StarDestroyer.Net BBS

And PC gamers collectively shit a brick.

For future reference, a) we copy the fucking article, and b) we don't just post articles and run. Don't do it again. -- Lagmonster

Activision and InfinityWard seem very intent on telling PC Gamers to go fuck off. Refusing to release any special edition versions of the game. Artificially high price. And now completely removing dedicated server from the game.

Online petition's up over 85,000 signatures. I'm not buying the game unless I can get on dedicated servers. This irrational butt-raping of the PC version of the game is completely inexplicable and inexcusable. I get the gaming industry's retarded desire to connect all video gaming with consoles, but...really? Intentionally destroying a HUGE PC game release to prove a point? Really?

Pissing off a large portion of the player base, not the best option.

Just checking the Infinity Ward forums you see that the PC forum receives more traffic then either the PS3 or 360 forums. Unsurprisingly, people are pissed about the lack of dedicated server support.

The last time I saw something this vocal, EA caved on DRM over Mass Effect.

It's actually quite understandable that they did this, reading this should give you a little more insight.

Short of it is: Peg-legs and Eye-patches.

Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious. The whole pirate server thing was HUGE for CoD4. Turns out you can't do it on console?

They'll almost certainly release ded servers for PC later; they just want to actually get first week sales.

It's pretty funny that in AU despite our shitty Internet piracy of PC games is almost entirely [through my entirely anecdotal evidence] caused by TWO HUNDRED FUCKING PERCENT price inflation on games compared to overseas market. Maybe if the games industry fixed these kind of issues piracy would go down.

So major game publisher's solutions to the rise in PC video game piracy is to... alienate PC gamers even more.

THIS IS EXCELLENT STRAGEDY.

Oscar Wilde wrote:It's actually quite understandable that they did this, reading this should give you a little more insight.

Short of it is: Peg-legs and Eye-patches.

You know, that's funny, because according to the article they couldn't find legit games to play, and yet just last week I had no problems finding dozens of different games through their matchmaking service when I wanted. I sucked nuts because I hadn't played in months, but that's a different problem. Not for nothing, their game's also like two years old...the number of people who still play a FPS after two years not named Counterstrike isn't *that* big.

Call of Duty 4 made what, something like three quarters of a billion dollars in sales with 15 million copies moved? Fuck them, they got hundreds of millions of dollars out of that and could have made a large profit even if development cost 100 million dollars, which I highly doubt it did. Never mind all the money they are already making licensing the engine and no doubt will make licensing the new engine. Piracy is not fucking hurting you when you move product like that.

I bought a PC copy of CoD4 for PC, no way in hell will I buy this game without servers. That’s going to make the game outright unplayable with more then a handful of people in the first place. I do suspect this move will not last, I don’t see any way it won’t just hurt sales even more, and people will pirate the thing anyway, it just might take a couple extra weeks.

I bet even with all the "supposed" boycott by irate PC gamers, the game will make more than enough money for IW to spin off yet another sequel. (probably from console sales as well, lol the irony)

Stark wrote:Yeah, I think that's pretty obvious. The whole pirate server thing was HUGE for CoD4. Turns out you can't do it on console?

You can... I know you have a twisted point of view as an Ausy but here in America in any major city or place with access to the internet you can still get access to pirated games at reduced prices (10$ a game) from Hong-Kong and Russian distributors. Turns out it's cheaper to ship to America than down under... who knew? As for Pirated PC sales, well not having dedicated servers means nothing since the Pirates won't be playing online with a pirated retail version anyway.

No the main thing is, it kills of the tournaments and competitive play that gave CoD4 the stay power it did in the market since even six months after release it was still getting talked about because of tournaments here in the states.

Are you stupid? PIRATE SERVERS. On PC it was TRIVIAL to set up a dedicated server will full character progression etc, basically totally circumventing the online authentication, and piles of people did that - that is on top of all the detected pirate keys on the official servers (which was huge).

If you want to prove modded consoles are on this scale, go the fuck ahead. I'm always up for a game of 'It's Not Piracy'.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Call of Duty 4 made what, something like three quarters of a billion dollars in sales with 15 million copies moved? Fuck them

Yeah, that's right! They totally shouldn't be concerned about the massive amount of percieved 'lost sales', which could have increased this. It's not like they're out to increase profit or anything, right? If I sell ten things, but see that I could have sold five more if not for theft, I shouldn't be concerned because I made money!

What proportion of actual players (ie not forum-going people) would actually care about this? Of course, the pirates are largely the sort that would so it won't work, but will a sizeable amount of the actual playing population be put off by this? Or is it another petulant 'boycott' until launch day?

Stark wrote:What proportion of actual players (ie not forum-going people) would actually care about this?

That's precisely what kills my enthusiasm for critizicing game companies for draconian DRM, most people will pirate stuff instead of buying it, even if the product is worth paying for, simply because they can. It saddens and infurates me when I hear friends of mine complain about game releases, but then see them pirate most if not all of their games, and laugh at me when I suggest they should buy the games they find worthwile.

But then again, I was under the impression that user registration for online functionality (like MP, or even patches) was effective, like they did with Battlefield, or GalCiv. What did I miss?

Stark wrote: Yeah, that's right! They totally shouldn't be concerned about the massive amount of percieved 'lost sales', which could have increased this. It's not like they're out to increase profit or anything, right? If I sell ten things, but see that I could have sold five more if not for theft, I shouldn't be concerned because I made money!

Except its not lost sales when you are already far far far exceeding the sales of any regular game, because almost all those additional pirates would have never bought the game in the first place. Meanwhile doing this will drive away legitimate buyers.

What proportion of actual players (ie not forum-going people) would actually care about this? Of course, the pirates are largely the sort that would so it won't work, but will a sizeable amount of the actual playing population be put off by this? Or is it another petulant 'boycott' until launch day?

If they don’t have dedicated servers then the game will be unable to support large games. A fuckload of PC gamers are not going to be interested in online play limited to 16 players in a game that isn't going to be a quantum leap over the last one.

If you read the article (which I only just did myself) they're not forcing people to use regular servers, they're using a console-style system wherein you can't START a server running on your box but you can configure one and play using their network. I would HOPE this means you can play full-size games, otherwise they're fucked.

Initially I figured they just limited PC to 'official servers' and that they'd just release the dediciated exe later, but it appears they've changed the whole model of servers for the game.

That said, selling lots doesn't mean they're not losing sales to piracy. Stats say they aren't (since pirates probabyl wouldn't buy anyway, largely) but that doesn't change how it looks around the boardroom when they're making decisions.

Stark wrote:If you read the article (which I only just did myself) they're not forcing people to use regular servers, they're using a console-style system wherein you can't START a server running on your box but you can configure one and play using their network. I would HOPE this means you can play full-size games, otherwise they're fucked.

Well, if someone has to play on the same computer that is the game server, which is how it’d interpret no dedicated servers, then no way in hell will they get 64 players, barring the rare user with a completely awesome computer. The console style systems work exactly like this, one of the consoles becomes the game server and thus cripples you to 16 people, or at best 24 people in a handful low demand games. Console games with bigger groups then that have PC style servers running somewhere. I did read that article, and it sure as shit sounds to me like this is what they plan. No dedicated server, no dedicated server list. All matchmaking and local hosting. Computers might do better then 16 players like this, but even 32 is highly unlikely.

That said, selling lots doesn't mean they're not losing sales to piracy. Stats say they aren't (since pirates probabyl wouldn't buy anyway, largely) but that doesn't change how it looks around the boardroom when they're making decisions.

That doesn’t exactly change if it’s a good decision or not. Forcing a matchmaking system just requires pirates pirate that system, at which point they’ll be even harder to keep out of online play then they would be with servers that can ban users.

Its likely done somewhat similar to Left 4 Dead. There are servers, but no privately owned dedicated. Everything is dedicated directly from IW and the only way to join them is through a buddy game launch system or game lobby system. Absolutely no server lists visible to join.

Yeah, that's how I envisage it. However, I didn't think consoles actually ran local servers on the boxes, I though that was done on remote servers, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

Anyway, I seriously doubt this move is going to make any significant boost in sales. People who pirate rarely purchase the game when its made harder to pirate. They either crack the code and get their own dedicated servers into the system, or they don't bother with the game. What they are doing is turning away honest buyers. I quite enjoyed COD4. I was part of a clan and we had our own server. It was very fun. Infinity Ward is taking that away from us. We are totally reliant on them to make the game work, and we have no control over who plays on our server. Its also very hard to play friends games and get pubbers to join but still remain control to prevent assholes from ruining the server.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that dedicated server might show up as a patch. Even still, its a horribly cheap way to try and get more launch sales.

I have other issues with the game as well. The complete lack of special releases on PC. I would gladly waste $150 to get the crappy night vision goggles. But I won't plunk down $210 ($60 for PC version and $150 for a console copy of the prestige edition). I dislike their $10 price hike on the game. No actual reason for it. PC games are naturally cheaper, but they jacked the price just to match console just to get a little more money off the buyer.

Activision and Infinity Ward have not been treating their PC fans with much respect. The PC fans helped make the company what it is. They made the first two games popular. The PC forum for MW2 is the most active. When you treat your customers poorly, do not be surprised when they stop buying your products.

While I agree that this will probably not add to their profit, the idea that fans own games (or developers) is stupid. They're making a business decision and we'll see how it turns out.

Stark wrote:While I agree that this will probably not add to their profit, the idea that fans own games (or developers) is stupid. They're making a business decision and we'll see how it turns out.

Indeed. I am not happy with Activision and Infinity Ward. But it is their game. My recourse is to simply not purchase the game. We shall leave it at that and see what happens.

Honestly, if you don't buy the game I think that's awesome. These decisions are made because most people who make a song and dance about it buy anyway. If MW2 sells less than the older ones, you can be sure they'll notice.

Stark wrote:Honestly, if you don't buy the game I think that's awesome. These decisions are made because most people who make a song and dance about it buy anyway. If MW2 sells less than the older ones, you can be sure they'll notice.

I can be patient, though we will see how honest I end up being. I've waited this long for a number of games that still haven't released yet. What is more likely to happen is I will hold out for a price drop. Purchase the game at $40 instead of their launch price of $60. That might be a while since COD4 still sells at $40 today on PC. 2 years and its price has dropped only $10. So I would have to hold out for a $20 drop on MW2.

Do I have the integrity to boycott the game when I have an undeniable interest in playing it? I really don't know. Wal-Mart is the only retailer who advertises the game for $50. Not sure whats up with that. I don't know if I can hold out or not.

Once it's past the first month or whatever, it is much less significant. If there are less pre-orders or the first week's sales are down, that's a statement itself.