the PC version, it is a case of developers making mistakes and not polishing their game. That is something that the PC community is use to, and the mistakes can be correctly later by either the devs or the modders. The difference with MW2 is that IW has come out and told us that not only will they not fix these isrue?Eothat we have raised, they won't let the modding community fix it either. This will lead to the often talked about "PC gamer elitism" and "sense of entitlement", which I will address in a bit.

2) The first factor alone will only cause me to be disappointed, not outraged. Why I am outraged is because how IW has handled this entire thing. Instead of trying to calm us down with reassurances like they did with the dedicated server issue, IW has ifsuÏîed and ridiculed us. This is a direct quote from a question and answer session with IW:

"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."

This epic response is why I am so pissed off. Instead of reassuring us the way they did with the dedicated server issue, they decided to mock us. I would've been happier if Mackey simply said "Yes, it is a port of the console version. We are doing this because we want to give the same experience to all versions of our game." To IW, I have stopped being a valued potential customer. I am now an asshole that asks too many questions about their product.

3) The third factor is not very relevant to me, but it contributes greatly to the uproar. MW2 is suppose to be the PC GotY. It is suppose to make a run for the PC Game of the Century (so far), and mount a challenge to the throne of Best Game of All Time. Yet MW2 is missing features that are found on games done by 10-person teams with minuscule development budgets (compared to MW2's budget). This is why there is so much uproar. A game that had such high ambitions has fail so massively and irreparably before it was even released. I think that a tidal wave of negativity is warranted.

Now I will address the "PC elitists" and "entitlement" problems. A warning that this part may get a little hostile.

The PC elitists are alive and well. The PC elitists also need to FUCK RIGHT OFF! The console players don't want to tinker around with the hardware of their gaming rig, it doesn't mean that they're lazy and stupid, it means that they have different priorities! I don't want to tinker with the hardware of my car, does that make me stupid and lazy? So youy PC elitists either realize that people don't care about the same things that you do or just FUCK RIGHT OFF!

As for the people calling PC gamers "oppressors", you also need to FUCK RIGHT OFF! Last time I checked no PC gamer has sabotaged your game. We are complaining about a PC game that you will never play. This entire fiasco has nothing to do with you. Our complaints have no effect on your version of the game WHAT SO EVER! So you guys either need to realize that we're not out to ddstroy your gaming rid, or you just have to FUCK RIGHT OFF!

Take that PC master race! Down with the oppressors!

Thanks for providing me with a perfect example. Now either fix your attitude or FUCK RIGHT OFF!

Whew. That ends the hostility part. Now for the "entitlement" thing.

I argue against the notion that PC gamers feel "entitled" to features that are not found on consoles, the same way I don't think Wii owners feel "entitled" to motion controls for their NHL 2010. The PC is a different platform, has different users, and thus will have different needs and priorities. Like any other industry, the PC gaming industry has standards. What IW has done is removed features that are so widespread and so basic that the game essentially failed to meet industry standards. Features that any decent game would have are missing in MW2. We don't "feel entitled to better features than the console versions", MW has simply failed to meet the quality requirements of a good PC game.

In closing, as a proud PS3 and PC gamer, I would like to say that I want games to be equal across all platforms.
I have a dream.
I dream of playing 32 player MW3 matches with my PC and PS3.
I dream of being able to hop into a game without going through a list of server on Saturday afternoon, and being able to choose a server I like when sky darkens and the moon comes out for it's daily stroll.
I dream of being able to lean in every MW3 multiplayer match, regardless of what platform I'm playing.
I dream of being able to own PS3 players with a mouse and keyboard with my PS3 version of MW3
I dream of being able to play modded versions of MW3 on any platform.
I dream. I hope that one day, my dreams can come true.

EDIT:
For the console gamers who don't recognize the significance of the quote I presented in #2, let me offer a similar, hypothetical quote to hopefully get the point across.

"Is the PS3 version a direct port of the PC version?"
"No, PS3 has custom stuff like PSN support, Dual Shock controller support, and the game is on a Blu-ray."

I am fairly certain that every feature that I dream of have already been done by at least one developer for a game in the current console generation.

My computer seems to be behaving oddly. So if you see some crazy symbols in my post (I'm fixing them, but I may have missed a few) please be advised that I did not type crazy symbols and I apologize for the inconvenience.