×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Modern Warfare 2 Surpasses $1 Billion Mark; Dedicated Servers What?

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the our-bark-is-worse-than-our-boycott dept.

First Person Shooters (Games) 258

The Opposable Thumbs blog is running an interesting article contrasting everything Activision did "wrong" in creating and marketing Modern Warfare 2 with the game's unqualified success. Despite price hikes, somewhat shady review practices, exploit frustrations, and the dedicated server fiasco, the game has raked in over a billion dollars in sales. "There was only one way to review Modern Warfare 2: on the Xbox 360, in Santa Barbara, under the watchful eye of Activision. Accepting the paid trip, along with room and board, was the only way you were going to get a review before launch. Joystiq noted that this broke their ethics policy, but they went anyway. Who can say no to a review destined to bring in traffic? Shacknews refused to call their coverage a 'review' because of the ethical issues inherent in the situation, but that stance was unique. The vast majority of news outlets didn't disclose how the review was conducted, or added a disclaimer after the nature of the review was made public. This proved to Activision that if you're big enough, you can dictate the exact terms of any review, and no ethics policy will make news outlets turn you down."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

258 comments

MW2 (2, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816514)

I think the game is great, especially multiplayer with its leveling, perks and the amount of customization you can do to your characters game style. Even those who complain about things are still playing it full force.

It's also nice that you can just jump in to the game (without friends, or with them in same lobby - you always get to same side and see each others with different color on radar and name). No need to hunt for different servers which can be crappy. Yes, there are host migrations and other stupid things sometimes, but the easiness to just jump in to the game outweights them. I'm not a serious gamer and neither are majority of people.

When the cheapest way to get a product is $60, of course you're going to beat sales of something that costs $15 or less.

This doesn't make sense. You aren't going to beat a great and popular movie that costs $15 with a mediocre or bad game that costs $60. The higher priced product also has to be good, which MW2 definitely is.

But who cares? The majority of gamers will experience the game on consoles, and PC gamers don't need things like a console for tweaking the game or support for mods.

No they don't. Me and almost all of my friends play it on PC because of keyboard and mouse. And to tell the truth, I rather don't see so much tweaking and mods by the users and get all stupid doom and quake sounds or no gravity when I join the server. I like the game the way IW made it.

Why spend all this money on flying journalists to a resort in Santa Barbara? Because it works. Activision refuses to comment on the review situation, and the Metacritic score for the game stands at 94 percent.

And the game actually being great has nothing to do with it?

I don't spend that much in games, but I've spent days playing MW2. It deserves the scores it got, it's definitely the best game of 2009.

Re:MW2 (3, Interesting)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816564)

Yeah, nothing beats the great game play, well, except for "double shotgun dude" running around a map and dropping a nuke to finnish it, makes for a great game, unless of course he is cut short on his rampage by the host dropping from game, that just RULES :)

Back to TF2 for me, strategy + fun + dead stable == win.

Oh and the $120AU price tag was criminal.

Re:MW2 (3, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816574)

"double shotgun dude" running around a map

Model 1887 was balanced a month ago.

Re:MW2 (-1, Redundant)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816590)

Seems like something they should have caught during the thing called play-testing. Evidently they skipped that part along with coding dedicated servers ;)

Re:MW2 (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816630)

Well, it wasn't overly overpowered. When you have a perk or custom character build system like this theres always something that becomes the-best-build on the internet. There's many different sites and forums where people discuss such for World of Warcraft too.

You usually lose lots of other abilities. For that 1887 build you had to use stopping power and other perks, and couldn't run as fast as the "ninjas" with knifes. Or you couldn't be an explosives guy. The great thing about that is that its basically a different classes system, but without classes - you modify your build exactly as you want. That's what makes it fun.

Re:MW2 (1)

JohnnyComeLately (725958) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816762)

I agree with you. At first I was getting my butt handed to me by knife yielding asshats, but if you're any good you figure out tactics to defeat them, such as claymores at choke points and choosing your fights with long line's of sight. I built several classes so that whatever map comes up, I've got a way to maximize my capabilities. At first I saw no use for One-Man Army, but I enable it on 60% of my classes so I can switch (I'm 1MA Pro now). E.g. I rarely use a RPG, or Stinger, so I'll run around with a short-range primary weapon, or assualt rifle. If I'm on a team that seems to be ignoring (and dying) a Harrier, I'll find a nice hiding spot, switch to the class with the Stinger and take it out. Only problem is I'm screwed in terms of switching again until I die, but that's usually not a problem. I still occasionally run into very gifted "ninja's" but on Hardcore Team Deathmatch and my tactics, it's now the exception. I laughed at guys who relied on the double shotty. You'll get me the first time, but I usually figure out their game and they become easy pickings (like riot shield noobs).

Re:MW2 (3, Informative)

Tukz (664339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816780)

You didn't "HAVE" to use Stopping Power. Or any other perk for that matter.

1887 Akimbo is a serious problem in Hardcore game mode, where only one shot will kill from you a 1887.
I tried it a few times, just for kick and with my insta aim (old UT player), I could literally just pick em off one shot at a time within reasonable range. You fire on 1887, and while you are firing the next 1887 on the next guy, the first 1887 is reloading.

And it's insanely accurate. Even in Hardcore where you don't have crosshairs, it's not that hard to know where you are shooting short to mid range.

It's not that much if a problem anymore though, now that I've got 200+ hours under my belt, I tend to pick em out even before they get too close to me with those sticks and it's not that common any more.

Thumpers is a lot more common and pisses me off a great deal more, but that's another story...

Re:MW2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816620)

You payed 120 dollars for this game?

I only payed 78 :|, you really don't know how to shop around, do you?

Re:MW2 (3, Interesting)

Barny (103770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816720)

I didn't, I got mine on steam, but there were a lot of suckers who didn't.

I did get my $60 or so of play out of it, but compared to TF2 for replay value per dollar spent, very very fail.

Re:MW2 (3, Informative)

caladine (1290184) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816976)

You forgot the aimbot hackers that are in 1 in 4 games. That, by far, is the most irritating part of the multi-player experience. While it's easy to tell (thank you kill-cam) it's just irritating after getting connection to host errors 3 games in a row.

Re:MW2 (4, Interesting)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817538)

You forgot the aimbot hackers that are in 1 in 4 games. That, by far, is the most irritating part of the multi-player experience. While it's easy to tell (thank you kill-cam) it's just irritating after getting connection to host errors 3 games in a row.

Not everyone who pulls of insane shots is using an aimbot. I have never played COD online, but I have played AA2 and AA3 a shitload. I have been banned from plenty of servers for dropping the admin at long range with a crap gun. If you always try for the insane shots, you quite often find you start pulling them off.

Re:MW2 (5, Insightful)

levicivita (1487751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816628)

Agree with you on the superiority of PC input control vs. consoles. I also agree that there is something to be said for being able to jump into a game without going through thousands of options. However I disagree with everything else you state. I say this as someone who though MW was one of the top 5 games of all time, and one of the top 3 multiplayer games of all time. For me MW2 has been an enormous disappointment and I refuse to purchase another Infinity Ward game in the future.
1) The single player mode in MW2 is a marginally updated version of MW, more like an expansion pack. The textures have higher resolutions, and they have a few gimmicks like the ice climbing scene, but that's about it. There's no 'wow' moment like when you controlled the AC130 for the first time in MW (the Predator drone in MW2 is too similar to the AC130 to be considered innovative). There's no new groundbreaking revolutionary ideas.
2) The multiplayer is entirely compromised due to hacking. I originally also thought that the lack of dedicated servers was not an issue, since I also never really played on the modded servers. However, as 50% of MW2 games end in a tactical nuke, I've learned that the key benefit for dedicated servers is that the server admin polices and bans cheaters. And if a server got overrun by cheaters you could just flee to another one that was better managed. Clearly the automatic anti-cheating provisions do not work - hackers can always side step whatever protection the game has, much like computer viruses constantly evolve and find new ways to side-step the anti-virus protection. What's happening is simple: they're looking for ways to monetize the multiplayer franchise (think WoW), and that starts with controlling it.
In summary: single player is too short and not innovative enough, and multiplayer is overrun by cheaters and too restrictive for the end user. The COD franchise is being monetized ruthlessly by the parent company - good for their shareholders, bad for the gaming community. Interestingly, the PC community has responded the strongest to these issues (look up the GameSpot average user rating for COD6 on the PC - it is mediocre - and compare it to COD4). The console community has been much less capable of independent critical thought, partially because cheating is probably much less of a problem. Perhaps they're just trying to kill the PC version - they may think they can make more money off consoles.

Re:MW2 (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816662)

Yes, thats the best added benefit of dedicated servers. However, I haven't really seen such blatant cheating around. There's sometimes an occasional one, but then everyone bitches at him and he leaves. Maybe geographical location has something to do with it, I don't know (as the matchmaking gets those players closest to your physical location)

However, as 50% of MW2 games end in a tactical nuke

I disagree here tho. I've played MW2 hundreds of hours and I've seen tactical nuke two times, and on the other time the guy did it 10 seconds before round end and said on chat he though it would be a fun ending.

That being said, I don't really play deathmatch or such where the cheaters most likely hang around. Domination, capture the flag and hardcore HQ are more fun.

Re:MW2 (1)

levicivita (1487751) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816806)

OK, I suspect most people who play COD multiplayer play deathmatch. That's where the nuke rate is about 50%. It is ridiculous.

Re:MW2 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816636)

And to tell the truth, I rather don't see so much tweaking and mods by the users and get all stupid doom and quake sounds or no gravity when I join the server. I like the game the way IW made it.

This is true for so many games. I'd almost always rather have the game the way the developers made it because the a huge number of user mods for multiplayer games end up being total, annoying, unbalanced, non-fun, mind-bogglingly stupid crap. Anyone who has played a moddable online game has certainly encountered these sorts of modded servers at least once before leaving the server faster than a rat can get off a sinking ship.

Of course there are the mods that do improve games, and then there are the astonishingly rare creme de la creme mods which manage to become full blown games in their own right.

Re:MW2 (0)

Trahloc (842734) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817182)

Tribes 1 mods make everything you said irrelevant. They're might be few exceptions but there are most definitely exceptions.

Re:MW2 (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817626)

Strange. Counter Strike: Source is a quite modable game, yet there are plenty of Vanilla servers around. There also are dedicated servers, and thanks to server admins and voteban, I never really had any problems with cheaters or racist little twats naming themselves after prominent fascist leaders spouting KILL ALL JEWS nonsense either.

Ther being said, I boycotted MW2 from the moment they said there weren't going to be any dedicated servers on and stuck to it (and I initially considered pre-ordering it), and seeing all the MP prophecies fulfilling themselves, I'm glad I did.

Re:MW2 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816648)

Yes, there are host migrations and other stupid things sometimes, but the easiness to just jump in to the game outweights them. I'm not a serious gamer and neither are majority of people.

dedicated servers allows the community to police itself very much like open source software does. The fact you are not a serious gamer does not mitigate this fact, for you or for anyone else. Upgrade treadmills suck, and that's the only reason for lack of public dedicated servers. Also, arguing from popularity is fallacious. You should know better.

No they don't. Me and almost all of my friends play it on PC because of keyboard and mouse. And to tell the truth, I rather don't see so much tweaking and mods by the users and get all stupid doom and quake sounds or no gravity when I join the server. I like the game the way IW made it.

A blatant misrepresentation of the history and impact mods have had on the games they modify and the communities that support them.

Re:MW2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816848)

back in europe lots of people are behind nat, and finding host with a decent ping is extremely problematic, pc have lots less of users starting with.

Re:MW2 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816674)

The client side model has allowed online play tobe infested with texture hacks and aimbots.
There are even hacks to level up other clients to lvl 70 instantly, causing VAC to ban poor users who were unlucky enough to have connected to it.
There are still plenty of glitches (change to care package and you run at warp speed, ruining capture the flag, and making you damn hard to hit)
last patch did virtually nothing, and the last decent patch which stopped the aimbots was over a month ago.
The client hosting model is utterly poor - it's crippled by bad latency detection where the host can run around like god where everyone else is rubber banding. Game lobbies can take 5 minutes to stabilise, and you can drop out at any point. If the lottery selected host leaves, then the host migration tends to fail, so stopping the game. Myself and friends have literally spent 15+ minutes trying to either connect to games as one or more of us gets suddenly dropped waiting to start.
This is cookie cutter coding at it's finest - what works for the xbox doesn't work at all for the pc.
The irony is that IWnet was touted as the next best thing and unhackable. Shame, as I see one blatent aimbotter every 5 games on average...

Re:MW2 (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816704)

There are still plenty of glitches (change to care package and you run at warp speed, ruining capture the flag, and making you damn hard to hit)

This was patched in yesterday's patch:

Updates to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 have been released. The updates will be applied automatically when your Steam client is restarted. The major changes include:

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Care Package, Emergency Airdrop, and Sentry Gun marker grenades sprint speed normalized
Sentry Guns: Improved placement detection, preventing cases of Sentry Guns inside geometry
Model 1887: Bling using Akimbo and FMJ combination now has same range and damage as non-Bling Model 1887s
Improved player collision removing cases of getting into geometry and 'elevators'
Mouse latency tweaks for more mouse movement consistency
Fixes to prevent various texture and XP hacks

Re:MW2 (1)

Tukz (664339) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816766)

But who cares? The majority of gamers will experience the game on consoles, and PC gamers don't need things like a console for tweaking the game or support for mods.

No they don't. Me and almost all of my friends play it on PC because of keyboard and mouse. And to tell the truth, I rather don't see so much tweaking and mods by the users and get all stupid doom and quake sounds or no gravity when I join the server. I like the game the way IW made it.

Actually, it's not the tweaks and mods I want from a "dedicated server".
It's the community that tend to hang around on the same servers.

That, and admins who'll kick tards and the occasional cheaters.

I agree on your other points though, I like MW2, and I'm close to my second prestige.
So I've played it a fair share, thrown my fair share of nukes and I'm not even abusing any setup.
M16A4, Silenced and EOTech, Bling pro, cold blooded pro, ninja pro. Silent and invisible.
(Was just to show I'm not some 1887 akimbo dude, or shield knife tard etc)

I rarely run into cheaters or tards. Only the usual "noobtube tards".
But then again, I very rarely venture into TDM, and I play mainly "Ricochet HC HQ".

And I only play HC. Maybe that's the difference. The tards hang out in regular TDM or Domination?

Re:MW2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816902)

Wow, you managed to type a post that I _almost_ understand ...
HC? TDM? Richoret? "Shield knife tard"?

WTF?

Re:MW2 (3, Informative)

gknoy (899301) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817044)

HC: Hardcore. (1-2 shots kills you, usually)
TDM: Team deathmatch
HQ: Headquarters
S&D: Search and destroy

The former is a mod on the difficulty level, the latter three are different flavors of game type. I enjoy search and destroy because the rounds reset when everyone dies, and you never have people spawning behind you.

Re:MW2 (1)

KamuZ (127113) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816776)

I agree with you post. In fact for example in a game like World of Warcraft when they finally added a dungeon tool across realms, you can just log in, enter the queue and in 5-10 minutes you are in the Dungeon you want (or Random).
No more looking in LookingForGroup for hours or if you log in early morning when there is not much population, you are still lucky.

When someone works everyday and want to have some fun, these kind of tools makes sense as you don't waste half an hour trying to choose a server.

Unless of course you are part of a clan and everyone always there waiting for you, well, i can see the point about dedicated servers.

Re:MW2 (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816812)

I'm a heavy PC gamer (level 70 prestige 2 on MW2), and played CoD4 competitively.

There are only two problems with the IWnet scheme, especially from the competitive gaming perspective:

1) Latency. This is simple, IWNet doesn't artifically impose any latency on the host of the game, meaning that whilst all others may experience high latency, the host has an effective ping of 0. This gives about .1-.2 seconds of advantage to the host, which is usually the difference between success and death in games like MW2.

2) Competition. The servers are more or less unregulated, comp servers don't exist and neither do mods. Instantly ths drives all the ProMod and PAM4 players from cod4 to frustration, and yes you *Can* play competitively on MW2, it's nowhere near as balanced as it was on the old dedicated server model.

Re:MW2 (3, Interesting)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816838)

Even those who complain about things are still playing it full force.

I just find this sad personally. I think it was a bad idea for them to not include things like modding and dedicated servers and I haven't bought or even rented the game for the console. Note that I always knew the game would be a blockbuster hit, I just disagree with the route they're taking. It saddens me that people who said they would not buy the game did anyway. People need to grow a backbone.

It's also nice that you can just jump in to the game (without friends, or with them in same lobby - you always get to same side and see each others with different color on radar and name). No need to hunt for different servers which can be crappy. Yes, there are host migrations and other stupid things sometimes, but the easiness to just jump in to the game outweights them. I'm not a serious gamer and neither are majority of people.

The ability to jump in and out of a game is always good. Personally I always found communities I enjoyed through trial and error and generally stuck around. Until just recently I even helped run a rather large one in my free time.

I see it as a trade-off. With the type of system in Modern Warfare 2 you don't really get the same communal feeling as you do with dedicated servers, you just don't. I know the whole friends list thing tries to rectify this, but it's not really the same. However, it's very easy to start the game and start playing without having to deal with empty servers and poorly run communities. I personally value strong communities that I can help out. It's really just a matter of taste.

This doesn't make sense. You aren't going to beat a great and popular movie that costs $15 with a mediocre or bad game that costs $60. The higher priced product also has to be good, which MW2 definitely is.

To my understanding consoles have a licensing cost when you develop games for it where as the PC does not. I don't know how much truth there is to this, but a lot of people felt the extra $10 for console games was because of this and they questioned why the PC version needed a $10 price hike. However, I'm sure MW2 was ludicrously expensive to produce, so it may have been required.

No they don't. Me and almost all of my friends play it on PC because of keyboard and mouse. And to tell the truth, I rather don't see so much tweaking and mods by the users and get all stupid doom and quake sounds or no gravity when I join the server. I like the game the way IW made it.

This is where I'm going to disagree a lot. First of all you don't need to use a mouse and keyboard, you could have easily just used a controller on a 360 for the same experience. You prefer playing games with a mouse and keyboard, the same way that a lot - but by no means the majority - of people prefer to have custom content and the ability to generate it themselves. Just because you and your friends don't personally enjoy such things doesn't mean other people don't either. It's a personal preference and you really have no right saying what everyone should like.

Second it's not just minor game tweaks[1]. It's a whole range of things. Custom maps[2], models, sounds, gametypes, small modifications, and total conversions. You may think nothing interesting comes from modding but I'd disagree. Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Red Orchestra, Killing Floor and Insurgency to name a few. The first two morphed into commercial games with very, very large player bases, the two after also went commercial.

I actually enjoy playing unmodified games as well. My all time favorite multiplayer FPS, Starsiege: Tribes, was exceedingly modifiable. People are still modifying it to this day. Even with all of the mods I still prefer playing base. However, I play a lot of custom maps and a few custom gametypes. Some of the best competition maps for that game were custom content. I'd also like to point out that even though Sierra shut down the master servers for that game (and the sequel) the community made their own master servers. One of the powers of dedicated servers. ID games have similar histories.

Lastly modding is beneficial for the game industry itself. I know Valve, Blizzard, and many others hire mod developers, artists, etc... because they're familiar with the engine and have proven their talent. Even if you don't get hired by a game studio it's still good on your resume, just like an open source project. So it's not as if modding is a waste of time for either the modders or the game studios.

Again, it comes down to personal preference. You don't enjoy custom content whereas I enjoy receiving custom content and making it. Do I need to have it? No, of course not, but I also don't need to play video games, I just like to. I know CoD:MW2 will get updates with DLC[3], but I've always found DLC to be extremely overpriced and just more of the same.

[1] Having said that the CoD series has never been amazingly customizable like other games. They never put a lot of effort into that.
[2]Last I checked there would be no custom maps, but that may not be true or may change. Feel free to correct me.
[3]I haven't looked into this since I have no intentions of buying the game so I may be wrong, but I assume with IWNet PC gamers will be paying for the DLC whereas they didn't have to before.

Re:MW2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817268)

So because you like it the way it comes, all of us can't play it any differently? Last I checked, the main draw of mods was the choice. Having them wouldn't affect you.

Re:MW2 (0, Flamebait)

TheRealGrogan (1660825) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817512)

That game sucks. It's all campers and noob tube launchers, glitching, sprinting, knifing cocksuckers, air strikes, helicopters, FUCKING LAG and the annoyances of its multiplayer matchmaking system. These people don't know the meaning of the word sporting. The object is to get 25 kills so you can end the match with a nuclear strike. Oh boy, what else did you get for your fucking birthday?

They have ENABLED these lamers to rack up the kills with all the crap in this game. It's utterly ridiculous. The glitches that some of them exploit are still not fixed either.

I should NEVER be exposed to those pukes... if it were a real Call of Duty game I'd be playing on servers with like minded people.

Sales means nothing to me. Like I give a shit. People are just mindless herbivores. The numbers of online players on the PC is dwindling. It was all the hype for a month or so, but now it's getting harder to find a game and when you do, it's just annoying assfucks anyway. I only played it to get level 70 so I'd have all the weapons choices for private matches with friends. As it turns out, I have one friend that plays it and our schedules rarely are compatible. Everyone else I know is boycotting it.

Now, I have had a few very good runs playing with good people, but they don't last long. 2 or 3 matches and then something always happens to break up the group and it's back to annoying twats again.

The single player modes are very nice though. The campaign gets worn out after a few runs through, but the special ops missions are better than playing with the public.

This is the last game I am paying for, ever. I am very bitter about this game and the general trends that I am seeing from game vendors towards PC gaming.

fs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816534)

fritz!!11scamm!!!

On dictated terms (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816546)

Next time you have to be female, 36c and agree to extensive cavity search to review the product.

Uhm, no (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816960)

those boobs are too small... what are you, a fag?

Maybe he likes real breasts? (0, Offtopic)

George_Ou (849225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817528)

No, some of us heterosexuals prefer natural breasts. If you've ever felt fake ones, especially after they're a year old and the woman has built up quite a bit of tissue scaring and/or it's shaped in a really hideous way where you see a breast on top of a breast, you'd understand.

A true natural C cup is actually pretty impressive especially if it's shaped well with good skin. Now I won't complain if it's a natural D or above, but it becomes very rare and it may not be shaped well e.g., saggy and/or woman is a little too chunky.

vote with your money (5, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816560)

Buying the game gives as signal that you agree with Blizzard-Activision's actions. $1 Billion revenue says that Blizzard-Activision did an excellent job.
The following screenshot is a clear indication a lot of people can't stick to their principles: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/mw2_boycott.jpg [shamusyoung.com]

Re:vote with your money (1, Informative)

bloodhawk (813939) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816588)

No, buying the game means I liked the game. I could not give a crap about how they con or bribe the reviewers, I don't care if it is made by sony, MS, blizzard or adolf hitler for that matter. If the game is fun (and it is) and is well made (it is) then I am more than happy to pay for it regardless of how they treat the scumbag media.

Re:vote with your money (1)

Psaakyrn (838406) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817032)

How did you know it's fun and well made before you bought the game?

Re:vote with your money (4, Funny)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817396)

Dude, they spend $130 million dollars on advertising it. That's how you know it's a quality game.

Re:vote with your money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817038)

How do you know it's fun and well made before buying it?

Re:vote with your money (4, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816600)

It shows that people just joined the bandwagon before they even tried the game or knew how the changes would work out. It's easy to click a button on a internet site that says "boycott!" and then go back to eat a pizza while watching the countdown timer for release date.

Re:vote with your money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816672)

"Buying the game gives as signal that you agree with Blizzard-Activision's actions. $1 Billion revenue says that Blizzard-Activision did an excellent job."

Exactly what everyone has done!

Re:vote with your money (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816680)

I voted with mine. Simply didn't buy it. Didn't sign any petition or crap like that - just didn't (and won't) buy the thing.

Might not mean a whole lot with their sales still being high, but that's $60 not in their pocket.

Re:vote with your money (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816794)

"The following screenshot is a clear indication a lot of people can't stick to their principles"

It's not an indication they can't stick to their principles, we're talking about gamers here, they just wanted to draw attention to the fact that they wanted dedicated servers. Sure it says boycott but like immature gamers really meant it, anyone who is not retarded could have predicted the outcome.

Fact is gaming companies are increasingly douchebags who on hit titles can get away with it because lets face it , most people have not played the last 15 or so years of FPS games from doom on.

And people are just easily wow'd.

MW2 is a good game but that's not saying much, it's not hard to make a good FPS today since game developers have got the FPS down to a science.

Re:vote with your money (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816818)

MW2 is a good game but that's not saying much, it's not hard to make a good FPS today since game developers have got the FPS down to a science.

If it's not that hard, why aren't everyone making billions of dollars of single FPS games? Sounds like an easy way to get madly rich, if true.

And if you actually compare MW2 to other games, you see it has a lot that other games are missing. Intense single player campaign, fun co-op missions to play with a friend, and a great multiplayer with lots of gamemodes and leveling and class building system. I would really like to see such in more games, but frankly there isn't any or they're done poorly.

Re:vote with your money (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816878)

"Intense single player campaign, fun co-op missions to play with a friend, and a great multiplayer with lots of gamemodes and leveling and class building system"

Everything that has been in almost every FPS since doom, minus the class building system that didn't come till later (mods) like Quake and fps thereafter.

I remember playing Doom 2 and Duke 3D co-op on lan and it was just as good as anything MW2 can throw at you. The only real difference is the graphics tech has changed a lot since then, the core game is fundamentally the same.

Re:vote with your money (2, Insightful)

B1oodAnge1 (1485419) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817264)

If it's not that hard, why aren't everyone making billions of dollars of single FPS games?

Because not everyone has the millions of dollars required to convince all the retards that their game is groundbreaking and new.

Good games don't make money, well marketed games make money.

Unfortunately the two are nearly wholly unrelated.

Re:vote with your money (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817452)

If Modern Warfare 2 had been another Daikatana, no amount of hype would have saved it. Everybody would like to bitch about something, for example right now I've been playing Dragon Age: Origins. Ok, so there's a dude in camp hawking DLC who should have had a dollar sign instead of a quest sign over him, but it's on an inconvienience level less than pretty much any bug and I've found none of those. So the angle isn't freeform but I never felt it very limiting. I seem to remember a time when bugs were like really bad and could make your game unplayable or crash outright or whatever. These days I hardly ever find anything that'd go past 3 on a scale of 1 to 10.

Re:vote with your money (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816804)

Ever seen a non-hypocritical boycott? I haven't, as soon as they think no-one's looking...

Re:vote with your money (0)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816880)

I'd actually like to point out that that picture is somewhat misleading. The first few pages always show who is currently in game (and admins I believe who are offline in that picture), the next few pages show those who are online but not in any game, and the remainder of the pages show those who are offline. If you took that group as a sample, a rather large sample, then 19/833 ~ 2.8% are playing CoD:MW2. Even then this percentage isn't a true representation of how many people out of the group ended up buying the game. Like I said, that picture is a bit misleading. I'd be interested in the percentage of people who bought the game after boycotting it though; I'm willing to bet it's quite high.

Re:vote with your money (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817008)

It still shows that almost all who are playing a game in that boycott group are indeed playing mw2. While not giving exact true percentage, it does show it quite good.

Besides, it's quite likely most of the boycotters ended up buying it anyway.

It's actually worse than doing nothing (2, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817152)

What it says is that you are specifically not to be listened to. Had they actually boycotted it and not bought it, it probalby wouldn't have had to much of a negative impact on overall sales, but it would have at least given Activision pause. Companies always want to make more money and they'd have wondered "How much more could we have made, had we given people what they asked for."

However what this does is send the message that even if people want something, you can safely ignore them, they'll buy your shit anyhow.

I'll never get people like this. As you say, people need to vote with their dollars. If you don't like something, don't buy it. I don't own Modern Warfare 2 because it looks like the single player isn't worth much and they crippled PC multiplayer. So, not for me. What's more, there are TONS of games out there of all kinds. It isn't like this is the only shooter around. If a given game doesn't give you what you want, get another. Heck my problem is not too few games to play, it is too little time to play them. I've got games I'd like to get but haven't the time to play them.

This behaviour always amused me in MMOs. People would whine and scream about how bad the game was and organize "protests" where they'd all show up in an area and submit GM tickets and such. Of course, they kept paying. My thing is always "If you aren't having fun, why are you paying?" They seemed to be under the false impression companies cared how they got your money. They don't, they just care that you pay. If you pay to be angry and protest, ok fine whatever.

Just spend your money on shit you like, and don't spend it on shit you don't. You'll find things work out much better that way.

Doesn't say much (2, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816566)

After all, take a look at all the Madden games for console, people pay $60 for a game every year which is exactly the same except somebody replaced a few textures and swapped out the names. All this shows, in my opinion, is that people buy the hype.

Re:Doesn't say much (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816690)

It's not about hype really. The bitching about yearly sports games is what I have wondered for long actually. The people who buy them want the new rosters and player stats and somewhat improved graphics and gameplay. I mean, there's only so much you can improve in a sports game thats based on real sports league. And actually the games have been improving over the years, just look at NHL 2005 compared to 2010.

Sure, it's not a totally new game, but people don't complain that they don't drop NHL in real world after one year and invent a totally new sports. And it's not like its that much off from those players who don't like to play sports games (like me).

People get what they want (3, Insightful)

ET3D (1169851) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817274)

It's not the hype. It's just that the discriminating buyers are the minority. Most people want crap, or what "elitists" think is crap. Kind of like soap operas, which many people consider junk, yet are extremely popular. Or reality shows. Or big budget effect movies. Companies just do what most people are okay with. A minority of people want dedicated servers, so there's no big need to implement them. Having a patch a few days late doesn't matter to most, either, I'd bet. Most people are willing to live with minor setbacks.

I got a copy for free! (-1, Troll)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816616)

Without DRM, without rewarding Activision for giving us less game for more money. I for one am quite grateful to Activision. I never knew it was so rewarding to just download a 6 hour demo (singleplayer) on the pirate bay and I will never ever in my life go back to the weird way of paying a big multinational a lot of money to F me in the A. Thank you activision! I wished someone opened my eyes 20 years ago. It would have saved me at least 10.000 euro (that is like a million us dollar) over the time. Activision is my an hero. (sure, mod this down. Or you can see that despite this game being successful in terms of sale, it also has cost MS over 2% of their gold-subscroptions (they banned a lot of consoles over this game). I wonder what would have made more income in taxes over a period of lets sa 4 years.)

Re:I got a copy for free! (1)

devjj (956776) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816686)

Here's the thing... Activision is going to point to the high piracy rates of the PC game and use it as justification for why PC gamers don't need any special treatment. When the majority of the people buying your games are on consoles, from the publisher's perspective the developer has to go out of its way to accomodate the wants of people who aren't. I don't agree with it. In fact, I am quite livid about it; but pirating the game and then boasting about it is not going to convince Activision to give you what you want next time around. At this point, it wouldn't surprise me if Activision scrapped the PC version altogether.

Re:I got a copy for free! (1)

phanboy_iv (1006659) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816760)

Good riddance. They have in all but name anyway, that's kind of the point here.

Not that piracy is the way to go, not at all. But frankly I wish all the big devs who've said with their actions that they really only want to copy/paste high-priced titles designed around another platform's strengths and weaknesses simply leave the playing field altogether and let smaller, more motivated devs take over the PC gaming space. Like in the early days, when we had whole dynasties started by handfuls of motivated developers.

Re:I got a copy for free! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817454)

They should have scrapped it on the PC. That decision I would have respected. However by releasing a stinking pile of crap on the PC, they've lost me as a customer on all platforms. I have not and will not buy MW2 nor any other IW game on any platform. I'll gave my money to a company which actually cares about releasing a quality product.

Re:I got a copy for free! (1)

bersl2 (689221) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816744)

Cool story bro.

Meanwhile, those of us who actually don't care to be treated to the kind of shit Activision pulls not only don't buy the game but aren't even interested in most of this new-fangled crap from big studios to begin with.

Really, from here on out, I don't expect to buy games from too many large companies anymore. I might put money forward when Valve gets off their ass and finishes their next HL "episode", but everything else is more likely to be bought from a small company or downloaded as free (legally) or played from my existing library. So I guess I fall into the "curmudgeon" stereotype. Whatever. I am happy with my present gaming experiences.

McDonald's sells more than Red Robin or Wendy's (5, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816646)

But it doesn't mean their burgers are better.

Just sayin'

Re:McDonald's sells more than Red Robin or Wendy's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816842)

Yes it does. You don't understand what better means, however. Better could mean taste, speed, availability, nutritive value, cost, environmental impact. There are uncountable different ways of determining better for an individual human being in four space. I do not think a global mapping exists other than the number sold. If you decide to buy a mc Donald's burger, you must have decided its better than any of the alternatives for some reason. So on that basis, yes they are better.

Re:McDonald's sells more than Red Robin or Wendy's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817482)

Last time I ate a McDonald's burger, it was because the only alternative was starvation. If there'd been a Wendy's nearby, I'd have eaten there. If there'd been a real restaurant, I'd have eaten real food, not any sort of burger.

And somehow you take this to mean that I think McDonald's burgers are "better"?

Using words to mean whatever you like is all very well, Humpty, but you can't expect to communicate if you insist on twisting language like that.

Re:McDonald's sells more than Red Robin or Wendy's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817650)

He specifically said their burgers aren't better. That has nothing to do with speed, availability or environmental impact. It means taste and possibly nutritive value. The others you have to compare with "McDonalds" against "Wendy's".

Re:McDonald's sells more than Red Robin or Wendy's (3, Insightful)

mykos (1627575) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816934)

Not sure how this is offtopic. I'm commenting on the correlation between sales and quality in the topic title. It's unfortunate that I have to spell this out for someone.

I propose an alternate title for this entry (1)

devjj (956776) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816654)

"How Activision Used Modern Warfare 2 to Screw the Gaming Media (and PC Gamers) to the Wall."

Human interaction is overrated (1)

precariousgray (1663153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816670)

No dedicated servers, no community: this likely failed to affect sales due to the fact that we are becoming more and more disconnected as a society. Who needs continuity when you can have countless one-night stands with a multitude of willing digital combatants? Is that an AT4-HS rocket launcher in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Re:Human interaction is overrated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816728)

Dude your insular concepts are outdated. Now your dumped with "pubs" but you have the option to game with people from your friends lists or party up with random "pubs" for extended, consistant gaming. And surprise, playing "pubs" is the best way to meet new players for populating your friends list.

Re:Human interaction is overrated (1)

precariousgray (1663153) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816742)

I was not aware that simply having to keep track of one IP address, versus a list of 5,000 different players and "communities" was an insular concept. Thank you for making me aware of this, "dude."

Dedicated Servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816702)

Yea, it still made a ton of money without dedicated servers... but it would've made even more with them. That's where I'm a bit confused. I am a professional game developer -- mostly console games -- and developing for PC compared to them is definitely a PITA. But I cannot see the businessmen above me saying "oh, that's enough profit, we don't need any more". A few good programmers could've hammered out dedicated servers pretty quickly, avoided a ton of bad press, and gotten even more sales.

The price hike I can see as reasonable. Yea, the going rate for games is $50. The budget required to make MW2 was probably more than 120% of your average game's.

The review situation I don't really see an issue with at all. So they offered free hotel rooms.. Uh... Ok? Is any reviewer worth reading really going to give the game a better score because of some free room service? To me it just seems like a good way to prevent leaks on such a high profile game.

Steam fail (0, Offtopic)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816710)

A mate of mine, who just wanted to play a game he bought in the store, had so much trouble with the Steam activation process that he called me over to check it out. I thought "oh dear, another silly friend who can't work his computer".. then I discovered all the shit I had to do to get Steam to work. Opening ports on his router? Just to activate? Are you fucking kidding me? We eventually got the game to activate, then it wouldn't let us log into Steam, so the game wouldn't play.

"Incorrect password" .. no it's not you stupid piece of shit. Ok, fine "I forgot my password" ..
"we're emailing you a reset code" .. "umm.. I haven't gotten it" .. "I forgot my password" ..
"we're emailing you a reset code" .. "ahh, this time it showed up" ..
"ok, change your password, enter your username and reset code, and a new password" ..
"ok, reset code accepted, you are now logged in to the website" .. awesome, I'll just try this password on Steam now shall I? ..
"Incorrect password" .. "Motherfucker, I changed the password, I know what it is, I'm cut&pasting it from the notepad I used to change it!" ..
"Incorrect password" .. "Grrrr... Ok.. I'll wait 15 minutes, it probably takes a while to get from the web interface to the Steam interface"
[15 minutes later] "Incorrect password". Grrrrrr... fine, back to the website, "Change password"
"You are not logged in, please login to change your password." Ok... maybe it timed out, username/password, "Login"
"You are logged in" WTF? You admit that I know the password on the website but you refuse to accept it in Steam? Fine, "Change password"
"You are not logged in, please login to change your password." What, THE, FUCK? You just said I was logged in, YOU SAID IT. Now I wanna change my password I can't? Fuck you. "I forgot my password".
"We're sending you a reset code.." Sure you are.. wait... wait.. "Hey man, wanna watch a movie or something?" .. 20 minutes later.. "Hey! The reset code showed up!",
"ok, change your password, enter your username and reset code, and a new password" ..
"ok, reset code accepted, you are now logged in to the website" .. Back to Steam we go ..
"Incorrect password" .. fuck you Steam, fuck you in your stupid ass. "New Account"
"Ok, to create a new account you need to choose a username" .. I'll just enter the same username as before..
"That username is taken, we recommend these alternative usernames ..." Fine, whatever, that one with 69 on the end, sounds great.
"Please supply a password." Cut&Paste from this notepad, twice, now tell me it's wrong.
"Password acceptable, here's your new account!" Great, I'd like to play the game now please.
"The game must be activated, please enter your activation code." Sure, no worries, here ya go..
"Activation code duplicate error. You can not continue with your activation."

FUCK YOU STEAM.

Re:Steam fail (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30816874)

It sounds like you're the friend who can't work his computer. I am not a fan of a lot of things Steam does, but being hard to use is not one of its problems.

Re:Steam fail (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817248)

Uhhh.. excuse me? I think my experience says the opposite. Even if you have *no problems* getting an account setup, the fact that you need to fuck with your router to activate a game is ridiculous. Shit, the fact that you need an internet connection to play a single player game is ridiculous.

Re:Steam fail (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817438)

I agree that needing to have an internet connection to play a single player game is ridiculous. You don't need to do anything with your router unless you block all ports by default, in which case you should expect to need to open ports for any new program you install which needs to access the internet. The fact that you were trying to login to a website to do anything with Steam is what makes me question your competency. Anything you do with Steam should be done through the client, and you can't paste anything into the password field.

Re:Steam fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817446)

I find that funny, since I use Steam, have half my game collection in it actually, and I have NEVER opened ports in my firewall for it.

Works great.

Oh, and the copy and paste doesn't always work, you get retarded glitches (I noticed this in Firefox but I think I did have it happen in Steam once) when copy and pasting caused the password to be pasted as ******** instead of the actual password. You should type it out instead of pasting, there can also be a propagation delay when changing passwords; trying it immediately doesn't always work – make sure you exit the client [Watch for the tray icon] and restart it just in case.

Shit, the fact that you need an internet connection to play a single player game is ridiculous.

It's a DRM system, what did you expect? Sunshine and kittens? Shouldn't have bought it if you didn't want to put up with that shit; hell, I never bought RedAlert3, Bioshock or Spore even though I was vaguely interested because of the retarded 5 activation limit from the Securom system.

Re:Steam fail (3, Informative)

paziek (1329929) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817348)

I've put DVD inside, installed it and typed CD-Key. Hey, that was it! Hooah!
And: I have router. Router is connected to NATed LAN. The retail game I bought was in polish. I already had steam account, that I made without any issues whatsoever.
AND you know what? When I come to work and there was time when I was really bored, I gave it a try - launched steam and in "My Games" there it was - MW2, just pressed install and it downloaded and installed game no problem!

Those issues you encounter are your own fault. You expect steam/game client to work its way thru default HTTP port or what? If you are blocking your own traffic on firewall, then expect shit to happen. If you don't, then I don't know what you are doing on /.

Re:Steam fail (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817546)

Like all other software? Why, yes, yes I do expect to be able to play a retail game on computer in a network DMZ.

FAIL! (1, Insightful)

johnek (740814) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816750)

This could have been the best game ever created. I absolutely hate it but I still play it. They should have taken the best of both worlds. Given inexperienced players the matchmaking system, and give veteran players dedicated servers. Infinity Ward sucks my ________! This game could have been the most popular of all time!

Re:FAIL! (1)

woopate (1550379) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816846)

This could have been the best game ever created. I absolutely hate it but I still play it.

And you still give your money to Activision, telling them you do not hate it, or their heavy handed tactics.

Although, admittedly, there is little anybody can do to negate anti-piracy efforts. By neither purchasing or pirating a game, all you do is reduce the number of pirates, which, to Activision, means success. To pirate the game increases the number of pirates, justifying in their mind the actions they have taken against pirates (and legitimate users). To purchase the game, well, that's voting with your dollar, and telling them they are doing a bang-up job with everything they do.

Actually, if you e-mail them without pirating or purchasing their game, explicitly detailing why you did not purchase or pirate their game, with proper language and a respectful tone, maybe eventually enough people will do so to convince them to change their ways.

Marketing budget > dev budget (5, Insightful)

AwaxSlashdot (600672) | more than 4 years ago | (#30816978)

CoD:MW2 had a budget of 200M$. From those 200, only 70 were spend on the development of the versions for all the different versions : PC, XB360 and PS3. 130 were used for marketing. It tells us that the actual game as less "value" than the way it is marketed.

Re:Marketing budget dev budget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817300)

It doesnt matter how much they spend on marketing, if the game is a dud, it wouldnt have any value.

Re:Marketing budget dev budget (3, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817672)

That's merely Activision's decision tho. Infinity Ward had $70 million to develop the game (actually Activision tried to give them more, but they declined). Since it is actually a great game, Activision saw that it would be good to spend that on marketing. Putting $130 million in marketing budget of a crap game would not only be really risky, it would be outright stupid.

What Activision wants to spend on marketing is irrelevant to game quality or Infinity Ward.

Re:Marketing budget dev budget (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817688)

It tells us that the actual game as less "value" than the way it is marketed.

And is it really without results that go beyond the mere technical qualities of the game? Many games are fun because you do them with your friends or classmates or workmates. So why don't they end up playing some other FPS or whatever? Because you sell them on the idea that MW2 is the game to play.

Pound that marketing message into people's heads and eventually you will get it bouncing off each other "How about MW2?" "Yeah, heard about that - sounds cool" "Did you see that trailer?" "I've preordered already" and suddenly they all have a copy and then it really doesn't matter to you that there's some other FPS out there that is just as techincally good. You buy MW2 because that's what the people you know play, then the people you know buy MW2 for the same reason and the ball keeps rolling.

Think of it more like social media, what's the value of facebook or youtube or whatever? I can set up the same kind of site, but it's nearly worthless by itself. Games stand more on their own, but ignoring the social aspect and the network effects would be most foolish.

But what of the long term value? (4, Interesting)

trawg (308495) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817110)

I consider myself a hardcore PC gamer. I pretty much switched to playing multiplayer FPS games almost exclusively after Doom came out; I just love the genre and the competition of playing against real people. I loved it so much it ended up becoming my job; me and some friends founded a company to provide multiplayer gaming servers for other people in Australia (which went on to become the biggest online game service provider in Australia, blahblahbalhablah).

As a Ye Olde Time PC gamer, I remember the days of games like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, and Unreal - when you could drop AUD$80 on a game and know that you were going to be able to play that game for years, because it had freely downloadable and publicly available dedicated servers, meaning anyone could run a server anywhere in the world, at any time, with any settings. Not only that, the games were generally moddable - which meant the game experience would always be changing.

This model brought about things like Counter-Strike (probably the most successful multiplayer FPS ever), Desert Combat (directly responsible for the development of Battlefield 2), Day of Defeat (one of the first of manymanymany WW2 shooters). It brought about Team Fortress, which has since turned into Team Fortress 2 - another staggering success story. (Lucky Valve are still on the ball.)

There's been a clear paradigm shift recently though. I feel that it began with Battlefield 2, and more games are following the new model. Yes, there's a clear focus on console gaming. But more significantly, I feel, is the focus on trying to really sell brands over and over again as fast as possible.

With few exceptions (Blizzard, Valve), game developers and publishers don't want you to be playing the same game for three or four years. They want you to upgrade to the new hotness so they can get another chunk of cash out of you.

I didn't buy MW2 - I'm completely and utterly uninterested in it if it doesn't have dedicated servers, and I put my money where my mouth is and didn't buy it even though I've heard its pretty awesome. But it's hard for me to come out and say what IW are doing is clearly wrong - because obviously it's commercially successful. I do feel it's not in the best interests of gamers - I think we'd get much more /value/ if they went back to the old model. But MW2 has set a precedent, and I'm sure MW3 is already on the drawing board and not very far away.

Re:But what of the long term value? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817296)

No offense but you're a bit biased considering what your company does, mind you, I agree with you.

Re:But what of the long term value? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817330)

Day of Defeat (one of the first of manymanymany WW2 shooters)

Medal of Honor was pre-dates DoD

Re:But what of the long term value? (1)

Pie Pan (1323813) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817500)

I remember the days of games like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, and Unreal

I know I'm nitpicking here, but Doom didn't have online play at all (only modem and serial), and Quake wasn't really playable on the dialup connections of the time until QuakeWorld.

I agree entirely with what you're saying though. What I don't understand is why we can't have a hybrid system - have two multiplayer options, one for IWnet and one for the old client-server model. If you just want a quick blast online, you pick IWnet. If you want a clan match or just a bit more control over who and where you're playing, pick dedicated servers.

Then again, I'm pretty sure I know why they wouldn't bother with this - Infinity Ward and Activision knew from the beginning that any "boycott" over the lack of dedicated servers wouldn't happen, and even if it did, a fair chunk of their revenue probably comes from the consoles. PC gaming is becoming a niche market unfortunately, and it's making developers lazy because it's not as profitable as the consoles.

Gaming press was already pretty pathetic (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817222)

You can shove the gaming press around

That much has got to be pretty obvious to the whole industry already. Game journalism is corrupt and/or done by complete idiots.

Obligatory penny arcade reference [penny-arcade.com]. There's more unquestioning repeating of press releases than there is in political journalism. In that case, there seemed to be more controversy that reporters were doing more than advertising.

Look in any gaming magazine and you'll be hard pressed to find anything below 7/10, even for games that are terrible. The whole numbering scheme itself is absurd to begin with, there's not a universal set of criteria by which to judge how good a game is, and you can't quantify game quality. Some reviews even go down to decimal points. This game is a 9.25? Where did that 0.25 come from? Partial credit for something? It seems to me that the only reason for a number is that video game publishers have noticed a strong correlation between a number from a review and the number on their profits, and have also noticed that magically reviews don't actually go down even halfway down the scale when they pay for advertising on those game journalism websites or magazines.

And it's pretty obvious that the reviews are paid for. The reviewers got room and board paid for? Not as bad as Eidos, at least this doesn't appear to be firing reviewers who don't give the score you paid for [wikipedia.org].

This article forgets something (3, Insightful)

ZeroSerenity (923363) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817234)

Namely is the game fun and entertaining? The answer to that is a resounding yes. If a game is the above it can be forgiven for lots of flaws and that is why the game has passed the $1 Billion mark in cash.

No Servers - No Community (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817258)

The main thing I miss about having dedicated servers is the lack of community. When I played Day of Defeat I could spend hours on one server playing with same people, having a good time and getting to know them. I knew if I connected to a certain server I'd have a good game. MW2 on the other hand is like a lucky dip. Yeah, sometimes it's great but you have no control over who you play with unless you go to the hassle of adding friends on Steam or whatever. Maybe it's just me.

idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817344)

I think a great way to undercut all the review system bs would be for a review site to simply wait until release date for their reviews. That way they could do a REAL review, and could potentially acquire lots of loyal followers.

Only really a decent game for consoles (4, Insightful)

Aceticon (140883) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817442)

A little look at the user reviews in Amazon for the PC version (here [amazon.co.uk]) and by contrast the XBox version (here [amazon.co.uk]) is quite enlightening.

Basically if you've played Online FPSs in the PC in the last 10 years (with large matches, low lag, effective banning of cheaters and user maps and mods) this game will seem mediocre to you at best: people complain of lag (due to no dedicate servers), unpunished cheating (like aimbots) and pestering behaviour (teenagers playing music in voice), no user extendability (as per choice of the maker: no user mods or maps, only paid for - DLC - extensions) and second-hand market killing measures (online activation mandatory on the PC).

This means that this game should be really be seen as two separate games "Modern Warfare 2 XBox" and "Modern Warfare 2 PC" with the first being quite successful (thanks in in no small part to hype and slick marketing) for the target platform and audience and versus the competition in that platform (console games tend to be simpler and played by a younger audience) and the second being very mediocre from the point of view of that target audience and versus the competition in that platform.

It's thus not surprising that you have two almost completely opposite sets of reviews, since the game really has two faces ...

Re:Only really a decent game for consoles (2, Interesting)

sp1nny (1350037) | more than 4 years ago | (#30817486)

There's one problem though.. Amazon was the target of a concerted campaign by 'PC Gamers' who feel spurned by Activision and they dragged down the Amazon average review score as a sign of 'protest'. If you're looking for proof, go to the Amazon site linked in the post above, and filter the reviews by 1 star rating. Most of those reviews are written even before the game released. And half the reviews written after it's release basically complain about problems with using Steam and/or installing the game. Anecdotal though it may be, I've seen that most people who actually play the game end up enjoying it and saying as much. It is nowhere near as bad as some people want to make it out to be.

Gamers (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817518)

88 comments so far - and about 80 of them are about how wonderful the fucking game is, about 8 on the ethics of journalism - if you include the posts that said the article left out how great this game was.

Activision has you suckers pegged dead right and you have no independent press serving you because you deserve none.

Goodie for the rest of us - you people also get to drink, smoke pot, drive cars and make babies - fucking me me me me me wankers that you are.

Re:Gamers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30817712)

Sorry that some people just want to have some fun and have other things to do in life than endlessly bitch about some game. In fact, if you tried it you could see behind all that hatred that its a really fun game.

After you leave your mothers basement, you may realize this.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...