Reply With Quote
Was debating whether or not to get it on the pc or xbox and this helped make my decision.
http://games.on.net/article/7188/Mod...for_PC_version
I think I'm canceling my pre-order and not buying the game. That's unreal. They're going to lose so much support because of this.
Bring on Battlefield: Bad Company 2.
Was debating whether or not to get it on the pc or xbox and this helped make my decision.
worf is IW is pissed at how many PC users aren't playing a bought game but rather just a cracked one
I remember reading a stat once that said well over half of all PC copies are pirated. So I understand. Perhaps when things like this happen, the piracy crazed PC community should take a good, hard look at themselves. Point those fingers back at the voluminous gaggle of their less than honest peers.
That being said, if I were a PC gamer, I'd be furious. As is my understanding, the PC community built CoD and the things that made CoD for PC great, on a fundamental level, will no longer exist. So while I'm sympathetic to the developers, I'm also sympathetic to the community who collected tens of thousands of pe ion signatures over this, over the course of one day, over a weekend.
Also, I'm calling everybody's bluff who says they're not buying. I've played console CoD and managed to pump 20+ days of my life into it, so yeah, while the PC version might not be the entirely different game it once was, I reject the elitist sentiment that having dedicated servers and customization are a MUST in order for a good time.
Has anybody heard conclusively whether this is an Activision or IW decision, or both?
No dedicated servers is some major bull , but don't be lame. Console gamers deal with that all the time.
Wasnt getting it anyway, but now at least I wont have a single regret about it.
I don't mind. Back when everyone had 56k modems it was a problem. Nowadays, its still not as good as dedicated servers and never will be, but is pretty much a non-issue. The main problem is running custom maps etc/.
Bingo.
But really, how different can this game really be when compared to MW1.
Sure, cool new features like customizable streak bonuses, new maps, new weapons, new lvl-ing system, but gameplay-wise...?
Not so much.
Moreover, it just isnt re-inventing the wheel like MW1 did. I dont have a problem with the devs decision to not try anything really different as they have a loyal fanbase that expects only "bigger, better, faster", but when this sort of game gets released amongst the plethora of other games that completely tear their respective genre to threads, its passable for me.
Actually, this is precisely the kind of thing that leads people to download/pirate games in the first place. THE BEST selling video game franchises are still PC games. The Sims, WoW, and the Half-Life series have all sold over 6 million games a piece. Hmm, strange, doesn't seem to me that piracy has hurt them much.
More than likely it's a developer being pissed off that PC gamers will pirate ty games instead of buying them, in which case the developer can lose money.
As IronMexican has demonstrated, 360 owners are actively pirating their games... do you see any industry backlash? Was there ever a complaint when the original XBox was hacked?
Furthermore, how is this "resolution" going to prevent people from cracking MW2? So pissing off gamers will lead to LESS piracy? Since when? Obviously the mod community really devastated the sales of CoD4.
CoD owes nearly all of it's massive commercial success due to the PC community. They are pissing right on their faces.That being said, if I were a PC gamer, I'd be furious. As is my understanding, the PC community built CoD and the things that made CoD for PC great, on a fundamental level, will no longer exist. So while I'm sympathetic to the developers, I'm also sympathetic to the community who collected tens of thousands of pe ion signatures over this, over the course of one day, over a weekend.
I might still buy it -- however, it had better receive rave reviews from every VG critic before I decide to throw money down on it.Also, I'm calling everybody's bluff who says they're not buying. I've played console CoD and managed to pump 20+ days of my life into it, so yeah, while the PC version might not be the entirely different game it once was, I reject the elitist sentiment that having dedicated servers and customization are a MUST in order for a good time.
If I were to pose the thought to you that because the design team decided they didn't want to put the effort forth, that CoD:MW2 would only run in 480p, could you make the same suggestion that the game is still fun? Of course you could. That does not make this an understandable or defensible move. Of course the game will still likely be a lot of fun to play -- that's entirely not the point.
Exactly, console gamers deal with the . One of the many reasons PC offers a better hardcore gaming experience. Dedicated servers are more reliable, faster, and serve as a meeting point for gaming. They foster a sense of community that is impossible to get through localhost. I would have stopped playing CoD4 quite some time ago if I hadn't found a server (with custom content) that had a really, really cool population within it. I still talk to people from the Counterstrike 1.6 days that I met through some awesome dedicated servers.
This, of course, is to say nothing of the ability of dedicated servers to host games with administrative privileges which allow hackers/griefers or other malcontents to be insta-banned.
Yes, and so do Left 4 Dead users on the PC. I have a very fast cable modem connection. Last night my entire team was pinging at >200 thanks to the awesome power of the local host. It sucks, and is a massive step BACKWARD for gaming.
And there is no WAY I'm ever paying IF or Activision $10 for 3 freaking maps when I could have paid someone who loves the game $0 for 50-100 better, custom built maps to play on.
Admin power also leads to admin abuse, first of all - and I'd say its as commonplace as hacking. I'm not quantifying the two measurably, just making a comparison.
Second, its a positive thing you can leave at any time and discover another completely random assortment of people with the touch of a button. Sure, you may have 40 favorite servers but how many are empty, or which ones aren't filled with bull mods that distort the gameplay, which one just got hacked, or is about to go under, or attracts tons of the same morons day after day because its "their" favorite server too.
There's a certain beauty to all strangers, all the time.
Oh step off it, Havoc. Millions of console gamers deal with this same issue. It can't be a massive step backward for the entirety of gaming if tons of games use it. I'm sorry it doesn't have it, really I am, but its not going to destroy your gaming experience unless you let it.Yes, and so do Left 4 Dead users on the PC. I have a very fast cable modem connection. Last night my entire team was pinging at >200 thanks to the awesome power of the local host. It sucks, and is a massive step BACKWARD for gaming.
Well that's your choice, I don't have that choice and haven't had it for several releases now, besides I like playing the same sets of maps when they're good. You don't see leagues with custom maps, because the officials can be almost universally trusted for balance.And there is no WAY I'm ever paying IF or Activision $10 for 3 freaking maps when I could have paid someone who loves the game $0 for 50-100 better, custom built maps to play on.
If I'm on a server where the admins are abusive, I go elsewhere. Simple.
And all of the above is possible with dedicated servers, too. You just pick a random server and go. I like knowing that when I connect to a server I'm a reg on that it's not going to consist of people shouting " " or mic spamming all of the time.Second, its a positive thing you can leave at any time and discover another completely random assortment of people with the touch of a button. Sure, you may have 40 favorite servers but how many are empty, or which ones aren't filled with bull mods that distort the gameplay, which one just got hacked, or is about to go under, or attracts tons of the same morons day after day because its "their" favorite server too.
There's a certain beauty to all strangers, all the time.
So let me get this straight..... if something is highly propagated in the gaming community, it must be a good thing? So you'd call the plethora of games that use Quick-Time Events good? The hundreds of RPGs released every year where you play for 5 minutes and and then watch a 5-10 minute cutscene with absolutely no role-playing element to it is good?Oh step off it, Havoc. Millions of console gamers deal with this same issue. It can't be a massive step backward for the entirety of gaming if tons of games use it. I'm sorry it doesn't have it, really I am, but its not going to destroy your gaming experience unless you let it.
Your reasoning here is just fallacious. There is a very specific reason PC games typically use dedicated servers. Because they rock. How can you possibly suggest that localhosting provides even CLOSE to the same quality of gameplay that a dedicated server does? This is not up for debate. Dedicated >>>>>> Localhost. The fact that IW/Activision is removing the OPTION for PC gamers to enjoy something that is VERY easily included in the game is what is ridiculous. The idea that "well console gamers have to put up with it" is a non-argument. I could care less what console gamers have to deal with. There's a reason I play on PC, and that's because it's superior. More options ALWAYS > less options.
its not going to destroy your gaming experience unless you let it.
And besides, if there's enough uproar they could very well reinsert the option..
Last edited by z0sa; 10-19-2009 at 04:11 PM.
I prefer to play on console anyways. Less chance of running into hacked players.
kotick hates his customers having fun.
BF:BC was better than CoD: MW to begin with. Prettier, better sound effects, destructable environments, huge maps, great physics, etc.
Only thing that CoD had on it was the SP.
Actually, I never planned on buying MW2. This little tidbit just sealed the deal.
I was reading Gamespy about this, I liked this comment.
Last line seals it for me. I dont want to play with random strangers all the time. I have always found a home or a few homes, so to speak, and stuck with them.Kay_Tannee on Oct 20, 2009 00:20 PDT
But I'm most certinaly not [going to buy this game] if this turns out to be true. I've been a PC gamer for a very very long time. And companies have been ting on it, bit by bit, dumbing down and turning ruining it with stupid console ideals.
If people don't refuse to buy this game, then more companies may follow suit. And I really really don't want that.
I like picking which server I play on, off with match making.
Console players dont know any better, but thats like "PC Gaming 101".
Oh well, one game I wont buy or play...I am quite sure I'll live. But if this becomes a trend, or the PC really does die its death in the name of console (in)equality, I'll just quit gaming period.
Oh noes the sky is falling the sky is falling.
Im sure there will be quite a backlash from the pc gamers and something will eventually be done to allow the dedicated servers in the form of a patch or something. If you listen to the full length of that podcast they aren't even totally sure about the no dedicated servers. It's long as though.
PC gaming is better than console gaming when it comes to customization and all that stuff
but console gaming > PC gaming in my opinion. i don't want the headaches of upgrading my PC everytime a new game comes out, dealing with cheaters and hackers, pc errors, blah blah blah
Over 100K signatures:
http://www.pe iononline.com/mod_pe...d.cgi?dedis4mw
MiamiHeat, you have the scariest avatar ever. That is all.
I don't understand this myth.
I still game on my laptop. It will run CoD4 more than competently.
I bought it in the fall of 2006. I haven't upgraded a thing on it since I bought it.
Now, I'm not going to try to run Crysis on it, but since consoles can't run the game either, would you rather have the OPTION of upgrading parts to play the newest games at the highest resolutions, or not have the option to do so?
It's a complete fabrication that PCs need to be upgraded all the time. Usually all that needs to be done is to buy a new graphics card every couple years, and that's if you want to stay ahead of the games.
High-end GPUs are now MUCH cheaper than consoles, and one will last up to 3 years, minimum, and they vastly outperform consoles for graphical quality. Right now you can buy a 4870 for ~$120-130 and it will last you well into 2011.
No doubt. My PC is running a processor from 2005 (Athlon XP San Diego). I could easily game on it into 2010 and you could probably get one for $5 these days (if you could find it). I've been running the same memory for the same time too (and memory is dirt cheap). I swapped out my video card for a 4870 and that will last years. This is no different than dropping $400-500 on a new console, hard drive, controllers, cables, wireless adapter, etc. Plus dropping all that cash on a single console when there will be 2-3 different ones you probably want.
Maybe people think that dropping $3000 on a i7 processor, mobo, and bleeding edge memory with 2 gfx cards is a standard upgrade?
On topic, this is just the continuation of the death of PC gaming. The golden era of the 90s is dead. Say o to the nickle-and-dime world of console gaming where DLC and internet access cost you cash. Perhaps the investors want to pull dedicated servers so that they can bear the brunt of the matchmaking bandwidth cost and use it as an excuse to charge for stuff that should be free.
I hope this game falls flat on its ing face based on reading that cretin.
Sadly, it wont because console-exclusive players dont know the damn difference.
Oh well, I look at it like I am saving $60.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
