Widescreen Gaming Forum

I am trying to imagine how Starcraft would have faired had it been P2P.

I don't think it would have made much of a difference since lag in an RTS isn't lag in an FPS, nowhere as critical...

however I don't played much on the internet, rather on LAN (happened to be part of a very active PC association, we even made internal tournaments which I won with a partner :D )

Mouse and keyboard control is a pretty huge deal... also, much better graphics... also, open platform means tweaks and hacks, even if they try not to allow them.

There are a lot more reasons to game on PC than dedicated servers. I am a diehard PC gamer and have never cared one way or another about dedicated servers because I have never been a multiplayer gamer.

It's obvious that beyond dedicated servers there are numerous reasons to game on PC. But what Infinity Ward is trying to do is limit how PC gamers play the game on a multitude of levels. There's no mod support. There's no dedicated servers so multi-player will be crap right off the bat. There's no control in how I play online due to their IWNET system. And there's no console access to tweak certain settings not found in the game's graphic options.

IW basically removed so many things that made PC gaming a viable platform to expand and extend the life of the game. The lack of dedicated server will hinder how long multi-player will last (see Xfire's Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising to see the trend). The lack of modding and mapping support basically halts everything that can potentially add to the game, such as different weapons, new maps, Total Conversions, new gameplay modes, and so forth.

02:54 Moriarte
Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?

02:55 Mackey-IW
No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings.

The above quote pretty much defines how they view gaming on PCs. We all know, as PC gamers, that mouse control, text chat, and graphic controls are standard features. No idiot would develop a PC game that doesn't have that. I don't see MW2 on PC as a PC version. I see MW2 on PC as a port. There is no unique feature specific to PC other than the standard set of PC-centric properties found in many games today. Because there is nothing else to make MW2 PC stand out from the console crowd, there's really no need to play it on PC. The Xbox 360 version will suffice. Sure the controls won't be as fine and granular as the mouse. But when there's nothing else on the PC platform, why bother?

But here's another thing. If not playing the multi-player aspect of the game, why not simply rent the game instead? Multiplayer is a big part of the CoD franchise and since it's useless to even try on MW2, the only reason to play MW2 is for single-player. If for that alone, wouldn't renting be a whole lot better than dumping US$60 for a downgraded game? But if you must play the PC version for single player... well, I think we pretty much know that route one could take.

yep I don't see myself buying it however I must say, there is some damn fine videos which entice me to play the single player part of it, so I'll guess I'll see if I can borrow it but it will probably be several month to more than a year after release...

some guys say the video quality is lacking however I can't judge of that seeing how I can't really watch videos in HD anyway (too low bandwith)

We all know, as PC gamers, that mouse control, text chat, and graphic controls are standard features. No idiot would develop a PC game that doesn't have that. I don't see MW2 on PC as a PC version. I see MW2 on PC as a port. There is no unique feature specific to PC other than the standard set of PC-centric properties found in many games today. Because there is nothing else to make MW2 PC stand out from the console crowd, there's really no need to play it on PC. The Xbox 360 version will suffice. Sure the controls won't be as fine and granular as the mouse. But when there's nothing else on the PC platform, why bother?

You are dismissing mouse control and graphics options as standard, so they don't matter, but they DO matter. That is my whole point. Those things alone make the PC version 10 times better than the Xbox version to me, easily. So why dismiss them?

Yes, it is a port... pretty much every game released the last 5 years is a console port on one level or another. That doesn't mean it won't be best on PC. The IWNet thing certainly does not make it WORSE on PC, as the Xbox and PS3 versions do the same thing.

On console MW2 will be at like 540 res, which is tremedously low, with little AA or AF. It will also have massive auto-aiming which snaps to the target when you look down the sights, as all CoD games on console have had and as you can see MW2 doing in the videos. Avoiding those two travesties is more than enough reason to stick with the PC version despite the server issue.

I just don't get at all the mentality of "well they cut one PC feature, so might as well go console!" There are many more than one PC features.

I've witnessed many PC gamers declaring they will boycott the PC version and get the console version instead. What are they thinking this will accomplish?

I've witnessed many PC gamers declaring they will boycott the PC version and get the console version instead. What are they thinking this will accomplish?

at least MWF2 will have a lower PC / console sales ratio than MWF1

now to each his own but I would think : "ok we got nice console sales but we completely missed our PC market goals so what now ?"
"-option 1 : we don't care, let's continue on the same road" => stupid move, since the goal is to make more money not less ...
"-option 2 : since we don't know how to deal with the PC market better, let's forget it altogether" => less revenue but at the same time less investment
however art/scenario and the like are fixed investments so don't see this as a wisemove either.
"-option 3 : let's improve and learn from our mistakes to gain more PC sales" => problem : probably need to increase investment aimed at the PC market however might gain more sales ....

I won't bet on which path they will take however ;)

I've witnessed many PC gamers declaring they will boycott the PC version and get the console version instead. What are they thinking this will accomplish?

Dunno. It certainly won't get them dedicated servers.

[quote]I've witnessed many PC gamers declaring they will boycott the PC version and get the console version instead. What are they thinking this will accomplish?

at least MWF2 will have a lower PC / console sales ratio than MWF1

now to each his own but I would think : "ok we got nice console sales but we completely missed our PC market goals so what now ?"
"-option 1 : we don't care, let's continue on the same road" => stupid move, since the goal is to make more money not less ...
"-option 2 : since we don't know how to deal with the PC market better, let's forget it altogether" => less revenue but at the same time less investment
however art/scenario and the like are fixed investments so don't see this as a wisemove either.
"-option 3 : let's improve and learn from our mistakes to gain more PC sales" => problem : probably need to increase investment aimed at the PC market however might gain more sales ....

I won't bet on which path they will take however ;)

You're assuming this will sell less. I am not so sure... how big is the dedicated server and clan community really? I guess we are about to find out.

Imagine what would happen if an ISP blocked XBox Live?

You ever seen that Simpson's episode with Bill Gates? Remember how he fixed that problem?

Nope. I don't watch the Simpsons.

I've witnessed many PC gamers declaring they will boycott the PC version and get the console version instead. What are they thinking this will accomplish?

Who knows what they're thinking.

All that that mentality will do is make the devs/pubs look at the sales ratios and go, "Well, we'll just develop on consoles only."

You are dismissing mouse control and graphics options as standard, so they don't matter, but they DO matter. That is my whole point. Those things alone make the PC version 10 times better than the Xbox version to me, easily. So why dismiss them?

Yes, it is a port... pretty much every game released the last 5 years is a console port on one level or another. That doesn't mean it won't be best on PC. The IWNet thing certainly does not make it WORSE on PC, as the Xbox and PS3 versions do the same thing.

On console MW2 will be at like 540 res, which is tremedously low, with little AA or AF. It will also have massive auto-aiming which snaps to the target when you look down the sights, as all CoD games on console have had and as you can see MW2 doing in the videos. Avoiding those two travesties is more than enough reason to stick with the PC version despite the server issue.

I just don't get at all the mentality of "well they cut one PC feature, so might as well go console!" There are many more than one PC features.

I dismiss them because having graphical controls and settings to tweak them, along with the ability to use the keyboard and mouse, are standard features found in all FPS games to date. I don't factor that in when comparing the two versions.

MW2 being rendered at a low resolution is what the developers decided upon. But that matters little because we all know the PC version will render at many times the size of what the 360 can do. Is it worth spending part of US$60 for it? Is it also worth spending that much just so I can tweak the game's graphical settings and use keyboard & mouse? That's an expensive investment just to have two or three things that makes the PC port superior to the 360.

I see each PC game being purchased as part of an investment to entertainment. Seeing as with PC games, one cannot simply buy the game, play it, and if it isn't up to your standards, return it for a refund. Around here (in USA), people can't exactly do that. Once you open up the box, it's yours to keep, unless you sell it off via some 3rd party site. I do not feel MW2 should be purchased no matter the reason, be it on PC or 360. I do not feel anyone should risk spending US$60 on a game developed by a company who back-stab the very community that put them on the map. And if there's a bug found in the game? One has to wonder just how long IW will bother to support it.

I think we'll all be pleasantly surprised how hardcore the PC community is and how few people will buy CODMW2 for the PC.

Rock on being a consumer and sending your money where the good products are. F)*& you IW.

I dismiss them because having graphical controls and settings to tweak them, along with the ability to use the keyboard and mouse, are standard features found in all FPS games to date. I don't factor that in when comparing the two versions.

Well, since those differences are of epic importance to most PC gamers, and in fact define the PC platform along with open-system development, I wouldn't toss them aside in a comparison. It reminds me of sites like gametrailers that do console vs. PC graphics comparisons, but for fairness sake set the PC version at 720p with no AA... what is that supposed to prove? The reason PC graphics are better is because you are not stuck at that res.

The point is this all started because you said something like "there is no reason to get the PC version now" and I am saying those, right there, are the reasons.

MW2 being rendered at a low resolution is what the developers decided upon. But that matters little because we all know the PC version will render at many times the size of what the 360 can do. Is it worth spending part of US$60 for it? Is it also worth spending that much just so I can tweak the game's graphical settings and use keyboard & mouse? That's an expensive investment just to have two or three things that makes the PC port superior to the 360.

Both versions cost $60 and the PC version has better controls and better graphics... that is my only point. If you are going to buy one, and are a PC gamer, there is no reason at all to get it on Xbox and several reasons to get it on PC. Again, that is my only point... I was replying to your statement there is no reason to get the PC version.

I do not feel MW2 should be purchased no matter the reason, be it on PC or 360.

As a singleplayer gamer who enjoys coop now and then but never competitive multi there are a TON of reasons to get Modern Wardare 2, and I plan to do so. The only thing they have said that impacts me is the lack of lean, but honestly I never used it in CoD anyway, as the game is not tactical at all, so I don't care about that either.

I do not feel anyone should risk spending US$60 on a game developed by a company who back-stab the very community that put them on the map. And if there's a bug found in the game? One has to wonder just how long IW will bother to support it.

They're not back-stabbing you, they are trying to appeal to their largest base of customers, which is what any business will do. The nature of success is that is changes your business model as you create on higher and higher levels of customer base. As I said in another thread, the niche gaming experience you want with shooters, and I want with RPGs, is not going to be provided by large corporation game making machines anymore... it just isn't. Luckily on PC you have other options, if you look for them... move away from the heavy marketing and toward the communities of people like you and what they are making or suggesting.

no lean ? :shock:
at the highest difficulty levels only lean could save your ass (in single player)

trying to appeal to the largest audience ? hum I don't know
because some things just don't make sense
when you can rely on already done multiplayer code why not leave it as an option, instead of forcing everyone on the same P2P thingy
the power of choice can broaden said audience ...

I think MW2 is rather some sort of test, to see how things goes and again another try at limiting pirates :roll:

no lean ? :shock:
at the highest difficulty levels only lean could save your ass (in single player)

I beat it on veteran and never leaned once... I remapped "e" to the use key, actually.

[quote]I dismiss them because having graphical controls and settings to tweak them, along with the ability to use the keyboard and mouse, are standard features found in all FPS games to date. I don't factor that in when comparing the two versions.

Well, since those differences are of epic importance to most PC gamers, and in fact define the PC platform along with open-system development, I wouldn't toss them aside in a comparison. It reminds me of sites like gametrailers that do console vs. PC graphics comparisons, but for fairness sake set the PC version at 720p with no AA... what is that supposed to prove? The reason PC graphics are better is because you are not stuck at that res.

The point is this all started because you said something like "there is no reason to get the PC version now" and I am saying those, right there, are the reasons.

MW2 being rendered at a low resolution is what the developers decided upon. But that matters little because we all know the PC version will render at many times the size of what the 360 can do. Is it worth spending part of US$60 for it? Is it also worth spending that much just so I can tweak the game's graphical settings and use keyboard & mouse? That's an expensive investment just to have two or three things that makes the PC port superior to the 360.

Both versions cost $60 and the PC version has better controls and better graphics... that is my only point. If you are going to buy one, and are a PC gamer, there is no reason at all to get it on Xbox and several reasons to get it on PC. Again, that is my only point... I was replying to your statement there is no reason to get the PC version.

I do not feel MW2 should be purchased no matter the reason, be it on PC or 360.

As a singleplayer gamer who enjoys coop now and then but never competitive multi there are a TON of reasons to get Modern Wardare 2, and I plan to do so. The only thing they have said that impacts me is the lack of lean, but honestly I never used it in CoD anyway, as the game is not tactical at all, so I don't care about that either.

I do not feel anyone should risk spending US$60 on a game developed by a company who back-stab the very community that put them on the map. And if there's a bug found in the game? One has to wonder just how long IW will bother to support it.

They're not back-stabbing you, they are trying to appeal to their largest base of customers, which is what any business will do. The nature of success is that is changes your business model as you create on higher and higher levels of customer base. As I said in another thread, the niche gaming experience you want with shooters, and I want with RPGs, is not going to be provided by large corporation game making machines anymore... it just isn't. Luckily on PC you have other options, if you look for them... move away from the heavy marketing and toward the communities of people like you and what they are making or suggesting.

You are too stubborn to admit that we are getting the pointy end of the stick, and IW are seeing if we will bend over and take it. If we take it, that's the ball game, and that's all we're going to get till we start thinking about where we spend our money. Do it, if that's all you need or want to satisfy your desires.

Personally I will not hand over my money when their previous product is superior. Why should I pay to have my options removed just so I can move on to "the next best thing".

You are too stubborn to admit that we are getting the pointy end of the stick, and IW are seeing if we will bend over and take it. If we take it, that's the ball game, and that's all we're going to get till we start thinking about where we spend our money. Do it, if that's all you need or want to satisfy your desires.

Personally I will not hand over my money when their previous product is superior. Why should I pay to have my options removed just so I can move on to "the next best thing".

Wait... what? This debate is all about him saying the PC version is no better than the console version. I am not telling anyone to buy the game, I am saying that was a false statement.

[quote]You are too stubborn to admit that we are getting the pointy end of the stick, and IW are seeing if we will bend over and take it. If we take it, that's the ball game, and that's all we're going to get till we start thinking about where we spend our money. Do it, if that's all you need or want to satisfy your desires.

Personally I will not hand over my money when their previous product is superior. Why should I pay to have my options removed just so I can move on to "the next best thing".

Wait... what? This debate is all about him saying the PC version is no better than the console version. I am not telling anyone to buy the game, I am saying that was a false statement.

Okay... you're correct then. Semantics and all. :D

I've witnessed many PC gamers declaring they will boycott the PC version and get the console version instead. What are they thinking this will accomplish?

I wouldn't do that in a million years. The xbox version is $70 CAD here as well, that's the last thing I would do. If I really wanted the game, I'd still buy it for PC, but I'm boycotting the game altogether. If they have the game on sale on Steam for $45CAD or less, I may consider getting it, otherwise, no.