Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2

[Eon]

sorry if this thread was made, but i did a quick search. (really quick)
what are everyones opinions on it? i hear there is quite a few people, what's the right word, annoyed about some of the changes they made...

[Shas aia Toriia]

Too much hype about this game. OK, I get it, people are excited about MW2, but there are other things happening in the world. :smallannoyed:
I'm sure its great, but until you've played it longer than one day, you're not the be-all end-all expert on the matter.

Not directed at anyone in particular, just the vibe I've been getting.

[Vic_Sage]

****ing awesome. And damn is the multiplayer balanced, though the Pave Low is kinda broken on the desert map.

[warty goblin]

I wouldn't have bought it anyways, but after the price hike and what they did to the PC version, I'm really not going to buy it. Maybe I could pay somebody else not to buy it instead.

[deuxhero]

I wouldn't have bought it anyways, but after the price hike and what they did to the PC version, I'm really not going to buy it. Maybe I could pay somebody else not to buy it instead.

Pretty much. Not interested in a shooter (PC has em a dime a dozen), sure as... something, aint interested in a gimped shooter.

[Poison_Fish]

Having to pay more for the PC version to get less when compared to other FPS's? Not worth it to me.

The reason for their price hike being "because they felt they could get away with it". I find that kind of offensive.

[Celesyne]

Ok, before I try to get my hands on this, what did they change from the console version for the PC, and they really made it more expensive?

[warty goblin]

Ok, before I try to get my hands on this, what did they change from the console version for the PC, and they really made it more expensive?

They're charging the same price as every other console game- $60. This makes it $10 more expensive then any other standard edition PC game out there, and at least $20 more than a lot of new titles on the platform.

Then they axed dedicated servers, which kills mods, limited player counts to 9x9, forced everybody to use IWNet matchmaking which doesn't allow you to choose games based on ping, or really even have a functional clan, let alone the 32 player servers that sprang up for MW1.

So yeah, they pretty much turned it into the console version, but with keyboard and mouse. This makes it look pretty hamstrung when compared to virtually every PC shooter to come out this decade. And we pay more for the privilage.

[Stormthorn]

or really even have a functional clan

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Cry me a river long and deep.

Sorry, but as a non-hardcore gamer the idea of complaining that forming a clan is more difficult is absurd. Just dont be in a clan. Its a million times easier.


Also, i hate PC FPS' games, with few exceptions, so im not too sympathetic to the plights of PC users in general.

But "Boo hoo, they turned the PC version into the console version" aside, its been out for a few hours now and i would like to know how it compares to Modern Warfare 1.

[Poison_Fish]

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Cry me a river long and deep.

Sorry, but as a non-hardcore gamer the idea of complaining that forming a clan is more difficult is absurd. Just dont be in a clan. Its a million times easier.


Also, i hate PC FPS' games, with few exceptions, so im not too sympathetic to the plights of PC users in general.

But "Boo hoo, they turned the PC version into the console version" aside, its been out for a few hours now and i would like to know how it compares to Modern Warfare 1.

See, that'd be one thing. The fact that their charging you more, for less actual content, is the true problem.

This isn't an issue of PC sympathy. This is much more an issue of outright insulting business policy.

Side note, I find this a pretty funny "Screw you" to Infinity Ward. http://www.unrealtechnology.com/news-article.php?id=102

[Milskidasith]

I've been playing it (console) and it's really good. While I can sympathize with the PCers plight somewhat, the game is so far worth $60 dollars; thinking "they could get away with it" is a very valid reason for pricing things the way they are priced. Did you know that fountain soft drinks, despite generally costing two dollars, only cost the restaurant a few cents, if that? It's economics; if people are willing to pay for something at a higher price than normal, you can increase the price. Gimping features is not as excusable, I'll admit.

That aside, the reason I'm playing it on the console is because A: I'm not that elitist about playing PC games (yes, the mouse is better, I can more easily surf the internet, clans, etc. etc.) but since I'm in high school, 95% of my friends have an Xbox 360, so playing with them is a major bonus. And before everybody says it, no, I am not going to try to convince them all that they are making bad decisions and should play on a PC or they'll forever be regarded as noobs and ridiculed by the people on the PC.


See, that'd be one thing. The fact that their charging you more, for less actual content, is the true problem.

This isn't an issue of PC sympathy. This is much more an issue of outright insulting business policy.

See, that's wrong. They are charging you the same amount as the console version, for the same game. That's not a price hike. Just because it is more expensive than other things doesn't mean that it's been increased in price relative to itself; you don't complain that Coca Cola, despite making a superior product, should sell at Generic Brand prices, do you?

In fact, oddly enough, their bad policy on PC support probably increased the price; PC games can be cheaper because they don't require in house server costs, and since they are now using IW servers, they have to increase the price to match the console version (granted, it's probably not exactly that much, but charging $53.54 would be odd, to say the least).

[Egiam]

Well... then, what is a "good" PC shooter?

[Poison_Fish]

I've been playing it (console) and it's really good. While I can sympathize with the PCers plight somewhat, the game is so far worth $60 dollars; thinking "they could get away with it" is a very valid reason for pricing things the way they are priced. Did you know that fountain soft drinks, despite generally costing two dollars, only cost the restaurant a few cents, if that? It's economics; if people are willing to pay for something at a higher price than normal, you can increase the price. Gimping features is not as excusable, I'll admit.

That aside, the reason I'm playing it on the console is because A: I'm not that elitist about playing PC games (yes, the mouse is better, I can more easily surf the internet, clans, etc. etc.) but since I'm in high school, 95% of my friends have an Xbox 360, so playing with them is a major bonus. And before everybody says it, no, I am not going to try to convince them all that they are making bad decisions and should play on a PC or they'll forever be regarded as noobs and ridiculed by the people on the PC.

But it's not economics when your competitors can just release the same games with equal or better graphics, with more content, for less. Frankly, all Infinity Ward has going for it is the call of duty name brand recognition. Their engine doesn't really have anything on the Cry engine, nor on the unreal engine for that matter. In fact, it's even more insulting from a development stand point, because your paying more for something that is effectively going backwards as far as game progress or innovation is concerned.


See, that's wrong. They are charging you the same amount as the console version, for the same game. That's not a price hike. Just because it is more expensive than other things doesn't mean that it's been increased in price relative to itself; you don't complain that Coca Cola, despite making a superior product, should sell at Generic Brand prices, do you?

Except it's not wrong when in relation to other games. Not only that, but your statement there assumes that console and PC gameplay are essentially similar. They aren't, however. Things like auto-aim kick into console game play. There are other issues that crop up as well, like sweep sniping for instance.

[Milskidasith]

Well... then, what is a "good" PC shooter?

TF2 is the general answer you will get; it is very good. The thing is, MW 2, from my experiences, is a very good shooter; it's got a high level of polish compared to most shooters, it seems fairly balanced, they took into account community complaints from MW 1; no guns are the new M16, which functioned perfectly well as an assault rifle, sniper, and from the hip killer, martyrdom and other "newbie" tactics are now death streaks so if you die too them you know the person sucks anyway, there are more options for kill streak rewards (positive reinforcement is good!), etc.

The only complaint is the "pro" perks, which makes entering the game slightly more difficult, although the level system already did that. So besides that small mark against the design, and their horrid server policy, it's a very good game.


But it's not economics when your competitors can just release the same games with equal or better graphics, with more content, for less. Frankly, all Infinity Ward has going for it is the call of duty name brand recognition. Their engine doesn't really have anything on the Cry engine, nor on the unreal engine for that matter. In fact, it's even more insulting from a development stand point, because your paying more for something that is effectively going backwards as far as game progress or innovation is concerned.

Yes, it is economics. Anything to do with the economy is economics. Besides the server policy, Call of Duty, despite not having a high end physics engine, is a very polished game. Yes, it's not particularly innovative, but it's good. That's the thing; most shooters aren't innovative, because they generally have a smattering of guns fitting various archetypes, and maybe pretty graphics and a new physics engine. Call of Duty actually has more than most shooters in terms of innovation, because the weapon attachment system, kill streaks, and perk system let you customize your character a bit more than normal. Yes, it's probably brand name recognition, but honestly, if you are that insulted about a $10 hike, then I suppose you don't buy any name brand goods at all, because everything else winds up being "insulting" and costing more over time.

[Innis Cabal]

Well... then, what is a "good" PC shooter?

Starsiege tribes.

[Poison_Fish]

Yes, it is economics. Anything to do with the economy is economics. Besides the server policy, Call of Duty, despite not having a high end physics engine, is a very polished game. Yes, it's not particularly innovative, but it's good. That's the thing; most shooters aren't innovative, because they generally have a smattering of guns fitting various archetypes, and maybe pretty graphics and a new physics engine. Call of Duty actually has more than most shooters in terms of innovation, because the weapon attachment system, kill streaks, and perk system let you customize your character a bit more than normal. Yes, it's probably brand name recognition, but honestly, if you are that insulted about a $10 hike, then I suppose you don't buy any name brand goods at all, because everything else winds up being "insulting" and costing more over time.

Let me rephrase. It's not good business. However, everything you've described for Call of Duty's engine there has nothing to do with the engine. Graphically, physics or otherwise, there isn't anything new. I'd argue that Borderlands has more innovation if your going off the point of customizability/gameplay. On that note, TF2 can get fairly close as well. So, it still doesn't bring anything new to the table.

Finally, it's not a simple "$10 price hike". There are a multitude of reasons as to why such a price hike is insulting. If the game actually had something worth it besides brand name and hype, maybe it could work. That's simply trying to blow off everything I've been saying however.

[deuxhero]

Well... then, what is a "good" PC shooter?

Deus Ex. lol10char

[Milskidasith]

Let me rephrase. It's not good business. However, everything you've described for Call of Duty's engine there has nothing to do with the engine.

I wasn't arguing in favor of the engine. I never mentioned anything about any graphics engine, besides mentioning that's what most people "innovative" games have.


Graphically, physics or otherwise, there isn't anything new.

And? I did not deny this. All I am saying is that isn't a negative, it's just a lack of a positive. It's a very well polished shooter with tight controls and good multiplayer balance. As far as "vanilla" shooters go, it's the best you can get.


I'd argue that Borderlands has more innovation if your going off the point of customizability.

It's not the sheer number of options, it's the way the options work out. No other game lets you choose between, for example, a gun that lets you locate your enemies (heartbeat sensor) and having a red dot sight; all the guns are static in most games. Borderlands is just Diablo with guns, if you want to argue about it's innovation, but even in terms of options they are limited to a few various archetypes and, even further, a few specific (named) weapons that are better than all the others anyway (the pearl weapons, a Hellfire SMG, etc.)


On that note, TF2 can get fairly close as well. So, it still doesn't bring anything new to the table.

It brings different options than most games. I'm not saying it's supremely innovative; it's just that, as far as your standard shooter goes, it's more innovative than the rest. TF2 is absurdly innovative; if your standards are "not as innovative as TF2" you're left with... uhh... TF2, and Portal, if you count it as a shooter.


Finally, it's not a simple "$10 price hike". There are a multitude of reasons as to why such a price hike is insulting.

Could you list them? You haven't actually listed any reason besides "It's insulting" which I don't get because every brand name sells for a higher price, "there isn't any innovation" which isn't strictly true, even if it's only innovative in terms of expanding the genre of multiplayer shooters, that it screwed over PC users with servers, which I agree with, and "It's all hype" which, though an opinion, seems to be without merit; it's a very well polished and balanced game with few multiplayer game design errors. Hell, even TF2 has more problems in game design when it comes to competitive balance; the poor spy, at least pre buffs (I haven't been keeping track of the scene since then) was almost useless in high level play.


If the game actually had something worth it besides brand name and hype, maybe it could work.

It has well polished gameplay with good multiplayer balance and a variety of new and unique ways to customize your character, and, if the release is any indication, they also listen to community concerns. That's more than a lot of games, but it might not meet your standards, whatever they actually are.


That's simply trying to blow off everything I've been saying however.

What have you been saying? You've said it's insulting (and then said there are reasons it's insulting that you haven't mentioned yet), that the graphics aren't Crysis style computer smashing, and that it's just hype, which is hard to believe from somebody who hasn't played the game. So... what are you saying, exactly? Be clear, and add details; I don't want to hear "multiplayer is unbalanced" or "it's not as good as *insert other shooter, hopefully from the same general genre*" without details as to why.

[warty goblin]

The reason I've heard most often to explain why PC games are usually $10 cheaper than the same title on the console is that a cut of console games' revenue goes to the console owner for the right to publish. There is no such entity on the PC.

The server argument might hold water, except that the price discrepency is exactly the same for single player only games that never require the internet.

So basically we're paying $10 more than usual to get less than we have in the past and the privilige of lining Activision/Blizzard's pockets. Now I don't mind paying for my games, and I enjoy supporting developers whose work I like. They manage to do just fine charging $40-$50 for a new release on the PC, some of them exclusively. Thus I feel like MW costs more than I perceive its value to be worth when compared with other titles on the market. Basically it's trading on name brand, about which I could not possibly care less.

I'd also argue that Crysis Warhead presents a very good example of a PC equivilent to MW 2. Both are pretty much balls to the wall actioners with short, testosterone soaked single player, and multiplayer that represents a significant expansion on the original. Both are the second title in a franchise (well sort of, what exactly one considers Warhead is an interesting question). The difference? Crysis Warhead costs half as much, looks better, has better physics and supports all the things that PC games generally support.

[Milskidasith]

The server argument might hold water, except that the price discrepency is exactly the same for single player only games that never require the internet.

Wait, what? Yes, $50 PC games that are single player only don't need server costs. That's the point. If there were many $60 dollar, single player, non internet requiring PC games, there wouldn't be an argument against MW 2. I don't see what you are saying here.


I'd also argue that Crysis Warhead presents a very good example of a PC equivilent to MW 2. Both are pretty much balls to the wall actioners with short, testosterone soaked single player, and multiplayer that represents a significant expansion on the original. Both are the second title in a franchise (well sort of, what exactly one considers Warhead is an interesting question). The difference? Crysis Warhead costs half as much, looks better, has better physics and supports all the things that PC games generally support.

I didn't find Crysis particularly exceptional; while the graphics were good, the gameplay felt fairly bland. It could just be that I couldn't run Crysis at it's full "Break your computer" settings when I got it, though. I never played the expansion, but I'd have to say that MW 2's multiplayer is very polished, although I'm not sure about Crysis' multiplayer.

[warty goblin]

Wait, what? Yes, $50 PC games that are single player only don't need server costs. That's the point. If there were many $60 dollar, single player, non internet requiring PC games, there wouldn't be an argument against MW 2. I don't see what you are saying here.

You misunderstand me. Singleplayer console games that don't require anybody to keep servers running cost $60. Furthermore consoles are typically P2P systems, so there isn't a dedicated server that has to be run by anybody. One of the machines playing the game is also hosting it in other words. If anything a PC game where the developer/publisher keeps dedicated servers running should cost more, yet they don't.

The reason this is unpopular is that it honestly doesn't work as well for an FPS*. First of all it tends to give the host an advantage since that player won't have lag- this was a major complaint with Gears of War. It also disallows private games, makes it so a server admin can't kick cheating or griefing players because there aren't any admins, and due to the matchmaking means that you can't choose which server will offer you the best connection.

So yeah, I'd be paying more for an experience that offers substantially less.

*Note that RTS games on the PC are traditionally P2P. I really can't remember the reason for this difference. I read some stuff about it last year, but it escapes my mind at the moment.



I didn't find Crysis particularly exceptional; while the graphics were good, the gameplay felt fairly bland. It could just be that I couldn't run Crysis at it's full "Break your computer" settings when I got it, though. I never played the expansion, but I'd have to say that MW 2's multiplayer is very polished, although I'm not sure about Crysis' multiplayer.

Fair enough. I found CoD4 to be about like doing my homework. I get told to do a bunch of stuff somebody else thinks I should do, and interactive only in the loosest sense of the word. Crysis at least had the good grace to offer me a palatte of options. It's a buffee to CoD4's single entree banquet meal. Note that Warhead's campaign is in a lot of ways better than Crysis' in my opinion, and the aliens are actually fun to fight!

[SparkMandriller]

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Cry me a river long and deep.

Sorry, but as a non-hardcore gamer the idea of complaining that forming a clan is more difficult is absurd. Just dont be in a clan. Its a million times easier.

There are lots of people who don't play games at all, so if MW2 discs blew up whatever system they were put into, would that be okay? Just don't play games, it's a million times easier, you'll never have problems like that!

Not everyone is going to want to play the same way you do. :/

[Kalbron]

The funny thing is that it would have been easier and cheaper for them to simply use the technology they had already coded for the original PC Modern Warfare. Copy, past, use a new skin and done.

No trauma, no (major) complaints, people still purchasing it at the new price point in roughly the same numbers. Perhaps more.

Except now they're going to get the same treatment as Spore, for spending more money on coding a new system and server maintenance. More money spent on the PC version - less sales + higher price will approximately = less revenue.

Great job guys! I'll bet you all earned a degree in Hard Earned Stupidity for that one!

[Milskidasith]

There are lots of people who don't play games at all, so if MW2 discs blew up whatever system they were put into, would that be okay? Just don't play games, it's a million times easier, you'll never have problems like that!

Not everyone is going to want to play the same way you do. :/

Yeah, I agree with you here. I'm not saying that Call of Duty: World at War is the be all, end all shooter, or that it doesn't have problems. I'm just saying that, if you are the type who enjoys a vinalla shooter, this is the Blue Bell (by far the best vanilla ice cream I've ever had from a store) compared to the generic half gallon tubs that don't even have a name. It's got it's problems, but they are incredibly minor or just "it's not the type of shooter I like."

[toasty]

My honest opinion?

Counter-Strike Source has been doing everything the CoD series has been trying to do, only better, for much longer. Counter Strike Source is also much cheaper.

If I have to play an FPS game, i'll play Counter Strike source.

Plus, I dont really want to deal with all the crap about no dedicated servers, paying extra, blah, blah.

One thing current trends are telling me, though, is that I might want to consider getting an Xbox360 when I move back to the US. Getting a 360 here is unrealistic (hence my continued support of PC gaming) but in the US... I might just do it. I'll have to look at my options (Read: how much money I have)

[chiasaur11]

I'd just like to ask something:

I just read the plot on wikipedia. Is it really that frelling stupid?

I mean, reading about the first game's plot, I wanted to play it some time, finances and system permitting.

Reading this game's plot made me want to reconsider any and all harsh comments I may have made regarding the plots of any and all films featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

[warty goblin]

I'd just like to ask something:

I just read the plot on wikipedia. Is it really that frelling stupid?

I mean, reading about the first game's plot, I wanted to play it some time, finances and system permitting.

Reading this game's plot made me want to reconsider any and all harsh comments I may have made regarding the plots of any and all films featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000.

That's ah, quite the plot alright. Makes the idea I had banging around the back of my head involving Vikings riding dinosaurs fighting the undead look more or less reasonable.

Continuing the screwover of the PC edition, there's also the bit where the digital copies don't unlock until a couple days after the game releases in stores. Yeah, that's just lovely that is.

[chiasaur11]

That's ah, quite the plot alright. Makes the idea I had banging around the back of my head involving Vikings riding dinosaurs fighting the undead look more or less reasonable.


It makes Red Dawn look like a hard hitting documentary.

It's like the little blurbs Jack Kirby had on OMAC saying "A STARTLING LOOK INTO THE WORLD THAT'S COMING". Only without the Kirby charm and awesomeness.

[warty goblin]

It makes Red Dawn look like a hard hitting documentary.

It's like the little blurbs Jack Kirby had on OMAC saying "A STARTLING LOOK INTO THE WORLD THAT'S COMING". Only without the Kirby charm and awesomeness.

The comparison I saw over in the RockPaperShotgun comments was along the lines of making Command and Conquer: Red Alert look well thought out and plausible.

Also I'm reading some people are beating the single player in four hours, and its designed to take 6 or so.

I refuse to pay more than $10/hr for entertainment.

[Milskidasith]

It's a multiplayer game. The point isn't to rush through single player. If it was, SC would be terrible; everything is just "grind against an enemy with 50x your resources and about a billionth of your ability to reason."

[Kalbron]

Having just read that wikipedia entry... I'm not certain I read it correctly.

A surprise invasion from Russia to the East Coast of the US? Really? Not the West Coast where there's only, perhaps, any radar/detection systems deployed from Japan, Australia and the US to intercept, but the East Coast where Russia would have to bypass the entire bloody EU and NATO to get at the US.

Good god. The first game was pretty awesome I found, even if I got it free with my PS3 purchase and I suck at console shooters but that is just... horrible. :smalleek:

[MCerberus]

Here's some questions regarding multiplayer:

Did they fix that fun little exploit where you can trick sniper rifles into being laser shotguns of doom by firing at the same time as scoping?

Did they destroy the rampant grenade spam?


My friends with xbox and I had a lot of fun playing together before people really hit those two "tactics" with gusto. If not I think we're just all going to get WaW on the cheap if only because you can abuse the people who get in tanks and drive stupidly.

[warty goblin]

It's a multiplayer game. The point isn't to rush through single player. If it was, SC would be terrible; everything is just "grind against an enemy with 50x your resources and about a billionth of your ability to reason."

Possibly this means that Infinity Ward should learn how to design better single player. Good, challenging AI is not impossible to program nor are levels a player wants to explore impossible to make.

Also, if by SC you mean Starcraft, then yeah, I found the singleplayer immensely boring.

edit:


Having just read that wikipedia entry... I'm not certain I read it correctly.

A surprise invasion from Russia to the East Coast of the US? Really? Not the West Coast where there's only, perhaps, any radar/detection systems deployed from Japan, Australia and the US to intercept, but the East Coast where Russia would have to bypass the entire bloody EU and NATO to get at the US.



World in Conflict does a similar trick too, and although I dislike the word, I think 'retarded' is really the only one that applies to this sort of shenanigans. I really don't get it either. I mean a huge air and armor war across the Ukrainian planes with the EU at your side could be majorly awesome, and if Russia decides to get frisky is a far more likely (albeit still very unlikely) outcome.

But apparently it isn't 'extreme' enough unless you're fighting in the US.

[Mr._Blinky]

My honest opinion?

Counter-Strike Source has been doing everything the CoD series has been trying to do, only better, for much longer. Counter Strike Source is also much cheaper.

If I have to play an FPS game, i'll play Counter Strike source.

Plus, I dont really want to deal with all the crap about no dedicated servers, paying extra, blah, blah.

One thing current trends are telling me, though, is that I might want to consider getting an Xbox360 when I move back to the US. Getting a 360 here is unrealistic (hence my continued support of PC gaming) but in the US... I might just do it. I'll have to look at my options (Read: how much money I have)

Honestly, I'd really disagree. Don't get me wrong, I liked CSS during the long period of time I played it, but it got stale for me, even with all the user generated content. In fact, one of the first things I thought when I got CoD4 is that it felt a lot like CSS +1. It has most of the same features, plus added ones like the perks, weapon-mods, kill streaks, etc.

Honestly, one of my biggest problems with PC elitists are that they'll often say that console game y sucks because it isn't PC game x, when I had in fact played both and actually found y to be far more enjoyable.

[Milskidasith]

Did they fix that fun little exploit where you can trick sniper rifles into being laser shotguns of doom by firing at the same time as scoping?

Err... if you mean their ability to shoot things no scoped from range, the trick wasn't to scope in (IIRC). I'm pretty sure that's patched.


Did they destroy the rampant grenade spam?

Nades seem to have less power, and while the noob tubs don't take up a perk slot, they seem to have a smaller explosive radius.


My friends with xbox and I had a lot of fun playing together before people really hit those two "tactics" with gusto. If not I think we're just all going to get WaW on the cheap if only because you can abuse the people who get in tanks and drive stupidly.

It's good. The only things that seem out of balance so far is that the FAMAS is a mini M16 (it's good at long range and good with close range, but not nearly to the point it can replace snipers and shotguns like the M16 did, though it does have the signature three round, no recoil burst of death), the Care Package is really good (at the worst, it's a four kill item that gives you a three kill item (another UAV), and at best you can get some of the really powerful stuff (Chopper Gunner, which can get you massive amounts of kills on some levels), and anything equipment slot items that aren't grenades are useless (throwing knives, though usable, only work at the range you could shoot somebody no scoped with a sniper and don't have any real way of avoiding cover like a grenade. Great for humiliation kills, though!)

[MCerberus]

Err... if you mean their ability to shoot things no scoped from range, the trick wasn't to scope in (IIRC). I'm pretty sure that's patched.


What I meant was hitting the iron sight and shooting before the animation starts running through. For some reason it narrows the guns fire cone to aimed status (sniper rifle too) while still focusing on the middle of the screen. It's the kind of thing you'd see bunnyhoppers run around doing.



Nerfed grenades are good though. I didn't see the need to make them that powerful AND offhand in the fist place.

regarding the plot
HAHAHAHAHA oh that's great. Next game will have McGregor save the main character by driving through a time portal in a tank

[chiasaur11]

What I meant was hitting the iron sight and shooting before the animation starts running through. For some reason it narrows the guns fire cone to aimed status (sniper rifle too) while still focusing on the middle of the screen. It's the kind of thing you'd see bunnyhoppers run around doing.



Nerfed grenades are good though. I didn't see the need to make them that powerful AND offhand in the fist place.

regarding the plot
HAHAHAHAHA oh that's great. Next game will have McGregor save the main character by driving through a time portal in a tank

A HAUNTED Tank?

[Folytopo]

For a person that sometimes doesn't live in North America I find the lack of dedicated servers means my lag is almost unbearable. Well into the realm where I perceive the lag. It makes games with weapons that instantly kill you a drag.

[shadow_archmagi]

Hey guys I'm confused here.

Why would you get rid of people's options to run dedicated servers? At what point was that ever a bad thing? Where is the profit in a matchmaking system that everyone complains about?

[Archonic Energy]

ok i've holded off wading into this but here's my 2p.

Points
1: i'm a PC gamer
2: i like FPS
3: i like a good single player experiance
COD4:MW had a mediocre plot. but it did have some brilliant set peices. i'm hearing that MW2 isn't as good in the SP mode... shame

4: i rarely play games online against strangers
therefore this game isn't really a good choice for me

5: the "extra" £10 Console games usually sell for is "to pay for the console licencing"
so Activision has tried to "level the market place" when the production costs arent level.. intresting. it'll probably work too! :smallfrown:

6: they've removed Dedicated servers
Can i still play with only my mates?
if yes: the host lag (or lack thereof) issue may still be a problem but i'll deal
if no: sod off Activision, you'll not see a penny from me!

7: They're dumbing down the PC games to appeal to "consoletards*"
no, they are trying to appeal to a wider audiance. Hardcore PC gamers haven't been the industry focus since well before "Nintendo started selling toys to bored housewives". it's not their fault if they can make more money selling an "FPSlite" than a "propper game". it's ours for buying this in the first place!

8: no DS means no player made mods
Mods have been the backbone for PC gaming since Doom 2 let you import WAD's. some of the best content for PC games have been made by the fans themselves. without mods there'd be no TF2.

Personally I'm giving this one a miss. not because of the DS issue but simply because i don't think this game appeals to me. i'm much more looking forward to Episode 3, or the new STALKER...


*not that there's anything wrong with consoles but that this seems to be the word used to describe console users...

[Jahkaivah]

Boo hoo. Cry me a river. Cry me a river long and deep.

Sorry, but as a non-hardcore gamer the idea of complaining that forming a clan is more difficult is absurd. Just dont be in a clan. Its a million times easier.


Also, i hate PC FPS' games, with few exceptions, so im not too sympathetic to the plights of PC users in general.

But "Boo hoo, they turned the PC version into the console version" aside, its been out for a few hours now and i would like to know how it compares to Modern Warfare 1.

Now here's the same post backwards!


.1 erafraW nredoM ot serapmoc ti woh wonk ot ekil dluow i dna won sruoh wef a rof tuo neeb sti ,edisa "noisrev elosnoc eht otni noisrev CP eht denrut yeht ,ooh ooB" tuB

.lareneg ni sresu CP fo sthgilp eht ot citehtapmys oot ton mi os ,snoitpecxe wef htiw ,semag 'SPF CP etah i ,oslA

.reisae semit noillim a stI .nalc a ni eb tnod tsuJ .drusba si tluciffid erom si nalc a gnimrof taht gninialpmoc fo aedi eht remag erocdrah-non a sa tub ,yrroS

.peed dna gnol revir a em yrC .revir a em yrC .ooh ooBYes I am making fun of you, you silly sausage.

[toasty]

Honestly, I'd really disagree. Don't get me wrong, I liked CSS during the long period of time I played it, but it got stale for me, even with all the user generated content. In fact, one of the first things I thought when I got CoD4 is that it felt a lot like CSS +1. It has most of the same features, plus added ones like the perks, weapon-mods, kill streaks, etc.

Honestly, one of my biggest problems with PC elitists are that they'll often say that console game y sucks because it isn't PC game x, when I had in fact played both and actually found y to be far more enjoyable.

I never played the original CS so I dunno, but I really, really that game. Give me that, DotA and maybe Mount and Blade or some other open-ended RPG game and I'd be good for a good long while.

[Jibar]

Now here's the same post backwards!

Wow you blew my mind.

I'd love to have an argument here but, seriously?
Every gamer I've met or anyone who want's to pretend to be a gamer recently just says "COD?" at me. There's articles in newspapers. Mass coverage.
It's ridiculous. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/11/)
Someone says COD at me I'm just going to blank them out now. I don't mean to sound elitest or anything but one game, especially a FPS does not deserve this much recognition. I get it, it's good. So are about a bazillion other games that are coming out this same month but because some celebrities liked to play the first one online I get bombarbed by COD everywhere I go.

COD: MW2 is the new Halo.

[shadow_archmagi]

I'm still waiting on an answer here.

"Dedicated servers have many good qualities. They have chosen to remove dedicated servers in favor of a matchmaking system. What superior qualities does a matchmaking system offer that makes the switch worth the bitching from the community?"

[Jahkaivah]

I'm still waiting on an answer here.

"Dedicated servers have many good qualities. They have chosen to remove dedicated servers in favor of a matchmaking system. What superior qualities does a matchmaking system offer that makes the switch worth the bitching from the community?"

It's supposedly so people can have an easier time finding non modded servers.

Hey if it was a good reason we wouldn't be complaining would we?

[MCerberus]

It's supposedly so people can have an easier time finding non modded servers.

Hey if it was a good reason we wouldn't be complaining would we?

LeadDev: Players are having a hard time finding non-modded servers
Dev2: We could make them ALL that way, while making a weak argument to justify the price hike
LeadDev: I love it
Dev3: Or we could just implement some rudimentary filters and import the old system, freeing up a lot more time before launch for more stuff. Hell we can even beef up or editor for the players.
LeadDev: I say we fire you and use your salary to get really fancy donuts for those that remain
Dev2: Agreed
Dev4: Agreed
Dev5: Good idea boss

[toasty]

LeadDev: Players are having a hard time finding non-modded servers
Dev2: We could make them ALL that way, while making a weak argument to justify the price hike
LeadDev: I love it
Dev3: Or we could just implement some rudimentary filters and import the old system, freeing up a lot more time before launch for more stuff. Hell we can even beef up or editor for the players.
LeadDev: I say we fire you and use your salary to get really fancy donuts for those that remain
Dev2: Agreed
Dev4: Agreed
Dev5: Good idea boss

That sounds reasonable. :p

So yes, no real reason, they just felt like giving gamers with an Xbox and a PC a good reason to buy the Xbox version. Furthermore, they are hoping people without an Xbox will buy an xbox so they don't even have to worry about making a PC version. Kinda sad, IMO.

[Stormthorn]

LeadDev: Players are having a hard time finding non-modded servers
Dev2: We could make them ALL that way, while making a weak argument to justify the price hike
LeadDev: I love it
Dev3: Or we could just implement some rudimentary filters and import the old system, freeing up a lot more time before launch for more stuff. Hell we can even beef up or editor for the players.
LeadDev: I say we fire you and use your salary to get really fancy donuts for those that remain
Dev2: Agreed
Dev4: Agreed
Dev5: Good idea boss

The power of groupthink. I took a buisness class that focused on that for weeks. Now im hearing about it all over again in another class.


martyrdom and other "newbie" tactics
Hey, if some foo' dies because he was standing over my corpse for three whole seconds without bother to check his grenade indicator it isnt my fault. Well, it is, but I can have a good long laugh about it.


Now here's the same post backwards!
Ooh. Big bad PC sympathiser here.
Also, you should have turned the last bit backwards, since it was just me asking about what the game was like, as opposed to the rest of it where i was beating on PC people whining that they have to pay as much as console people.


For a person that sometimes doesn't live in North America I find the lack of dedicated servers means my lag is almost unbearable. Well into the realm where I perceive the lag. It makes games with weapons that instantly kill you a drag.
I concede that this is a valid point, although only if your only complaining about the lack of dedicated servers.

[toasty]

Hey, if some foo' dies because he was standing over my corpse for three whole seconds wihtout bother to check his grenade indicator it isnt my fault. Well, it is, but I can have a good long laugh about it.

I never stand over someone's corpse. I shoot them, kill them, move forward, see the grenade indicator, then die before I can move far enough away. It stinks. :smallsigh:

[warty goblin]

Perhaps a better way to conceptualize the PC gamers' reaction isn't just that this doesn't support mods and all the other stuff. It's that the last game in the series did, yet this one costs more.

I think being a bit annoyed at being charged more for less is pretty reasonable. Of course, this being the internet, reason rapidly mutates into a Metacritic average user score of 1.4 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2)

Even more pathetically, they're apparently trashing the XBox and PS3 user reviews as well.

Ah the internet: Always capable of making me ashamed of humanity.

[toasty]

Perhaps a better way to conceptualize the PC gamers' reaction isn't just that this doesn't support mods and all the other stuff. It's that the last game in the series did, yet this one costs more.

I think being a bit annoyed at being charged more for less is pretty reasonable. Of course, this being the internet, reason rapidly mutates into a Metacritic average user score of 1.4 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2)

Even more pathetically, they're apparently trashing the XBox and PS3 user reviews as well.

Ah the internet: Always capable of making me ashamed of humanity.

Yes, this is pretty stupid, I will admit, but its the internet, what can you expect? :smallbiggrin:

[Myatar_Panwar]

Hey guys I'm confused here.

Why would you get rid of people's options to run dedicated servers? At what point was that ever a bad thing? Where is the profit in a matchmaking system that everyone complains about?

It makes it easier for IW to monitor server stats and keep a lock down on leveling and perks.

Yes it kind of screws the PC player, but there is no denying that this is a console shooter first. I don't care if CoD was first imagined on the PC, this is a console shooter.

And I look forward to playing it on the 360. Will probably wait till Christmas though, as I already have way too many games to play.

[chiasaur11]

Yes, this is pretty stupid, I will admit, but its the internet, what can you expect? :smallbiggrin:

Horrible, horrible fanfic?

[Stormthorn]

Perhaps a better way to conceptualize the PC gamers' reaction isn't just that this doesn't support mods and all the other stuff. It's that the last game in the series did, yet this one costs more.

I think being a bit annoyed at being charged more for less is pretty reasonable. Of course, this being the internet, reason rapidly mutates into a Metacritic average user score of 1.4 (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/modernwarfare2)

Even more pathetically, they're apparently trashing the XBox and PS3 user reviews as well.

Ah the internet: Always capable of making me ashamed of humanity.

Things always become more expensive over time. It was inevitable that the price of PC games, which are becoming less profitable by the day, would go up. And they arnt exactly charging you for less, since this is a brand new game that (hopefully) all the not-related-to-server-type improvements we want.

The metacritic thing is a good example of why i beat on complainers. Why cant the game be judged on how good a game it is?

[Kalbron]

Surprise! (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96056-Modern-Warfare-2-Seemingly-Hacked-One-Day-Post-Launch)

IWNet is a failure. Amusingly enough Activision got the evidence pulled from YouTube through a "Copywrite violation".

Apparantly it's using the same hacks that worked for the old games. Guess it was a higher priority to remove the netcode for dedicated servers, rather than spending the time on proofing against hackers.

Edit: The only reason video game production is becoming more expensive is because developers are retarded and choose to keep making more work for themselves by being on the bleeding edge of graphics, rather than choosing something that already works and looks good. Stop reinventing the wheel constantly you idiots!

[chiasaur11]

I really think the Steam preorders being released two days late is probably the most impressive bit of idiocy.

Although this is pretty amusing.

Also, on the price front:

Orange. Box.

(Not that every gaming deal should be that good, but...)

[Myatar_Panwar]

Surprise! (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96056-Modern-Warfare-2-Seemingly-Hacked-One-Day-Post-Launch)

IWNet is a failure. Amusingly enough Activision got the evidence pulled from YouTube through a "Copywrite violation".

Apparantly it's using the same hacks that worked for the old games. Guess it was a higher priority to remove the netcode for dedicated servers, rather than spending the time on proofing against hackers.

Edit: The only reason video game production is becoming more expensive is because developers are retarded and choose to keep making more work for themselves by being on the bleeding edge of graphics, rather than choosing something that already works and looks good. Stop reinventing the wheel constantly you idiots!

I'm not going to pretend like I know every in and out regarding this server stuff, and you shouldn't either. Seriously, it was not attractive the first time you over-reacted and called the dev's idiots, and it wasn't this time either.

Really, what the hell is going on with this forum? It has become your one-stop-shop for negativity and a sense of self-entitlement, it seems.

Edit: And Chiasaur, I can't help but find it kind of funny that you say that a late unlock on steam is the most idiotic part of all of this, and then praise Valve. :smalltongue:

[Milskidasith]

Surprise! (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96056-Modern-Warfare-2-Seemingly-Hacked-One-Day-Post-Launch)

IWNet is a failure. Amusingly enough Activision got the evidence pulled from YouTube through a "Copywrite violation".

Apparantly it's using the same hacks that worked for the old games. Guess it was a higher priority to remove the netcode for dedicated servers, rather than spending the time on proofing against hackers.

Edit: The only reason video game production is becoming more expensive is because developers are retarded and choose to keep making more work for themselves by being on the bleeding edge of graphics, rather than choosing something that already works and looks good. Stop reinventing the wheel constantly you idiots!

What's interesting is that half the time I hear complaints that Call of Duty is nothing special because it doesn't have the new OMGWTFBBQ engine where it can model bullets to the 5 X 10^4th ricochet rather than only 30 times and has the newest and most realistic animations for when you die by being bashed to death by a riot shield and doesn't innovate, and in other posts the price complaint is because devs are working on the bleeding edge of graphics and using useless innovation instead of doing something that works. It's an interesting contrast from two people who are both against the game.

As for stopping perk advancement (from another poster): That is a very valid point. Not enough to satiate PC players, obviously, but consider that I was actually having about as much trouble finding a reliable normal server as finding a reliable hacked for lots of EXP server, and it makes some sense to want to stop that.

Also, the hacks thing isn't funny; reactive defense never stops proactive hacking. Plus, since the game was leaked a few days in advance, it just means there were a few days of people dedicated to breaking the game. That's not necessarily that impressive when you consider how hard it is to defend against everything. Consider it in D&D terms; you can get defenses against everything, but they cost a ton especially as you start stacking them, while all it takes to kill you is using one obscure method of attack (if you don't do Arena matches or optimize heavily, this may make less sense).

As for using the same hacks as before: It is mentioned in neither your source, nor the source for your source, unless you count the fact he is using an aimbot and the ability to see through walls like you could in CoD 4, which doesn't necessarily mean they are using the same method to achieve the effect; you can't really do much besides allow yourself to shoot better or be shot less in an FPS, after all. There are only so many hacks you can use.

[chiasaur11]

I'm not going to pretend like I know every in and out regarding this server stuff, and you shouldn't either. Seriously, it was not attractive the first time you over-reacted and called the dev's idiots, and it wasn't this time either.

Really, what the hell is going on with this forum? It has become your one-stop-shop for negativity and a sense of self-entitlement, it seems.

Edit: And Chiasaur, I can't help but find it kind of funny that you say that a late unlock on steam is the most idiotic part of all of this, and then praise Valve. :smalltongue:

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

(I may disagree in general, but it's a fun quote.)

[toasty]

Surprise! (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/96056-Modern-Warfare-2-Seemingly-Hacked-One-Day-Post-Launch)

See this is why I laugh at anti-piracy and anti-cheating methods companies use. It didn't work 10 years ago, and it certainly doesn't work now. Best way to stop piracy/cheating? Encourage the players not to cheat, and don't go out of your way to punish people for cheating/piracy (best method to stop piracy? Individual CD keys for Online play. Best way to stop cheating? Give the players the ability to ignore/ban cheaters from online play with noncheaters)


Edit: The only reason video game production is becoming more expensive is because developers are retarded and choose to keep making more work for themselves by being on the bleeding edge of graphics, rather than choosing something that already works and looks good. Stop reinventing the wheel constantly you idiots!

Calling them idiots might be a bit of a stretch. I know people who want seriously amazing OMGWTFBBQ graphics, I know a guy who has a piece o' crap machine and mourns the fact that he can't play anything made after the year 2003 on his computer (Yes, he has a GeForce 1 and 256 RAM, on, and Pentium 3, single core). I'm in between, I want a game that will look shiny, but if it doesn't work on my computer, (Assassin's Creed? Prototype?) then I'm not going to play it and I'd wish the devs and lowered the graphics so it'd work on my computer. I'm fine with bad graphics ala Warcraft III or Diablo II, but I know not everyone is, so I do understand, to a degree, the emphasis (especially in games like FPSes where it seems there is little difference but the graphics in many cases) on graphics.

That being said, I do think the prices for making games nowadays is kinda extreme.

[Stormthorn]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/95955-John-Carmack-Says-No-Dedicated-Servers-for-Rage

Its odd. Dedicated server support seems to be in real trouble all of a sudden.

Will the meta crowd keep voting down games if this becomes the trend? Will developers ignore the pleading berserk ranting of the PC community?

I think the thing that makes me so bitter towards PC gamers rather than feel pain at the loss of a feature my gaming bretheren want is best sum'd up by another writer on the Escapist.


What I don't understand - and what frankly has made me increasingly ashamed to call myself a PC gamer over the last few weeks - is the attitude. There is what seems to be a strong current of entitlement beneath it all, and the message from many of the protesters is clear: We deserve something above and beyond the call of duty (har har har) because we are PC gamers, and our platform of choice is special. In other words, "You owe us, Infinity Ward."

Later in the article he points out the not only are PC gamers complaining, they are complaing when they still get more than the consoles for the same money, and they are a smaller market (which, with the previous means they are being specialy catered to at a loss of profit), and they are the people most likely to steal the game or hack it.

[EndlessWrath]

I like the game. for a lot of reasons. Split Screen gameplay is improved beyond any expectation. I like many of the levels. I love the killstreaks and I love the way ANYTHING and EVERYTHING can be upgraded. I like that a lot. I love the infrared scope as well. >.> <.< I like that a lot..

I love the levels, the campaign i've only been through a little bit so far, but its interesting none the less. I do not like what happens per say, but the story line is good.

I give the game 9/10. So thats my thing. More than what I expected. and I expected a lot. Although.. I have an xbox 360..so that might explain it.

-Wrath

[shadow_archmagi]

Later in the article he points out the not only are PC gamers complaining, they are complaing when they still get more than the consoles for the same money, and they are a smaller market (which, with the previous means they are being specialy catered to at a loss of profit), and they are the people most likely to steal the game or hack it.



I noticed someone here saying they weren't familiar with the idea of dedicated servers. Here's how dedicated servers work vs a matchmaking system.

Imagine you want to play basketball. So you go to the gym and they say "you'll be in court five today" and then you're there. If you don't like Court Five, or you have a problem with the people, you have to leave the gym and then come back and hope that they pick a different one this time. If you're lucky, you'll be able to say "Me and bryan want to play together" and they'll send you both to Court Five.

That's the matchmaking system.

Here's the dedicated server system:

Depending on how much disposable income you have, you buy your own basketball hoop and put it in your driveway, or you just drive around town looking for someone else's court. If you set up your own hoop you can control basic things like how large the court is, how many points to win, the color scheme on the scoreboard, etc. If you're really inventive, you can feel free to, say, ice the floor and play skate-basket-ball, or replace the ball with flubber. Then random strangers start to join your game, and if they like it, they'll be sure to come back again. You can choose to enforce whatever rules you want (it's your house!).

Loads and loads of people do this. In this manner, you have a huge variety of basketball courts to pick from and can select the one that fits your taste in size, playercount, distance from your house, and rule scheme best. Over time, you may become friends with the court owner and the "usual crowd" and perhaps even be granted the power to kick people off and help keep order.

Admittedly, a lot of dedicated servers will be absolute crap. But it doesn't take long before you can spot the subtle signs that say "I AM HOSTED BY AN IDIOT"

So yeah. Dedicated servers inevitably lead to you finding a server you enjoy and then *always* having a server you enjoy. They solve the issue that a single company can't hire enough people to police the entire internet.

[shadow_archmagi]

@Stormwind:

Yes, we're complaining that we don't get more. Individuals want to spend money on dedicated servers and time on making content so that other people can get more fun and enjoyment out of the game. We're not asking for more FROM THE COMPANY, just the right to make our own darn more.

Of course the direct-to-drive PC copy should cost less than the console one. The console version had to bribe microsoft, be printed onto a disk, shipped across the country in a truck, etc.

The PC version just had to eat someone's bandwidth for a few hours.

Also: Yeah, there is a crowd that says "NEED MORE SHINIES" but to be honest I think that crowd is overestimated. Plenty of games without super-realistic graphics do fine. Team Fortress 2. Dwarf Fortress. World of Goo.

I'm not sure why devs think I want to constantly spend money upgrading my system (whether it be buying the Xbox 680 next year or a new graphics card). Probably because they make money off it somehow.

[Jahkaivah]

Also, you should have turned the last bit backwards, since it was just me asking about what the game was like, as opposed to the rest of it where i was beating on PC people whining that they have to pay as much as console people.


Poking fun at the one part of that post which was actually sensible would defeat the point somewhat.


I think the thing that makes me so bitter towards PC gamers rather than feel pain at the loss of a feature my gaming bretheren want is best sum'd up by another writer on the Escapist.


What I don't understand - and what frankly has made me increasingly ashamed to call myself a PC gamer over the last few weeks - is the attitude. There is what seems to be a strong current of entitlement beneath it all, and the message from many of the protesters is clear: We deserve something above and beyond the call of duty (har har har) because we are PC gamers, and our platform of choice is special. In other words, "You owe us, Infinity Ward."

Well that's an improvement over, "I'm being an insensitive jerk because I don't like the games PC gamers play" :smalltongue:

You're still being an insensitive jerk though :smallsigh:

The problem is your making a sweeping statement about a group of people, people with varied views and attitudes on the whole thing and many don't deserve the abuse your giving. Heck looking at the posts on this thread before you came alone, it was nothing but matter of factly stating the changes that had been made.

[revolver kobold]

Whats this about a price hike? I live in the magical land of Australia, where all our games are subject to the Skippy Tax and cost far more than they should.

I bought the game tonight (for $79 AUS, compared to the $89 US it is going for on Steam here in Australia) for my PC. I am enjoying it so far, and I don't find the plot particularly stupid. I mean, its not the best written or most believable plot, but it does its job of guiding the action.

What I am really looking forward to is playing the Special Forces mode with my friend, as regular Modern Warfare multiplayer doesn't really appeal to me.

Maybe I am just easy to please, but I don't really have any complaints so far (though for those interested in multiplayer, I can understand being pissed off at the lack of dedicated servers).

[warty goblin]

Things always become more expensive over time. It was inevitable that the price of PC games, which are becoming less profitable by the day, would go up. And they arnt exactly charging you for less, since this is a brand new game that (hopefully) all the not-related-to-server-type improvements we want.

Weird, given the large number of PC only, or PC first titles I buy. For $30-$40, from companies that are doing just fine, and have way less mass market appeal than Infinity Ward does. That prices will rise with inflation I agree with. The problem is that such an increase should be gradual, not 20% of the total price, and should occur more or less across the board. As it stands, CoD:MW2 is the only game to charge $60 for the standard edition on the PC.

Now if Stardock, 1C, Paradox, VALVe and a bunch of other publishers got together and announced that they needed to raise their prices by a couple bucks, I clearly woudn't jump for joy, but I probably wouldn't feel that it was a screwover move. One title increasing its costs by a fifth is a price hike, plain and simple.


The metacritic thing is a good example of why i beat on complainers. Why cant the game be judged on how good a game it is?
Doesn't that basically translate as 'can't everybody judge games the same way I do?'

Because there doesn't exist an objective standard for how good a game is. I simply don't see such a thing existing, it's all a matter of taste. For the people who rated a 1.4 or thereabouts, it's clearly how the chips fall for them, and that's cool. Maybe dedicated servers and mod and clan support is worth eight points to some people. If I'd spent years playing MP shooters from Doom and Tribes to CoD4, I could actually see this as a fairly valid perspective; these things are what gaming is about for some people. Marking a game as crap because it doesn't have the features you want seems perfectly fair.

I think it's a bit unreasonable, because I really am not personally effected by Infinity Ward's decision not to include those things. I don't really do multiplayer, and CoD style campaigns interest me about as much as being forced to reread The Scarlet Letter. I can mostly understand why some people are pissed about it, although the degree is a bit more than I can figure out. But I'm not in their shoes, so that really shouldn't be surprising.

[The J Pizzel]

Well... then, what is a "good" PC shooter?

There is one game that stands out above the rest. Easily considered one of, if not the greatest game to ever enter the gaming community. It has united countries together, solved world peace, proven life on Mars, put and end to terrorism, brought freedom to the oppressed, and provided rare spiritual relief to those who needed it most.

Regrettably...

It has also destroyed friendships, ruined marraiges, divided homes, toppled cities, dis-proved science, spread disease, encouraged anarchy, and (worst of all), provided an outlet for adolescent teenage boys to curse and squeel as though their life and manhood was decided on the outcome of this one game.

Some call it a game, some a revolution, some a way of life, whatever it was, is, or will be, the world calls it...

HALO: COMBAT EVOLVED

ducks and runs for cover

[chiasaur11]

There is one game that stands out above the rest. Easily considered one of, if not the greatest game to ever enter the gaming community. It has united countries together, solved world peace, proven life on Mars, put and end to terrorism, brought freedom to the oppressed, and provided rare spiritual relief to those who needed it most.

Regrettably...

It has also destroyed friendships, ruined marraiges, divided homes, toppled cities, dis-proved science, spread disease, encouraged anarchy, and (worst of all), provided an outlet for adolescent teenage boys to curse and squeel as though their life and manhood was decided on the outcome of this one game.

Some call it a game, some a revolution, some a way of life, whatever it was, is, or will be, the world calls it...

HALO: COMBAT EVOLVED

ducks and runs for cover

More of a good console shooter, innit?

I mean, the PC version is a lot less well regarded, in general.

[Joran]

Empirical proof why boycotts will never work. Look at what the members of the Modern Warfare 2 boycott group are playing on Steam.

http://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-playing

Well, I really hope this isn't the death of dedicated servers and the $50 computer game price point. At least we computer gamers still have Valve.

[warty goblin]

Empirical proof why boycotts will never work. Look at what the members of the Modern Warfare 2 boycott group are playing on Steam.

http://kotaku.com/5403286/what-modern-warfare-2-boycotters-are-playing

Well, I really hope this isn't the death of dedicated servers and the $50 computer game price point. At least we computer gamers still have Valve.

Honestly at this point I bet 80% of my games come from European companies. They just plain do better work much of the time. Maybe a little less polished, but a lot more soulful. And I'll put up with the occasional CTD for a bit of soul in my games.

[Kalbron]

More of a good console shooter, innit?

I mean, the PC version is a lot less well regarded, in general.

I found Halo to be a fun little shooter, with an interesting story and decent "new" mechanic of regenerating health.

That being said, your character moved like a parapalegic slug, most of the weapons felt weak, and some of the levels were horribly designed for maximum frustration.

Overall it was a decent, but decidedly average shooter compared to everything else out there at the time. It was however the best thing ever on an Xbox at the time.

And that's basically the story of how the future will unfold. Eventually we may get back to the standards of Half-Life 2 after the continued regression of FPS games being copy-pasted from their console versions, but I doubt it will happen very quickly.

Meanwhile VALVe could continue making money hand over fist if it just released Half-Life 2 standard FPSes and never improved them for the PC.

[shadow_archmagi]

To be honest I've never played a cod game besides at a friend's house once for about an hour and while I don't hold any real grudge against them I must admit I'm primarily just riled by the headline

"LARGE SCALE GAME PUBLISHER DECIDES TO REMOVE FEATURES YOU LIKE AND REPLACE THEM WITH INFERIOR ONES

PRICES EXPECTED TO INCREASE AS A RESULT"

[Mr._Blinky]

The multiplayer in this game is officially the best thing since EasyMac. Why? I can sum that up in two words:

Silenced. Shotgun.

No really. In case you didn't get it the first time:

SILENCED. SHOTGUN.

[chiasaur11]

The multiplayer in this game is officially the best thing since EasyMac. Why? I can sum that up in two words:

Silenced. Shotgun.

No really. In case you didn't get it the first time:

SILENCED. SHOTGUN.

Double barreled?

Do you get two of them?

If not, I disagree on the assessment.

[warty goblin]

Double barreled?

Do you get two of them?

If not, I disagree on the assessment.

My personal favorite computer game shotguns are the pump action from STALKER firing slugs, which kill things gratifyingly fast. Nothing tops it for wasting that snork that's getting all up on your business, and the USAS-12 autoshotgun from Far Cry 2. It makes this wonderful hoarse 'CHA-uk' sound when you fire it, and then things just...die.

Thing jams like an SOB though.


In further server related news, there are already wallhacks available for MW2. This is obviously particularly bad news in a game that allows you to shoot through walls. And because there aren't dedicated servers with dedictated server admins, not a lot can be done about it. Yay.

[Mr. Mud]

So, I was playing XBL with a friend last night, and for some reason we were capturing it (he's a Montage editor. And a fantastic one, at that), and I got this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6XkwQI3z5g) Sort of "noob-ly", I know, but knife kills are so stupidly hard.

Thoughts? :smalltongue:

EDIT: Apparently it's still processing to HD, but you can watch it HQ.

[Shalist]

As much as I like CoD2, I can't wait for the three to come out--based on my own military experience (none of which has involved deserts or being shot at) and the clips I've seen (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare), it's looking to be one of the most realistic military games ever.

[Pie Guy]

I always get four or five knife kills a game. Hurray for Commando!

Also just worked my way up to duel .44s. It will be epic.

[warty goblin]

As much as I like CoD2, I can't wait for the three to come out--based on my own military experience (none of which has involved deserts or being shot at) and the clips I've seen (http://www.theonion.com/content/video/ultra_realistic_modern_warfare), it's looking to be one of the most realistic military games ever.

Actually looks a lot like ArmA. You wander around with only a vague idea of what you are doing. Then you get shot by somebody you can't see and die.

[chiasaur11]

I always get four or five knife kills a game. Hurray for Commando!

Also just worked my way up to duel .44s. It will be epic.

REALISM!

Seriously. If you have two guns at once and knives are that viable...

Seems a mite unrealistic, is all.

[Pie Guy]

REALISM!

Seriously. If you have two guns at once and knives are that viable...

Seems a mite unrealistic, is all.

No, I sneak up on people and stab them (not the throwing knives), and I just got the .44s, so they might suck.

So far, all the double weapons I've seen have had worse spread than a shotgun from 20 feet farther away.

[Myatar_Panwar]

So, I was playing XBL with a friend last night, and for some reason we were capturing it (he's a Montage editor. And a fantastic one, at that), and I got this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6XkwQI3z5g) Sort of "noob-ly", I know, but knife kills are so stupidly hard.

Thoughts? :smalltongue:

EDIT: Apparently it's still processing to HD, but you can watch it HQ.

Ahahaha, awesome. Do they still do the Kill-Cam thing? It would be a travesty if your victim wasn't able to watch that.

[Milskidasith]

REALISM!

Seriously. If you have two guns at once and knives are that viable...

Seems a mite unrealistic, is all.

Dual weapons are terrible; you can't aim, and even if you stand still they are about as accurate as trying to shoot roman candles at your enemies. Stabbing people with the knife is a OHKO, which is fine, and using a throwing knife is worse than a grenade in every way except that you can reuse the knife (if you can find it, which is generally not that easy unless you actually kill somebody). Still, throwing knife kills are pretty awesome.

[Pie Guy]

Preliminary .44 reports: Utter fail. Went back to using assault rifle halfway through game. Got my kills up to a respectable number. Trying out FAL. I'm worried that it's so close to FAIL.

[Mr. Mud]

FAL's are okay. Anyway, I wish I had dual Deagles... Gotta keep powering through to 60, is it? or 55?

[Milskidasith]

The Deagle is good as a sniper pistol; long range and good damage. Dual wielding them is not a good idea.

[warty goblin]

The Deagle is good as a sniper pistol; long range and good damage. Dual wielding them is not a good idea.

The only game that I've ever liked dual wielding in is Crysis Warhead. The duel pistols were crap in Crysis, but Warhead's dual mini-SMGs were blowback operated murderous lawnmowers at close range. Since each had a 41 round mag, and could be reloaded while shooting the other one, you could keep the lead flying till the cows came home. Attach laser pointers, and it got even better.

But yeah, generally dual wielding sucks.

[Mr. Mud]

Yeah, but you look so cool :smalltongue:.

Deagles good with sniping, but it greatly improves with the Damage boost. That's counterintuitive, however, since it's better paired with Juggernaut.

[Milskidasith]

The only game that I've ever liked dual wielding in is Crysis Warhead. The duel pistols were crap in Crysis, but Warhead's dual mini-SMGs were blowback operated murderous lawnmowers at close range. Since each had a 41 round mag, and could be reloaded while shooting the other one, you could keep the lead flying till the cows came home. Attach laser pointers, and it got even better.

But yeah, generally dual wielding sucks.

In Crysis, aren't you a bit more durable than in Call of Duty? In CoD, it's rarely more than 4 bullets before your death, so the benefit of being able to constantly fire by alternating (which you can) and increased bullet spray (from going fast) is outweighed by the fact that, at the range it takes to hit with everything, you could be killed just as fast with any other weapon. You'd never need to reload in the middle of a match.

For dual wielding, it's basically:

Long range: Not possible.
Medium range: You might hit a few times with an entire clip.
Short-ish range: This is the point you might get a kill... if the enemy doesn't just aim down his sights and kill you with superior accuracy.
Close enough you actually are more powerful than everybody else: Your enemies have maybe a fifth of a second less than normal.

So if you were to have, say, 500% health, dual wielding could be useful, but in the game now, four bullets come out so fast being shot by one gun or two is irrelevant.


Yeah, but you look so cool :smalltongue:.

Deagles good with sniping, but it greatly improves with the Damage boost. That's counterintuitive, however, since it's better paired with Juggernaut.

You can't aim so you can't snipe with dual Deagles. The increased damage isn't that great when you can kill with two shots anyway. As for juggernaut: Yeah, it might be better, but an entirely different red perk is probably the best (I only take Juggernaut on snipers, sometimes, because they are OHKOs anywhere and taking random fire generally is not a way to die.)

[Mr. Mud]

You can't aim so you can't snipe with dual Deagles. The increased damage isn't that great when you can kill with two shots anyway. As for juggernaut: Yeah, it might be better, but an entirely different red perk is probably the best (I only take Juggernaut on snipers, sometimes, because they are OHKOs anywhere and taking random fire generally is not a way to die.)

Ah, yeah I meant with one Deagle. But yeah, most reds are better than Juggernaut, although it works well with a Deagle (although some other combos with other perks/guns are better)

[Stormthorn]

Well that's an improvement over, "I'm being an insensitive jerk because I don't like the games PC gamers play"

You're still being an insensitive jerk though

I am being an insensitive jerk, although that is totally unrelated ot me not liking many PC games. Im not so much a jerk that i would dislike someone for playing a game i dont.


it was nothing but matter of factly stating the changes that had been made
ORLY?

Maybe I could pay somebody else not to buy it instead.

Yes, because this sort of irrational hatred is "matter of fact".


Doesn't that basically translate as 'can't everybody judge games the same way I do?'
I suppose. My way is pretty broad though. It encompases story, writing, voice acting, music, art direction, graphics, origionality, replayability and so on and so forth.
And i dont care which of those someone puts forth as the most important aspect. But i think if more than 50% of what makes a game worth playing to you is "dedicated server support" then yes, you should judge games the way i do.
The pro's have my back on this. They didnt rate the game 1.4 so they are probably looking at more than one single thing as the measure for how good a game is.



Someone wanted statistics about PC piracy. Aparently common sense wasnt enough. Note that these probably wont agree with each other. Since you seem like a mostly PC using lot feel free to just take the lower numbers as the correct ones.
http://www.slashgear.com/thq-pegs-pc-piracy-rate-as-high-as-80-0410576/
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/34296/41-of-all-PC-software-is-pirated
http://www.findmysoft.com/news/Software-Piracy-Rates-Increase-Worldwide-Study-Finds/
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=17350

As for those guys on Xbox getting banned. How is that related to PC piracy and hacking?
If your trying to claim the rates are the same you failed, since what you linked to suggests a 5% piracy rate at maximum.
Unless you claim that most xbox pirates havnt been caught (unlikely, mircrosoft can be brutal about this), in which case we have to apply the same to PC users who havnt been caught.
Oh, and im glad they got banned.

[warty goblin]

In Crysis, aren't you a bit more durable than in Call of Duty? In CoD, it's rarely more than 4 bullets before your death, so the benefit of being able to constantly fire by alternating (which you can) and increased bullet spray (from going fast) is outweighed by the fact that, at the range it takes to hit with everything, you could be killed just as fast with any other weapon. You'd never need to reload in the middle of a match.

Probably a bit more durable, yes. I know in singleplayer on Delta you'll get dropped by two sniper/precision rifle shots, or one Gauss rifle shot. I don't do multiplayer, so I can't speak from experience, but my belief is that they toned down a lot of the suit powers for that mode. Otherwise it would complete and absolute chaos. Either that, or a bunch of invisible people laying stock still waiting for somebody's energy to run out so they can shoot them.

Either way, what makes the dual mini-SMGs useful in singleplayer is that due to the Nanosuit you don't have to stand there and take the punishment. So long as you're smart enough to never let your Energy bottom out, there's almost always an out if you're clever enough to find it. In Crysis you only ever fight on your terms, because otherwise you're screwed, because you're always outnumbered.

The bigger advantage of dual wielding in Crysis is that it only counts as a pistol slot weapon, so you still get to cart around the usual selection of big guns.


For dual wielding, it's basically:

Long range: Not possible.
Medium range: You might hit a few times with an entire clip.
Short-ish range: This is the point you might get a kill... if the enemy doesn't just aim down his sights and kill you with superior accuracy.
Close enough you actually are more powerful than everybody else: Your enemies have maybe a fifth of a second less than normal.
And that's with an onscreen reticule, right? I tend to turn that off in games that let me, it makes things so much more immersive.


You can't aim so you can't snipe with dual Deagles. The increased damage isn't that great when you can kill with two shots anyway. As for juggernaut: Yeah, it might be better, but an entirely different red perk is probably the best (I only take Juggernaut on snipers, sometimes, because they are OHKOs anywhere and taking random fire generally is not a way to die.)
It's always bugged me that games won't let me iron sight with dual pistols. Sure I could only use one at a time like that, but give the option damnit.

[Milskidasith]

The reticule is on, yes, but it's practically the size of the screen, so it doesn't really matter if it's on or not. As for aiming: I wish I could too, then it would actually be kind of useful.

[warty goblin]

The reticule is on, yes, but it's practically the size of the screen, so it doesn't really matter if it's on or not. As for aiming: I wish I could too, then it would actually be kind of useful.

So is it that the dual pistols will actually put lead anywhere inside the reticule, or are they as accurate as the single pistol, but the reticule is large so it's harder to tell where you're shooting? Because if its the later, the problem is pretty easy to solve. With a bit of practice, I've found that I can reliably score hits on targets up to 20 or so feet away with no reticule, assuming the basic accuracy of the gun remains more or less the same when shooting from the hip.

[Milskidasith]

So is it that the dual pistols will actually put lead anywhere inside the reticule, or are they as accurate as the single pistol, but the reticule is large so it's harder to tell where you're shooting? Because if its the later, the problem is pretty easy to solve. With a bit of practice, I've found that I can reliably score hits on targets up to 20 or so feet away with no reticule, assuming the basic accuracy of the gun remains more or less the same when shooting from the hip.

It's the former; the pistols will fire an essentially random spread in the entire area of the reticule. There *might* be a bit less chance of firing at the very edge, but it's not firing dead on at all.

[Jahkaivah]

I am being an insensitive jerk, although that is totally unrelated ot me not liking many PC games.


Also, i hate PC FPS' games, with few exceptions, so im not too sympathetic to the plights of PC users in general.


Course I've already ignored that little gem under the light of much better reasoning :smallbiggrin:





Maybe I could pay somebody else not to buy it instead.

Yes, because this sort of irrational hatred is "matter of fact".

Well.... he's matter of factly considering the possiblity of denying a games devloper a sale, I'm sure he probably could pay someone not to buy it :smallwink:

I admit I missed that little line, though that ironically kinda supports my point that it isn't the dominant tonne of the comments here.


But i think if more than 50% of what makes a game worth playing to you is "dedicated server support" then yes, you should judge games the way i do.

Your probably well aware of what I'm about to say, but that is kind of the deal with dedicated servers, those who play such a game for a massive pro-longed ammount of time often do so for the community that forms (illustrates the point rather well (http://nerfnow.com/comic/199/)) it often becomes the dominating reason to play such a game. Not to say it's a reason to give it incredibly unreasonable score in order to politically vote against it. That's up for debate.

[warty goblin]

The line was also a joke. I figured that was clear due to its ridiculous nature.

[Jahkaivah]

Joke? We don't joke here! This is serious business!

[Milskidasith]

first i would like to say i hold no hate to xbox360, ps3 or wii.I don't care what you play on as long as you have fun playing on it.

Ok.


A post of mine i delete my self not to long for i fear it didn't fellow rules .I just reread the rules turns out the post was find. Now to repost it.But first
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/redlynx-we-put-trials-pc-game-on-torrent-sites


So... why did you link an article, but not mention anything about it?


What do you mean by pro?Pro could mean any number of things.I would like to point out good looking real graphics are not all ways a good thing.If i wanted to see real life i would look at my dog or go outside.

The pros in this case were obviously the professional reviewers. Use context clues. As for the second part... are you arguing that games should look bad? I'm not sure what you are saying, unless you like stylized games like borderlands, and even that benefits from higher resolution graphics.

call of duty modern warfare 2 has no free demo that i know. Not leting your buyers/gamers try your game out to see if they like the game play first .Is going to make them want to buy a 60$ game why? The fellowing is not a fact it is how i think and is not a fact again it is not a fact.If any thing that may lead to more piracy, just to so they can see if they like the game play.If they don't buy your game odds are they where never planing on buying it in the first place or didn't like the game play.


The highest piracy for pcworld wide rating is 45% in one of your links.that leave 55% who don't pirate there games.Look like more pay for there pc games then these that pirate.not buy much but still a good 5% more.There are two other links i would to point out of his.

Uhh.... 45% piracy is pretty bad. I'm honestly not sure what you are arguing about here.

One was about a game that is pirated 95% of the time.not much i can say about that beside never knowing about it befor today. the other just someone saying the usa pirates 80% of there pc games with out any detail to back it up.Only detail there is in that one link is the story teller saying, i used to pirate games now that i am older i learn piracy is bad.Your other links lower the usa piracy rating to 20%. 2 links that say 20% with greater detail in the story vs one that just said 80% with no where near as much if any detail.I think i know which i am going with.

Ok, but where is the relevance of all of this? You haven't made a point, just questioned one of his sources. Even 20% piracy is pretty bad.



The story xbox360 was just to show the pc is not alone when it comes to piracy.Any thing can be pirated ps3, the wii.You can have the best software in the world that is made to stop piracy but sooner or later they will get pass and pirate your game.If you look at i think xbox360 or was it the ps3 who has a hard drive you can download games on.Sounds like it turning more in to a pc to me.

This is totally irrelevant; just because you can download content (DLC) doesn't mean you can pirate games. I still have no clue what your post means, at all. Maybe it's just the fact that English is clearly not your native language, and you appear to have a spacebar that only works half the time, but what are you trying to say?

[toasty]

45% percent may seem big but remember the following:In Asia, no one actually buys real video games.

Okay, that's not entirely true, some people do, and in places like Korea, Japan, Thailand, you can buy them. But many, many, Asians and other 3rd worlders don't buy real video games (they may pay money for their games, but they're not "real"). Many of these people have no interest in actually paying full price for these games: if that was the only option they would do without or buy a lot less games. Essentially, most of the games that are "pirated" in the 3rd world don't count as lost sales; these people aren't the target market and they weren't going to buy the game for full price in the first place.

On the other hand, if a person in the USA or Europe or someone who had the money to buy a video game pirated it because it was cheaper or he enjoys stealing or whatever then that is a lost sale. I see no reason why people should stop piracy in countries like Bangladesh where there is no option for real video games (I have, in my entire life, seen 1 store selling real games, and they were console games, I think the store went out of business/stopped selling real games) in this country. If there were, no one would buy them (see above example).The few people who could are not enough to justify spending all sorts of time and effort to stop piracy in this country.

And I'm just talking about video games here, I haven't even begun to speak of music, movies, or Microsoft's software. All of it is pirated here, and in most cases, there is no other option if you buy locally.

[Milskidasith]

let me see if i can make this a bit clearer.I mean real like graphics are boring you see them in most games.we see the same real looking art time and time again in games.Few try to break this art path and try something new and not the same old thing we see time and time again.


There are plenty of games that try a unique art style, but the thing is, not every game fits with cartoony, over the top graphics. Realistic looking games generally fit the mood better than randomly throwing on cell shading and bright graphics.




It could be far worse. 55% still pay to play for there pc games. If it was the other way a round. 55% that pirate games then there would be more that pirate games then buy them.Would you be more willing to make a game for the pc if 55% pay for it or if 55% would pirate the game .

Either way it's probably starting to be unprofitable to make the game if it's being pirated, especially if it is a big release.


5% wide world is a big deal.

The difference is 10%, and if that's such a big deal, then why is 45% piracy still too little for the developer to care?


For there are 1000000 and 1000000 in this world. a few % more that go out and buy pc games can lead to a lot more money for you.

You do realize you could just type millions, right? Anyway, as I said, if such small percentages matter, then why do you think that 45% is irrelevant? If losing 10% of your sales suddenly means you aren't making any money, you probably weren't making too much profit before losing your sales.



Yes 20% is bad but 80% are still buying your game.If it was 80% who pirate and only 20% who would buy your game.There would be no point in making the game then.For odds of you geting the money you used to make the game back are low.If 80% buy your game,you have a good shot at making your money that was spend on making the game back.


Actually, no. Most all games, even without piracy at all (consoles) have trouble breaking even, and major studios generally rely on a few blockbusters to make a lot of money while hoping to develop a new cash cow with a big franchise. Going from no piracy to 20% brings most games that aren't blockbusters from breaking even to being massively in the red.







i think i should have put that higher up in the post. That was more for the user i quoted befor you.For he seens to dislike the pc a bit.

Please spellcheck your posts. Also, he hates the elitist attitude he sees PC users having, not the PC itself. Whether or not he has a point is up to you.



what i was trying to do is show that the pc is closer to the ps3/xbox360.when you look at the ps2/xbox and then the ps3/xbox360 you will see they are more like a pc then the past ps2/xbox where.Yeah i did a bad job at that.

That's like saying that newer toasters are more like PCs because they use more electricity than older toasters. The 360 and PS3 are only like PCs in the bare basics, in that they play disc based games. Just because they both have downloadable content does not mean they are similar enough to merit comparison.




Hope that clear things up. If not well i must be bad at making a point.


I think the problem might be you don't take time to spellcheck your posts, because your spelling and grammar is bad enough it's hard to understand you. I realize English may not be your first language, but spellchecking isn't that hard.

[chiasaur11]

20% piracy?

Heh. Try 80%.

2D boy traced piracy rates with a reasonably solid methodology, and they got 87%. Mind, they had exactly zero DRM, but it doesn't seem to affect much, and 2D boy didn't plan on adding DRM in the future.

Insane, isn't it?

[SparkMandriller]

I suppose. My way is pretty broad though. It encompases story, writing, voice acting, music, art direction, graphics, origionality, replayability and so on and so forth.
And i dont care which of those someone puts forth as the most important aspect. But i think if more than 50% of what makes a game worth playing to you is "dedicated server support" then yes, you should judge games the way i do.

I have a better idea. They should judge games the way a caveman does. That way, they don't care about them at all, so they can avoid buying them and save their money.

Pretty good plan, isn't it?

[EndlessWrath]

Mr Mud. Awesome knife kill. I've gotten to the point where i ONLY use the throwing knife. If I get one kill with it a game I'm happy..just cause thats awesome to use.

----
Akimbo Rapidfiring bling MP5ks are not worth it.. under any circumstance >.> <.< just saying.

-Wrath

[Etcetera]

Does the campaign remind anyone else of Red Alert 2?
Also, IWNet is not as good (in my opinion) as the system in CoD4

[Folytopo]

Piracy percentage means nothing when people in poorer nations are forced to pirate the game. Outside the U.S. games cost more than the exchange rate would suggest. In addition many of the games at full cost are as much or more than the monthly median income. To elaborate on toasty's excellent post.

The main point in profitability is that the marginal cost of the first unit is the entire development cost. The marginal cost of the next unit is the printing and shipping. So once a game is created piracy does not rob the company of money if the piracy does not result in a lost sale. The other point is that controlling development cost and knowing your market are probably much better ways of increasing profits than anything that can fight piracy. In the end the companies should use should use sound reasoning and realize that there is no effective way currently to fight pirates.

[Milskidasith]

Piracy percentage means nothing when people in poorer nations are forced to pirate the game. Outside the U.S. games cost more than the exchange rate would suggest. In addition many of the games at full cost are as much or more than the monthly median income. To elaborate on toasty's excellent post.

The main point in profitability is that the marginal cost of the first unit is the entire development cost. The marginal cost of the next unit is the printing and shipping. So once a game is created piracy does not rob the company of money if the piracy does not result in a lost sale. The other point is that controlling development cost and knowing your market are probably much better ways of increasing profits than anything that can fight piracy. In the end the companies should use should use sound reasoning and realize that there is no effective way currently to fight pirates.


This is mostly irrelevant when even the US has a 20% piracy rate and most games are already barely breaking even. If 45% of people are pirating in other nations and that doesn't matter, it doesn't change that there is 20% piracy in the US. Of course, I'm honestly not sure what the argument with piracy is about, but it's not like piracy isn't causing problems. Also, if other nations have a 45% piracy, it means there are people buying the games on discs to some degree.

[MCerberus]

Does the campaign remind anyone else of Red Alert 2?
Also, IWNet is not as good (in my opinion) as the system in CoD4

It was like RA2, only they took themselves seriously. It's funny not because they made it funny but rather because they didn't make it funny. It would have made more sense if they had the Russians torture a turtle in a cutscene (whose name is Sam).

I rented it, and may get it only because I love doing a horror movie imitation with scrambler, cold-blooded, and a silenced shotgun. I still can't stand the death match games in Call of Duty, so many campers. The inclusion of a permanent mixed-gametype list is a plus.

I don't like throwing knives though. You can do the same thing with stickies, only you get 3 seconds of sadistic laughter when you do.

edit: oh, and I use tactical insertion for that class. When you finally end the nightmare I come right back.

[Pie Guy]

It was like RA2, only they took themselves seriously. It's funny not because they made it funny but rather because they didn't make it funny. It would have made more sense if they had the Russians torture a turtle in a cutscene (whose name is Sam).

I rented it, and may get it only because I love doing a horror movie imitation with scrambler, cold-blooded, and a silenced shotgun. I still can't stand the death match games in Call of Duty, so many campers. The inclusion of a permanent mixed-gametype list is a plus.

I don't like throwing knives though. You can do the same thing with stickies, only you get 3 seconds of sadistic laughter when you do.

edit: oh, and I use tactical insertion for that class. When you finally end the nightmare I come right back.

I don't like scrambler, it lets them know I'm coming.

[MCerberus]

I don't like scrambler, it lets them know I'm coming.

Yes, but it's fun seeing them freak out when you're 2 feet away from them and they can't find you.

[Mr._Blinky]

Yes, but it's fun seeing them freak out when you're 2 feet away from them and they can't find you.

I've found that it's especially fun for snipers. Usually if you're sniping and someone is near by, it means that they know generally where you are and are looking for you. If you've got the jammer up though, it gives you a chance to set an ambush for them.

[Klose_the_Sith]

This is mostly irrelevant when even the US has a 20% piracy rate and most games are already barely breaking even. If 45% of people are pirating in other nations and that doesn't matter, it doesn't change that there is 20% piracy in the US. Of course, I'm honestly not sure what the argument with piracy is about, but it's not like piracy isn't causing problems. Also, if other nations have a 45% piracy, it means there are people buying the games on discs to some degree.

Piracy *isn't* causing problems. People who torrent games are more likely to buy games then people who don't.

Just saying.

[Milskidasith]

Piracy *isn't* causing problems. People who torrent games are more likely to buy games then people who don't.

Just saying.

Mind giving me some statistics on that? I'm not doubting that what you are saying is true; it's true for the music industry. But still, when you are essentially saying "thieves buy more goods than normal people" it's a bit hard to believe without a direct source.

[warty goblin]

Piracy *isn't* causing problems. People who torrent games are more likely to buy games then people who don't.

Just saying.

I buy lots of games, and have never torrented anything.

And anyway, the real question a developer/publisher is asking is 'is a person less likely to this game given that they've pirated it."

The conditional here is very important. Statistically I'm sure you're right, and the subset of people who pirate buy a far greater proportion of games than the rest of the species.

But it's also not terribly relevant. For one thing it's more useful to look at the target audience for the game, not every person alive on planet Earth come release day.

So let's limit this to people who play games already. To indulge in a bit of stat-speak, let X be the event that a person pirates a game, and Y the event that they buy it. What I suspect publishers/developers really care about is P(Y|X), and specifically whether P(Y|X) is larger than P(Y|X compliment), that is whether somebody is more likely to buy their game if they've pirated, or if they haven't.

The discrepency between these numbers should serve as a reasonable way to approximate the actual lost sales due to piracy, which is really where the bottom line is here.

[Klose_the_Sith]

EDITDISCLAIMER: I would, however, agree that in this case sales will probably hurt MW2, as most of my friends regret getting it and the pirates laugh at the people who bought it - I just wanted to note that people who use torrents aren't thieves, no matter what you might think.


I buy lots of games, and have never torrented anything.

Good for you, but I'd rather make informed decisions


And anyway, the real question a developer/publisher is asking is 'is a person less likely to this game given that they've pirated it."

If it's a good game then they're more likely, otherwise no.


The conditional here is very important. Statistically I'm sure you're right, and the subset of people who pirate buy a far greater proportion of games than the rest of the species.

But it's also not terribly relevant. For one thing it's more useful to look at the target audience for the game, not every person alive on planet Earth come release day.

This is an excellent point, granted.


So let's limit this to people who play games already. To indulge in a bit of stat-speak, let X be the event that a person pirates a game, and Y the event that they buy it. What I suspect publishers/developers really care about is P(Y|X), and specifically whether P(Y|X) is larger than P(Y|X compliment), that is whether somebody is more likely to buy their game if they've pirated, or if they haven't.

The discrepency between these numbers should serve as a reasonable way to approximate the actual lost sales due to piracy, which is really where the bottom line is here.

Right, but that doesn't actually exclude any of my point - it's just a consideration re: variables when gathering data.


Mind giving me some statistics on that? I'm not doubting that what you are saying is true; it's true for the music industry. But still, when you are essentially saying "thieves buy more goods than normal people" it's a bit hard to believe without a direct source.

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/01/19/1440254 is relevant but in dutch :smalltongue:

[TheDarkOne]

I buy lots of games, and have never torrented anything.

And anyway, the real question a developer/publisher is asking is 'is a person less likely to this game given that they've pirated it."

The conditional here is very important. Statistically I'm sure you're right, and the subset of people who pirate buy a far greater proportion of games than the rest of the species.

But it's also not terribly relevant. For one thing it's more useful to look at the target audience for the game, not every person alive on planet Earth come release day.

So let's limit this to people who play games already. To indulge in a bit of stat-speak, let X be the event that a person pirates a game, and Y the event that they buy it. What I suspect publishers/developers really care about is P(Y|X), and specifically whether P(Y|X) is larger than P(Y|X compliment), that is whether somebody is more likely to buy their game if they've pirated, or if they haven't.

The discrepency between these numbers should serve as a reasonable way to approximate the actual lost sales due to piracy, which is really where the bottom line is here.

I don't think so. The important question to determine is how many people would buy the game if they couldn't pirate it. ie. you need to determine probability that someone will buy the game given that they are unable to pirate the game. Your method essentially assumes that the P(Y|X') is this number, but I think you'd have hard time making that case. Really, I'm not sure it's even possible to get a good estimate on this number. What you need is a population that's unable to pirate games. I think this would be hard to come by.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Well, I've been playing the game for a few hours.
I have ten throwing knife kills. I love my mah throwin' knife.

[warty goblin]

I don't think so. The important question to determine is how many people would buy the game if they couldn't pirate it. ie. you need to determine probability that someone will buy the game given that they are unable to pirate the game. Your method essentially assumes that the P(Y|X') is this number, but I think you'd have hard time making that case. Really, I'm not sure it's even possible to get a good estimate on this number. What you need is a population that's unable to pirate games. I think this would be hard to come by.

P(Y|X') is certainly not an exact estimate for people who cannot pirate the game, since X' will include both people who can pirate the game but do not, and those who cannot.

But yes, I concede some of your point. From a publisher/developer's point of view, in an idea world there wouldn't be any piracy, or DRM would be effective enough to render piracy impossible. On the other hand, the universe is clearly imperfect, so |P(Y|X) - P(Y|X')| I think still forms a not unreasonable indicator of sales lost due to piracy.

[Zeful]

EDITDISCLAIMER: I would, however, agree that in this case sales will probably hurt MW2, as most of my friends regret getting it and the pirates laugh at the people who bought it - I just wanted to note that people who use torrents aren't thieves, no matter what you might think. Sure there are a subset of users who use torrents for efficient information exchange and what not, but I honestly doubt that they are a majority of torrent users or that the torrent site they are using lacks illegally uploaded content.


Good for you, but I'd rather make informed decisionsThere are a lot more options available then outright theft. You can rent the game, or go to a place like the Monster's Den (41st Street and Cedar Ave. Mpls, MN) and play it there. It'd be like wanting to see if I want to buy a car and instead of requesting a test drive, I break into the lot and take it for a joyride. No matter how I explain it, I still broke into the lot and stole the car.

[warty goblin]

There are a lot more options available then outright theft. You can rent the game, or go to a place like the Monster's Den (41st Street and Cedar Ave. Mpls, MN) and play it there. It'd be like wanting to see if I want to buy a car and instead of requesting a test drive, I break into the lot and take it for a joyride. No matter how I explain it, I still broke into the lot and stole the car.
Lots of games also have demos. Those that don't are evil, I agree.

Hell, I'm a PC gamer, so renting isn't an option. Instead I read reviews, look for discussions, watch gameplay videos, that sort of thing. And I very seldom end up buying a game that I absolutely hate because of this*. It's all perfectly legal, supports the people I want to support, and doesn't add another headcount to piracy statistics.


*As a strange addenum to this, I find I tend to avoid games rated north of 9.0, and indeed I've gotten less enjoyment out of the games rated that highly that I've purchased recently than a lot of the eights and sevens I've acquired. I suspect this is because such games tend to be megahuge productions polished for a general audience. Lowest Common Demoninator and all that. My demoninator may be low, but I'm fairly sure it isn't terribly common.

[Jahkaivah]

There's a moral to this story, not sure what it is, but it involves low gravity and rapid-fire grenade launchers. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/16/modem-warfare-dedicated-servers-go/#)

[warty goblin]

There's a moral to this story, not sure what it is, but it involves low gravity and rapid-fire grenade launchers. (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/11/16/modem-warfare-dedicated-servers-go/#)

And yet, with all that, Tribes is still more awesome.

[chiasaur11]

And yet, with all that, Tribes is still more awesome.

Well, yeah.

It has Skis and Jetpacks.

[warty goblin]

Well, yeah.

It has Skis and Jetpacks.

One might consider Tribes/Tribes 2 to be sort of a cosmological limit of multiplayer awesomeness. Other titles may approach it, get close to it, but will never reach that point.

Hell, one only has to look at Tribes' feature list to comprehend that for the most part the multiplayer shooter has been devolving for the last ten years. I mean, constructable vehicles, base assets with real game impact, mods, adjustable player counts- I think I've heard of Tribes servers for 64 players...

[Klose_the_Sith]

Sure there are a subset of users who use torrents for efficient information exchange and what not, but I honestly doubt that they are a majority of torrent users or that the torrent site they are using lacks illegally uploaded content.

No, I mean torrent the game, then if you like it buy it. That's what Pirates will do (unless if they're DRM locked, which I agree with wholeheartedly - I will never buy DRM locked content no matter who it hurts.)


There are a lot more options available then outright theft. You can rent the game, or go to a place like the Monster's Den (41st Street and Cedar Ave. Mpls, MN) and play it there. It'd be like wanting to see if I want to buy a car and instead of requesting a test drive, I break into the lot and take it for a joyride. No matter how I explain it, I still broke into the lot and stole the car.

You seem to be assuming that 1=2, which it does not.

There are other options granted, but those are completely unnecessary when I can (get this) download a game without hurting anyone or causing anyone inconveniences - in fact all I'm doing is helping more people just like me.

If I was to go and steal a copy of MW2 from a store then that would be abhorrent, they have money invested in that copy and rely on customers to purchase it for their business model to continue running smoothly.

However, if I torrent it then I'm hurting literally no-one. The product you get isn't one that cost the developers anything to create/distribute persay, as it's just the raw data. While yes they did work hard on the data, they're not losing anything by it being shared out - just potentially not getting as much. Seeing as that case only comes into play when they make a ****ty game, they should be thankful that *some* people are keeping them on their toes, rather then just buying it anyway.

[Zeful]

No, I mean torrent the game, then if you like it buy it. That's what Pirates will do (unless if they're DRM locked, which I agree with wholeheartedly - I will never buy DRM locked content no matter who it hurts.)In that case, yes those people are thieves.


There are other options granted, but those are completely unnecessary when I can (get this) download a game without hurting anyone or causing anyone inconveniences - in fact all I'm doing is helping more people just like me.

If I was to go and steal a copy of MW2 from a store then that would be abhorrent, they have money invested in that copy and rely on customers to purchase it for their business model to continue running smoothly.You're assuming 1=/=1. Game torrents are not put up with any kind of consent from the creators, then it is downloaded without any kind of consent of the creators. The game's effectively being stolen twice.

You think that you aren't hurting anyone. That's a steaming load of bull. Every game sold generates money to cover the cost of paying the programmers to make the game (the bulk of the cost), advertisements, printing, shipping, and then all the little people who aren't even part of the design process but need to get paid. Every time you torrent a game you are effectivally taking money right from there pocket because you can't be bothered to be honest. You also encourage others to steal. What you are doing is no different from walking into a store and stealing from the shelf. You may lie to yourself however you want. But you are breaking the law, and denying those that made the game their due.


While yes they did work hard on the data, they're not losing anything by it being shared out - just potentially not getting as much. Seeing as that case only comes into play when they make a ****ty game, they should be thankful that *some* people are keeping them on their toes, rather then just buying it anyway.

No. You are not doing the game designers any favors. You are in fact saying that you do not think they or their work is worth anything. You are denying them their livelyhood for your own selfish purposes. Would you object if I walked in to your place of employment and stole something you've been working on, only to comeback later and buy another?

[warty goblin]

No, I mean torrent the game, then if you like it buy it. That's what Pirates will do (unless if they're DRM locked, which I agree with wholeheartedly - I will never buy DRM locked content no matter who it hurts.)

That's what some people, including you apparently do, yes. Speaking for everybody who has ever torrented a file however without supporting data seems to be exceeding the limits of 'speaking from experience.'



You seem to be assuming that 1=2, which it does not.

There are other options granted, but those are completely unnecessary when I can (get this) download a game without hurting anyone or causing anyone inconveniences - in fact all I'm doing is helping more people just like me.
Except that you do inconvenience other people. Every time I have to deal with activation limits, online verification or other forms of restrictive DRM it is because people pirate games. It's not because developers want to spend money and time patching this stuff in, because I honestly cannot imagine that they do. I could be wrong about this- and if any game developer is reading this, please let me know- but I'll bet people don't go into the game development business to interface with SecuROM drivers.


If I was to go and steal a copy of MW2 from a store then that would be abhorrent, they have money invested in that copy and rely on customers to purchase it for their business model to continue running smoothly.
Which makes it different than torrenting how exactly?


However, if I torrent it then I'm hurting literally no-one. The product you get isn't one that cost the developers anything to create/distribute persay, as it's just the raw data. While yes they did work hard on the data, they're not losing anything by it being shared out - just potentially not getting as much. Seeing as that case only comes into play when they make a ****ty game, they should be thankful that *some* people are keeping them on their toes, rather then just buying it anyway.

Yes they are losing something: The right to distribute that data as they see fit. This right is legally given to them by national and international law over most of the world, and has existed, at least in England, for nearly three hundred years. It's been internationally ratified and recognized for nearly five quarters of a century.

The right to control how one's ideas are distributed is intrinsic to how society works. A lot of things are only developed because people can make money from them. We live better lives because of this- sofware, music, books, magazines, art, inventions (although many of those fall under Patent laws, not copyright) and so forth are all, to a large degree, made possible because people and companies have an expectation that when they invest money in developing these things, they can make a return. The way they can make a return is to control the distribution of their product.

So no, I don't see any difference between downloading a game (or music or movies or whatever else drifts across the torrent feeds) illegaly and stealing. The only difference is that the theft of something physical from a store affects only the store's owners and investors. Piracy affects the ability of the entire society to foster the growth of information and non-physical expression, and makes everybody poorer.


While yes they did work hard on the data, they're not losing anything by it being shared out - just potentially not getting as much.
I wanted to single this bit out, because it's a particularly bad bit of semantic cop-out. If you choose not to buy the game because you pirated it, that's a lost sale. It actually doesn't matter why you chose not to buy it, it's still a sale lost because you did not respect somebody else's property rights. That is theft, plain and simple.



Seeing as that case only comes into play when they make a ****ty game, they should be thankful that *some* people are keeping them on their toes, rather then just buying it anyway
This is simply so wrong that words nearly fail me. Stealing things is not a public service; particularly when the things being stolen are in no way required for the survival of you or anybody else taking them illegaly, and when the sale of them is required for someone else's livelyhood.

Finally, I don't even see the practical neccessity of torrenting a game to see whether it is worth playing or not. There are enough reviews, gameplay videos, and other resources available to make a reasonably informed decision. And if you buy a game you don't like, grow a pair and get over it.

[Klose_the_Sith]

In that case, yes those people are thieves.

The gaming industry is in a serious need of regulation, if that means being cut throat then so be it.


You're assuming 1=/=1.

What a comeback - you got me right in the misuse-my-own-analogy-and-claim-superiority.


Game torrents are not put up with any kind of consent from the creators, then it is downloaded without any kind of consent of the creators. The game's effectively being stolen twice.

Uploading a game is the same as stealing it? The ****? Maybe you should read over that sentence again, cause I seriously doubt that's what you mean to say.

Correct - the creators do not consent to it being torrented, yes it's wrong when approached from that angle ... it's just the wrong angle to approach it from.


You think that you aren't hurting anyone.

Because I'm not.


That's a steaming load of bull.

Nope, just the reality of the marketplace.


Every game sold generates money to cover the cost of paying the programmers to make the game (the bulk of the cost), advertisements, printing, shipping, and then all the little people who aren't even part of the design process but need to get paid.

Correct. However, people who torrent a game and then don't buy it wouldn't have bought it anyway. Your entire argument is founded on the belief that if I don't go and torrent, say, MW2 that I'll go buy it anyway - if I can't torrent it then I won't buy it at all and that's just that. They haven't lost anything from that outcome and if they make a good enough game then they'll gain a sale.


Every time you torrent a game you are effectivally taking money right from there pocket because you can't be bothered to be honest.

I haven't stolen anything from them, ergo I haven't taken any money from them.


You also encourage others to steal.

No, I encourage others to also participate in streamlined information exchange for mutual benefit - but thanks for trying.


What you are doing is no different from walking into a store and stealing from the shelf. You may lie to yourself however you want. But you are breaking the law, and denying those that made the game their due.

No, if I walk into a shop and steal a copy from the shelf then I'm actually hurting their projections etc. as well as the store (which is the worst part of theft, the shops are some really tragic externalities - hence why I don't condone theft).

If I torrent something then that's entirely different - I get a product that is basically just someone else's copy. It might as well have been a brand new one that came out of nowhere and cost nothing to produce, as there were no costs involved in the production of *it*. I analyse theft from an economic perspective and torrenting doesn't hurt that at all - as I've already stated, it has positive economic effects.


No. You are not doing the game designers any favors.

Just because you're doing someone a favour doesn't mean they'll agree that it's for their own good.


You are in fact saying that you do not think they or their work is worth anything.

Oh touche, how right you are - truly my monolithic LEGALLY PURCHASED CD collection and pile of LEGALLY PURCHASED games means that when I torrented to try it out first I immediately considered their product to be completely worthless.


You are denying them their livelyhood for your own selfish purposes. Would you object if I walked in to your place of employment and stole something you've been working on, only to comeback later and buy another?

Well, yes, but it's completely different.

See - you seem to be approaching this from a moralistic standpoint of "any theft is wrong" whereas my response is "yes but torrenting isn't really theft, if you knew how the internet works then you'd understand that."

The only reason torrenting is criminalised is because of the failing monstrosity that is modern copyright law - if we were going by definitions of theft then I wouldn't be a criminal in any sense of the law (and seeing as I buy 99% of the stuff I torrent any charges pressed would be beyond petty).

Recent examples of my personal approach are some of this years torrents:

Megadeth - Endgame (Bought on release day)
Warbringer - War Without End (Picked up recently)
Gojira - The Way of All Flesh (Going to pick up if I find it)
Ensiferum - From Afar (I had already pre-ordered it and paid in full)
Slayer - World Painted Blood (Going to pick it up once I get paid, I've already seen them live after paying full price)
Warcraft 3 Reign of Chaos (Torrented only because no shop in my city had it/was able to order it in)
Alestorm - Black Sails at Midnight (Ordered it in at great cost)
Bolt Thrower - Discography (Haven't bought any yet, but there are several albums in there that I wouldn't have liked anyway. Will pick up some of their works if I spot them, but I WOULDN'T HAVE LIKED THE OTHERS ANYWAY).
Hammerfall - Discography (Some Hammerfall CD's are obscenely difficult to get where I live, so I torrent them in the meantime. I still buy their new releases and shirts).
Weddings, Parties, Anything - The Big Don't Argue (Already owned several other albums, but again this one was a bitch to find. Also supported the singers solo act live [unfortunately the actual band has broken up]).

It's true that some of those probably count as stealing, but the whole point is that if you need to win over the 50/50 crowd (so named because of an objects appeal to us) then you need to make a product that appeals to them too, if you don't then you don't get their sales - simple business.

Also, economics coming into this again, if Supply hits virtually infinite, then lots more people will get their hands on it as the product becomes free, these are however people who wouldn't have paid for it anyway and thus can't be viewed as losses just because they won't buy it for full price.

It's not as cut and dried as you might like to think.

[nooblade]

It's nothing akin to stealing a car, unless you can duplicate any car you see nearly instantly and then drive off with the copy, the model of which the manufacturer claims rights to. The only reason that it isn't legal is because you're not paying for the rights of something designed at some great expense.


Really, I don't think that game developers are innocent. They jack up prices on some silly content to pay for the ridiculous amount of money required for the latest graphics development. The latest on MW2 goes to show it, some 3rd party put dedicated servers into a cracked version of the game, a relatively simple addition for something that neat.


FYI, I haven't bought or pirated any games in a few years now, and not planning on it anytime soon. :smallcool:

[TheDarkOne]

Piracy is clearly not the same as stealing. Piracy is wrong. I wonder if some people realise that these two statements can both be true.

[Celesyne]

I'm almost certain that this very argument has gotten several other threads locked, so may we please get back to discussion on MW2? So, this attachement system is different from MW1, where you could only have 1o of the attachements at a time, where you can have more than 1 equipped, or am I mistaken?

[warty goblin]

It's nothing akin to stealing a car, unless you can duplicate any car you see nearly instantly and then drive off with the copy, the model of which the manufacturer claims rights to. The only reason that it isn't legal is because you're not paying for the rights of something designed at some great expense.

Something can be theft without being exactly like another form of theft.



Really, I don't think that game developers are innocent. They jack up prices on some silly content to pay for the ridiculous amount of money required for the latest graphics development. The latest on MW2 goes to show it, some 3rd party put dedicated servers into a cracked version of the game, a relatively simple addition for something that neat.
This seems like weak reasoning to me. Game prices really haven't gone up all that much- if at all- in years now. MW2 is the first standard edition of a game I can ever remember costing more than $50 on PC, and I'm fairly sure the standard new game price on consoles has been $60 through at least the last generation now.

Also, even if developers are inflating prices, that hardly justifies lawbreaking and theft. One is stupid, the other wrong, certainly legally and in my opinion morally.

[SurlySeraph]

Correct. However, people who torrent a game and then don't buy it wouldn't have bought it anyway. Your entire argument is founded on the belief that if I don't go and torrent, say, MW2 that I'll go buy it anyway - if I can't torrent it then I won't buy it at all and that's just that. They haven't lost anything from that outcome and if they make a good enough game then they'll gain a sale.

Here's the crux of the disagreement. Torrenting a game has a much lower opportunity cost than buying one; it's much easier to do, and of course it costs nothing. People torrent games that they want and then don't buy the games because that way they save money. If they downloaded it and then went out and bought it, it'd take more effort (finding a store that has it, going there, paying $60 dollars or so depending on the game, installing it) and they don't get any benefit for putting in that effort, since they already have the game downloaded.

Therefore, someone who has decided they want the game - not just decided they want to try it, decided they want it - can just download the game and play it. If they couldn't download it and wanted it enough, they would have gone out and bought it the conventional way; but since downloading is easier, they don't. You're assuming a) that people only download games to try them, never to get them, and b) that no one who downloads a game would have bought it if a download was not available. Both of these are extremely improbable hypotheses.

[chiasaur11]

I'm almost certain that this very argument has gotten several other threads locked, so may we please get back to discussion on MW2? So, this attachement system is different from MW1, where you could only have 1o of the attachements at a time, where you can have more than 1 equipped, or am I mistaken?

Sounds good.

Back to the plot, such as it is:

They nuke the Space Station. What.

[Myrmex]

Correct. However, people who torrent a game and then don't buy it wouldn't have bought it anyway. Your entire argument is founded on the belief that if I don't go and torrent, say, MW2 that I'll go buy it anyway - if I can't torrent it then I won't buy it at all and that's just that. They haven't lost anything from that outcome and if they make a good enough game then they'll gain a sale

Price discrimination is not a binary system. If I have the choice to have something I want for $50 or no dollars and a very small amount of risk, most of the time I'll pick the no dollars and a small amount of risk. If I did not have the choice of no dollars, I would have still purchased the item.

You can generalize this and state that people prefer inexpensive products over expensive products, all other things being equal, and seeing as how free is about as inexpensive as you can get, people will choose the free product over purchasing one. This is actually the basic tenant of the free market. You can set up any number of thought experiments or real experiments to verify this. The simple fact of the world, backed not only by piles of empirical data, but evolutionary principles that hardwire our decision process, is people prefer free meals to paying for them.

I find it ironic that so many people who pretend that the stuff in the quotes has any bearing on reality often get their panties in wad as they fret over evil monopolistic corporations, without realizing that pirating and monopolies operate on the exact same principles.

[Myatar_Panwar]

Anyone being able to torrent something is certainly problematic.

Doesn't mean that every person who uses a torrent is doing something immoral.

[Zeful]

The gaming industry is in a serious need of regulation, if that means being cut throat then so be it.Yes, many torrent sites need to be invoiced to the exact amount of damages they cause to company.


Uploading a game is the same as stealing it? The ****? Maybe you should read over that sentence again, cause I seriously doubt that's what you mean to say.

Correct - the creators do not consent to it being torrented, yes it's wrong when approached from that angle ... it's just the wrong angle to approach it from.I said what I meant. Uploading to a torrent without the express written consent is theft. There are very specific laws about what you are allowed to do after purchase. Torrenting anything but your own works violates many of those laws.


Because I'm not.Yes you are. You hurt me because of your decisions, company shareholders (you know the people that make those games possible, and if they left, gaming goes away) demand more damaging DRM be placed on product to insure their profits.


Correct. However, people who torrent a game and then don't buy it wouldn't have bought it anyway. Your entire argument is founded on the belief that if I don't go and torrent, say, MW2 that I'll go buy it anyway - if I can't torrent it then I won't buy it at all and that's just that. They haven't lost anything from that outcome and if they make a good enough game then they'll gain a sale.No, I'm of the belief that if you don't pay for it you have no right to have it. So the people that would never pay, should never have what they stole.


No, if I walk into a shop and steal a copy from the shelf then I'm actually hurting their projections etc. as well as the store (which is the worst part of theft, the shops are some really tragic externalities - hence why I don't condone theft).

If I torrent something then that's entirely different - I get a product that is basically just someone else's copy. It might as well have been a brand new one that came out of nowhere and cost nothing to produce, as there were no costs involved in the production of *it*. I analyse theft from an economic perspective and torrenting doesn't hurt that at all - as I've already stated, it has positive economic effects.Still illegal, still theft, now a hypocrite.


Just because you're doing someone a favour doesn't mean they'll agree that it's for their own good.So if I shoot you, for your own good, it's okay?


Oh touche, how right you are - truly my monolithic LEGALLY PURCHASED CD collection and pile of LEGALLY PURCHASED games means that when I torrented to try it out first I immediately considered their product to be completely worthless.Yes, and I believe you to be a hypocrite on top of it all.




Well, yes, but it's completely different.No it's not.


See - you seem to be approaching this from a moralistic standpoint of "any theft is wrong" whereas my response is "yes but torrenting isn't really theft, if you knew how the internet works then you'd understand that."No, I'm not. I'm not using any moral judgement beyond "you don't have any" in my argument.


The only reason torrenting is criminalised is because of the failing monstrosity that is modern copyright law - if we were going by definitions of theft then I wouldn't be a criminal in any sense of the law (and seeing as I buy 99% of the stuff I torrent any charges pressed would be beyond petty).I think you should be billed for everything you torrent, at the full retail price at time of sale, plus shipping, plus sales tax (for the state the server is in, as well as your own) as well as a 150,000% anti-pirate tax to make up for the people the system can't catch.

And before you ask. Yes, I do believe you should be punished for the mistakes of those you emulate.


It's true that some of those probably count as stealing,Some? You honestly think that that list of things you've torrented doesn't count as stealing, just because you've bought it anyway? If you even think I care, you're delusional. I don't care if you later go out and buy half a million copies of something, you still have a copy you didn't pay for. That's theft.



It's not as cut and dried as you might like to think.
Yes it is. You are a thief. You believe you aren't. It's pretty cut and dried.

[Vic_Sage]

Sounds good.

Back to the plot, such as it is:

They nuke the Space Station. What.
I thought Price just detnonated it above DC and didn't hit anything in particular.

All so, people need to learn to switch to Anti Air stuff, got Chopper Gunner from a Care package and used it to deadly effect on Afghan. Got 23 kills with it.

[Celesyne]

Hey!!!!!!!!! Enough with the piracy yadda crap. More with the shooting of people in the face!!!! :furious:

[Myatar_Panwar]

Hey!!!!!!!!! Enough with the piracy yadda crap. More with the shooting of people in the face!!!! :furious:

Looking at it from page 1 onward, I'm not entirely sure if this thread was ever really about MW2 the game. :smalltongue:

[MCerberus]

I think the best part of the plot is the non-ending they tacked on. It's like a certain other game on the xbox that caught flak for the second game not having an ending, only they did it on purpose

[nooblade]

You guys are fast.

Also, the discussion on piracy is interesting. In fact, it is a testament to the crappiness of your game that we are having a much better discussion of piracy in your thread.


Something can be theft without being exactly like another form of theft.Ah, but the computer is owned by the user. It would be stealing to march into Kmart and grab a fridge for your home without paying, but going into that same Kmart, closely examining that fridge, and then going home to build your own exact duplicate would not be "stealing". Or, if you don't want to go to Kmart, you could just go to a friend's house. Or your friend could put the plans for the fridge he bought on the internet.

Is building an exact duplicate of a popular refrigerator design really stealing? It is copyright infringement, sure, but not stealing. The company that makes them would go out of business, but that's not the issue at hand.

It just isn't theft, okay? Anti-theft is not the only kind of law necessary to protect commerce.


This seems like weak reasoning to me. Game prices really haven't gone up all that much- if at all- in years now. MW2 is the first standard edition of a game I can ever remember costing more than $50 on PC, and I'm fairly sure the standard new game price on consoles has been $60 through at least the last generation now.

Also, even if developers are inflating prices, that hardly justifies lawbreaking and theft. One is stupid, the other wrong, certainly legally and in my opinion morally.

This isn't an argument to justify piracy, but rather a personal opinion that is highly related. I really think that game design is not keeping up with the technology involved and that too many producers are trying to make up for their lacking designers with shiny graphics and things. Notice the increase in costs as a development team goes from a guy in his garage to a huge corporation (which also outsources labor and acquires licenses for technology). The increase in fun does not keep up IMHO.

[Myrmex]

Ah, but the computer is owned by the user. It would be stealing to march into Kmart and grab a fridge for your home without paying, but going into that same Kmart, closely examining that fridge, and then going home to build your own exact duplicate would not be "stealing". Or, if you don't want to go to Kmart, you could just go to a friend's house. Or your friend could put the plans for the fridge he bought on the internet.

Is building an exact duplicate of a popular refrigerator design really stealing? It is copyright infringement, sure, but not stealing. The company that makes them would go out of business, but that's not the issue at hand.

It just isn't theft, okay? Anti-theft is not the only kind of law necessary to protect commerce.

Ehh, ask the guy who runs this site.

[Kalbron]

The hilarious thing is though that one of the arguments generally brought up by pirates is that by removing DRM they're improving the game. Depending on the DRM that may be technically true.

Here however we have pirates fundamentally improving the game through enabling or at least working towards enabling dedicated servers. Anyone with a legitimate copy will most likely not be able to access this ability to do even with a patch due to it being registered online. (I think one of the news articles talking about the dedicated servers mentioned that IWnet partially worked through using Steam. So legit users would potentially lose their Steam account if they used an illegal patch to gain dedicated servers.)

It's like the world has gone and sat on its head or something. I don't think there's an adjective suitable for this situation that Infinity Ward has put itself in.

[Oslecamo]

stuff


Let's put things this way: Nowadays companies are rewarded for going bankrupt.

The conclusion is, "economy" is nothing more than a very bad taste joke created by the guys in charge to control resources. They make the rules, and they breack them as they wish, like printing loads of money to pay your rich pals while leting poor people die of diseases on the street.

Indeed, torrenting probably doesn't hurt that much the market. BUT it goes against their main philosophy nowadays: if something doesn't give money, then it isn't worth doing.

What the net has proved however is that are people who are willing to do things and then give them away for free. And that scares them. A lot.

They dream of a net where you have to pay for everything, where copyright law and their other laws are enforced at the expense of everything else.

Piracy is but a segment of this "free quality" movement. Linux, open source programs, google, they make the big money companies scream in agony every night as they give us nice things whitout us paying anything, and they're trying everything at their reach to destroy them, since they cannot be bought.

[Milskidasith]

Here's a question for the pirates, and a simple one that cuts to the heart of the argument. Let's assume that you are going to pirate the game, yes? You claim it's not theft because it's not a physical copy. While that may hurt stores a bit more, it still hurts the developers, but you deny that.

So what if you pirate a game that's already available in download only form? Let's say you torrent a Steam game that you can just download, like Left 4 Dead. Since you are now using the exact same methods as the "legitimate" method of buying it (download) is it now theft?

Sure, some people who torrent might do so to check games out. But I seriously doubt that everybody who torrents does so, especially if the game is already available for download, which gets rid of every argument for torrenting except price (or if you just want to play a version of the game before a patch you disagree with, I guess.)

[Myrmex]

The conclusion is, "economy" is nothing more than a very bad taste joke created by the guys in charge to control resources. They make the rules, and they breack them as they wish, like printing loads of money to pay your rich pals while leting poor people die of diseases on the street.

What would you do if you were in charge? Hand out lollipops?
I know what I would do:

http://www.smallartworks.ca/ArtPage/Vader.JPG

[Aricandor]

Here's a question for the pirates, and a simple one that cuts to the heart of the argument. Let's assume that you are going to pirate the game, yes? You claim it's not theft because it's not a physical copy. While that may hurt stores a bit more, it still hurts the developers, but you deny that.

I'm guessing the fundamental defense used *is* in fact that if they like the game, they'll buy it to support the devs. If they think it's crap, they'll not play it anymore anyway and save themselves the bother of returning it, which some grumpy stores might not allow for.
Not everyone would go about things this way obviously. In which direction this takes game sales in the end I won't speculate on but leave to those who actually knows some numbers. :smallsmile:
I'd be inclined to guess that most just take it and consider it free, which is sure to pose problems, but yeah. That's just guesswork.

[chiasaur11]

What would you do if you were in charge? Hand out lollipops?
I know what I would do:

http://www.smallartworks.ca/ArtPage/Vader.JPG

Wear a Darth Vader suit?

Sounds like a plan.

[Oslecamo]

What would you do if you were in charge? Hand out lollipops?


Most people who become leaders probably shouldn't be so.

But the main point it's that it's a double bladed edge.

If they breack the rules as they wish, we breack the rules when we can get away with it. It isn't worth the effort of tracking down every pirate out there for copying random files, so piracy runs rampart. If they want their copyrights so badly, then the people will make them fight for it!

They may crush their wallets, but they cannot crush their hard drives!

[SurlySeraph]

Sounds good.

Back to the plot, such as it is:

They nuke the Space Station. What.

That part really bothered me. The nuke detonates far enough from the station that it didn't look to me like it should have done any physical damage to the station. Sure there would have been an EMP, but EMPs don't make space stations break into pieces. Don't say it was a shock wave, space is a vacuum. There's no medium for the shock wave to be transmitted in. And despite how far away it was, it's enough to hit the astronaut that the perspective in that scene was from. NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

[Oslecamo]

That part really bothered me. The nuke detonates far enough from the station that it didn't look to me like it should have done any physical damage to the station. Sure there would have been an EMP, but EMPs don't make space stations break into pieces. Don't say it was a shock wave, space is a vacuum. There's no medium for the shock wave to be transmitted in. And despite how far away it was, it's enough to hit the astronaut that the perspective in that scene was from. NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.


Nuclear weapons do work on space. Not exactly like on Earth, but they still do damage.

The heat still propagates, and may cause stuff to blow up. Plus shards from the bomb can hit fuel/oxygen deposits and make the thing go boom.

[nooblade]

Actually, piracy allows more freedom with your copy of a game than Steam. You can pirate a single player game and then use it without care of internet access. Some people will actually pirate a game, then purchase a copy (I guess they have a guilty conscience?), and then continue playing the pirated copy. I heard a few people have done this for the DRM-protected copies of Spore, although I dunno why, because Spore didn't actually look like much fun.

The thing is, buying a game from Steam is actually more like buying a one-time cost "unlimited" license to play it. I personally would stay the hell away from Steam just in case they go out of business (among other reasons). That would cause something like the result of those deals where you could download songs onto your iPod, but only one time and onto that iPod.


@Oslecamo - I believe that Google is, in fact, in it for the money. Many Linux distributions may be sold, according to the open source license, for the cost of materials and a pittance for copying. Isn't the free market wonderful? There are all kinds of things you can do to make money. It's just a shame that the consumer can be a clueless dupe who thinks that the government is some kind of protective agency fighting out for their well-being.

[Vic_Sage]

Oh god can you people shut the hell up about the Piracy? GO make you're own thread and talk about it there.

In other news, High Rise may be my favorite map.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked for review. Please be aware that advocating illegal activity is not permitted on this Forum. Also, insulting other posters in any way is not permitted.