D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Man that Penny Arcade stuff on the previous page is just gold.
Tycho is a joke.
Tycho is a joke.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Hubris and Bullshit: Modern Warfare 2 PC will not allow dedicated servers.
- Thread starter dLMN8R
- Start date
Draft said:
They take it very seriously.
Ninja Edit: Suprise! The best piece of journalism covering the issue isn't a large gaming outlet but Ars Technica (apologies to other outlets giving the issue it's due):
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/10/modern-warfare-2-the-case-for-the-dedicated-server.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
And not because it's in support to dedicated servers, but because they actually talk to people who are affected by it.
Foxtastical
Member
Otherwise known as actual journalism.Dingobloo said:
Everyone else just pretends that their whitty column/editorial is a journalistic piece.
Yes I would say that drawing parallels between the PC community and right wing conspiracy theorist Glen Beck might be considered an outlandish statement taking the side everyone is against. Or did you think the comic was being sincere?
So you basically reinforced his argument.
Yes, I take issue with the fact that it comes at the issue from the get-go that dedicated servers are a good idea and then starts defensive, but props to them for holding off where many places just pumped something out to gather clicks. It let them grab a larger set of user perspective and also cover the media response while they attempted to get into contact with Robert Bowling.
So you basically reinforced his argument.
Yes, I take issue with the fact that it comes at the issue from the get-go that dedicated servers are a good idea and then starts defensive, but props to them for holding off where many places just pumped something out to gather clicks. It let them grab a larger set of user perspective and also cover the media response while they attempted to get into contact with Robert Bowling.
I'd understand this outcry if all dedicated servers for all PC games had been obliterated by this move. As it is, this move literally only affects people that must have Modern Warfare 2. One game. One game by one publisher. If it can have this kind of powerful resonance across the internet then isn't that proof that the MW brand is the most important IP in gaming and they can pretty much do what they like with it?
Don't get me wrong, I think the move sucks but it's so easy to avoid it affecting you, just don't buy the product. That is all. No more effort required, just. don't. buy. it.
I'm not picking it up. I'm not picking it up because IW never bothered patching rumble into CoD4 PS3. I'm not buying it because they couldn't be bothered to patch trophies in. I'm not buying it because Acti-Blizz raised the MSRP to £54.99. There are a million reasons to avoid this product but the more time you spend venting on the internet and signing pointless petitions, the more you prove you need this shit.
Oh, that PA / Glenn Beck cartoon cracked me up.
Don't get me wrong, I think the move sucks but it's so easy to avoid it affecting you, just don't buy the product. That is all. No more effort required, just. don't. buy. it.
I'm not picking it up. I'm not picking it up because IW never bothered patching rumble into CoD4 PS3. I'm not buying it because they couldn't be bothered to patch trophies in. I'm not buying it because Acti-Blizz raised the MSRP to £54.99. There are a million reasons to avoid this product but the more time you spend venting on the internet and signing pointless petitions, the more you prove you need this shit.
Oh, that PA / Glenn Beck cartoon cracked me up.
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
The thing that gets me about some people, is that they care more about the community around a game than the game itself. Like people are saying "fuck yeah im getting Bad Company 2 now based on a tweet saying it has dedicated servers", without thinking "you know, this game could be totally shit".
I aint saying awesome communitys dont make a game better, they do, but its still the game everyone loves, surely ?
I aint saying awesome communitys dont make a game better, they do, but its still the game everyone loves, surely ?
SmokyDave said:
The outcry would be 10 times as big if Valve announced their next big multiplayer shooter (TF 3?) was not going to have dedicated servers.
And at this point, the outrcy is also about ignorant gaming journalists misrepresenting what is happening and accepting the nonsense justifications put forward by IW at face value without having the balls to question why their position on dedicated servers has flipped 180 degrees (as evidenced by the youtube video I'm sick of linking to).
SmokyDave said:
Glad you worked in the "If you don't like it, don't buy it" argument in there. I didn't grasp it the first 2,000 times when others made the exact same point in this thread, other sites articles, and article comments. Now I finally understand what to do :lol
I am just taking the piss out of you. Props for standing up on the PS3 version. That was pretty annoying.
The main point of this post is.. yea it's only 1 game that is taking a way DS. But if we don't speak out, the devs for the NEXT console ported game will think they can do the same thing. And then you will say... it's only 2 games whats the big deal. And so on and so on.
Alex
Member
I'll argue against it because it's a bad standard to set from a developer who should know better.
Personally, I wouldn't play the game if it DID have dedicated servers and came free in boxes of Lucky Charms. Last one I really played was COD2, and I'm deathly ill of generic campaign/deathmatch shooters, let alone realistic, military themed, yearly updates. Dropped in the middle of a shit ton of other good games, no less.
Still, it's worth a discussion whether you're a fan or not. It is a big game, and it carries a lot of weight with it.
Also, it's extremely uplifting to see it so low on the Steam charts. GO TORCHLIGHT.
Personally, I wouldn't play the game if it DID have dedicated servers and came free in boxes of Lucky Charms. Last one I really played was COD2, and I'm deathly ill of generic campaign/deathmatch shooters, let alone realistic, military themed, yearly updates. Dropped in the middle of a shit ton of other good games, no less.
Still, it's worth a discussion whether you're a fan or not. It is a big game, and it carries a lot of weight with it.
Also, it's extremely uplifting to see it so low on the Steam charts. GO TORCHLIGHT.
Cheeto said:
Unfortunately, you're unable to escape the piracy trap but deep down Acti-Blizz will know it's bullshit.
Archie said:
Absolutely agreed. Don't buy it, it won't be successful. I know you're reliant on the rest of the community to take the same stance but if they don't, this can't be a huge issue affecting the whole community after all.
Curufinwe said:
Valve wouldn't do this to you. That is why they're the darlings of the PC world. Acti on the other hand are evil scum and will not stop until Modern Warfare sells 300k copies across all platforms.
I'm not really sure how I feel about the media take on this but it really does seem that outside of a small, extremely vocal contingent, the larger community don't actually care and that is reflected in the media. The sales numbers will settle that one, I guess.
Still, no two ways about it, this moves sucks and is engineered purely to sell DLC.
Lostconfused
Member
That sounds exactly like what most people tend to usually do, I don't follow your point.Ogs said:
BattleMonkey
Member
Curufinwe said:
Perhaps not give out mod tools? The modding community will simply copy any DLC maps and put them up for free. But it would likely have little affect, they will find a way.....
Curufinwe said:
Sure, they could just package it up and sell it as an expansion pack. PC games have been doing that for decades.
It would probably sell as well. I think people would buy some new official maps from IW even if they had tons of free maps from mods. PC gamers buy tons of add-ons for their games, I don't think anyone is adverse to paying extra for extra content if it's worth it.
I don't know where some people get this idea that we want everything for free. Sure it's nice getting updates in TF2 like silly hats and new weapons but those costs are offset by the new players that buy the game when Valve release an update. For a company like Valve it's in their interest to keep people playing because they can bring in new customers who may go on to buy other games and use Steam.
On the other side you look at a company like Blizzard who had one of the fastest selling games ever and it was an add-on for WOW. Nobody complained about that. Nobody said "this should've been in the game from the start" or "I want mod tools so I can get this for free".
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
Lostconfused said:
What i mean is, look at the Bad Company 2 comparison, people are now saying there gonna be all over it thanks to DICE saying itl have dedicated servers, regardless of the game actually being any good. Surely people buy a game primarily for its awesomeness first, and its community second ?
Like for me personally, WoW sucks giant donkey balls, but the community does some funny shit and i love it, but i sure as hell wouldnt play the game to become a part of it.
Ogs said:
Unless the game everyone loves involves more than 16 players, custom rules in public games, not having to deal with lobbies, custom maps and the ability to have admins kick trouble makers then sure. It's the game everyone loves.
There are plenty of games this season and ones that don't cost almost double the competition (in australia) that I can go and play team deathmatch in, I just hope other people affected by the change realize that as well. Battlefield won't be one of them because they didn't even release the last 2 battlefield game for PC so they can shove it.
We could make it apples for apples and say Warcraft 3 and Frozen Throne. That had custom mapping tools AND matchmaking AND an expansion pack and people bought it.
DodgyGeezerFella
Member
Did the Battlefield 2 "Booster Packs" ever get hacked so anyone could play ? I remember they tied to your Battlefield account and that was there way of stopping anyone else playing them.
i find it bizarre that what seems like the majority subsect of console gamers, those of a disposition towards complete ownership of their games - to the extent that buying a dd game without the opportunity of resale is an a-constitutional wrong - are so quiet on what is essentially a debate on who owns the game after its release and mass purchase, the publisher or the community?
Metal Gear?!
Member
Curufinwe said:
EA sold 2 map packs for Battlefield 2.BattleMonkey said:
Not sure to what percentage of users.
No one recreated them and put them up for free, however, the ranking system may have had something to do with that. Oh hey guess what other game has a ranking system?
Effectively, no.Ogs said:
Battlefield 2 was good. Bad Company was good. We don't have any more reason to fear Bad Company 2 being bad than we have to fear Modern Warfare 2 being bad. Oh and one is developed by people who aren't insulting their customers right now.Ogs said:
If I know my country, I might not even get a choice.
http://www.tsumea.com/australasia/australia/news/291009/childrens-lobby-group-wants-modern-warfare-2-banned-in-australia
http://www.tsumea.com/australasia/australia/news/291009/childrens-lobby-group-wants-modern-warfare-2-banned-in-australia
ghst said:
I'm of the type that prefers physical products over DD. I don't see what this has to do with anything. DD / Physical Media does not affect how the devs / publishers choose to make their game, it just affects how I buy it. Also, as consoles are a closed platform, the 'ownership' angle is irrelevant. We're lucky if we're allowed to play our games on replacement hardware, let alone hack 'em to bits and distribute IP-infringing free content amongst ourselves.
This issues with this game are not relevant to it's distribution method. As for 'ownership' of the game content, that is a huge grey area with this and every other game.
I don't think the point is how games are made, the point is who has control over the game once it's purchased.SmokyDave said:
I own Half Life 2 via Steam. Technically, I guess, Steam could take HL2 away from me, for any number of reasons. However, while I "own" HL2, I can do with it what I please. The code is mine.
I also own Halo 3. The disc is mine. There's no way MS could ever take it away from me. But my ability to manipulate the game is limited to only the methods MS approves.
You don't see the dichotomy there?
What a very interesting point.
Draft said:
To be honest, all I see there is two different content creators that grant two different sets of rights to people that purchase their content. As these rights are known, understood and spelt out clearly before purchase I don't see the problem.
You want Content A and all of the rights inferred, buy it. If you want Content B and all of the rights inferred, buy it. If you want Content B with the rights inferred by Content A, that is fine but the onus is not on the content creator to make this happen for you.
Where this falls apart is when you buy a game with 10 online playlists and then thanks to map-packs you are only able to play 3 playlists after a month.
Absolutely retarded.
I recall when IW was releasing map packs and all that BS for Modern Warfare that they were releasing 360 version way before the ps3 version. I said I wasn't going to buy the next one.
Glad to see they are expanding their bullshit to the PC realm.
I recall when IW was releasing map packs and all that BS for Modern Warfare that they were releasing 360 version way before the ps3 version. I said I wasn't going to buy the next one.
Glad to see they are expanding their bullshit to the PC realm.
SmokyDave said:
I don't believe this was true of COD4 was it? I thought those maps were just not put in the rotation if someone in the lobby didn't have the map packs unlike halo 3. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
(The downside of course is that the people who bought the maps might never have got to play them I guess.)
Dingobloo said:
Shockingly, I'm the one guy that bought CoD4 for the single player and didn't enjoy it online so I don't know how that worked. I was thinking of Halo 3. I think it was WaW that gave mapless CoD players the shaft, it booted them back to the lobby or something equally heinous.
TheFightingFish
Member
ghst said:
People value different things in their hobby. I can easily see some console gamers who don't play multiplayer FPS games rolling their eyes at all the PC gamers in this thread accusing console gamers of "bending over for Activision" when many of those same PC gamers will plop down $50 on Steam for a game that they can't trade, can't resell and could eventually lose total access to at some point.
I don't think that it seems "bizarre" since with console games the right to modify and control a game after release is a right that (a few exceptions aside) they have never really had. If anything console games are getting better in this area as Halo 3 (since Draft mentioned it) really does allow much more customization in terms of Forge and Custom games like Rocket Race than most any console games before. Sure it's a drop in the bucket next to PC games with mods, but it's actually an improvment for the usual console game. I just can't see many console gamers getting too upset about PC gamers losing a right that consoles have never had in the first place (even if it would be nice if they did realize).
In an ideal world I'd like for console owners to get more into wanting to really own their games after release with ability to run their own servers and to mod the games and I'd like for PC games to keep fighting back against at least the most egregious violations of their rights to actually own games (SecuROM, TAGES ect). Sadly I think the trend in the near future is going to be to get neither.
Dingobloo said:
No, you're right, the CoD games never lock out play lists based on DLC. World at War was a bit worse about it, but most of the time the DLC maps always got vetoed anyways, so it was never really an issue for me.
EIDT: reading over the Ars Technica thing now, and their first point is kind of dumb. Halo is one of the biggest competitive games around, and not having dedicated servers has never had an effect on how people style the game to play a specific way and what weapons are allowed and such. I can understand it harming clan servers, but for MLG folk, it doesn't mean a thing.
brain_stew
Member
Ten-Song said:
Umm, not quite, WaW did exactly that on consoles and brought in $70 million of DLC revenue because of it, I wouldn't be in anyway suprised if MW2 follows suit.
Also, yay to the TF2 sale, should mean MW2 drops off the Steam top sellers list, hopefully never to return.
zombieshavebrains
I have not used cocaine
Doytch said:
I just read their article about the Dedicated Servers. They had a nice little jab at 402. I thought it was pretty decent.
With Guitar Hero/Rock Band, Tycho was bashing the fact that you had to buy two plastic guitars to play both versions of what are essentially the same game. It was corporate competitiveness over decency to the customer.
With Modern Warfare 2 it's about a small percentage of the customer base using the game in leagues and clans the way they are use to rather than trying the new way out before raising hell.
It is possible for someone to side with the company on one call, and not on the other... Even if that does mean siding with (ick) Bobby Fucking Kotick.
With Modern Warfare 2 it's about a small percentage of the customer base using the game in leagues and clans the way they are use to rather than trying the new way out before raising hell.
It is possible for someone to side with the company on one call, and not on the other... Even if that does mean siding with (ick) Bobby Fucking Kotick.
brain_stew
Member
Ten-Song said:
Semantics, the end result is the same, you get booted from games for not ponying up.
PedroLumpy
Member
brain_stew said:
No it's not. In Halo I CAN'T PLAY Team Snipers unless I have DLC. In WaW I can play anything, as long as a map I have is selected.
Dyno said:
I dunno, they both seem like corporate selfishness over the needs of the customer in both cases.
Teknopathetic
Member
"something just isn't quite right about this post, help me out guys."
I would guess it's the poster's ignorance of the issue.
I would guess it's the poster's ignorance of the issue.
PflargBlarg
Member
Can we stop with 'just don't buy it' bullshit? Yeah, we know that guys, thanks for enlightening us to that fact. Many people here are going to do just that. But I think it's pretty obvious that a silent boycott is not much of a boycott at all. There's no point in not buying it unless we tell them why we're not buying it.
So just stop, please.
So just stop, please.
Unknown One
Member
Everybody knows why the Boycotters are not buying it, even IW and Activision.Wormdundee said: