By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - I never realized online console gaming was so bad...

Kantor said:
max power said:
Smashed said:
You do know not everyone has capable computers to play MW2?

Not everyone has capable consoles to play it either.  What's your point?

If you own a $200 360 or $300 PS3, you can play MW2. Put disc in. Select disc. See logos. Play.

If you own a PC with sufficient hardware specifications, and the latest video drivers, not to mention Windows updates and service packs, you might have a chance of being able to run it with an official Infinity Ward patch, after fiddling with some of the files.

I miss the days when PC gaming was good, and not all about hardware requirements, massive installs and stability patches.


Yeah if you own a 360 you can play MW2 no matter what, but if you own an original Xbox, you can't.

If you own basic PC you can play MW2, and if you own a crappy PC you can still play MW2 due to tweaks, PC settings, in game modifications, graphical settings etc.

The PS3 was at 599$ at launch, you can get a 500GB DX10 MW2 compatible PC for 380$. As for Windows updates, service packs, video drivers etc. It all comes with the latest out of the box. Those things are just for maintenance. But there is some in-game fiddling with settings to make it run smooth.

So for the price of a console (today) + MW2. You can get a MW2 compatible PC.



Around the Network

if you guys are still confused about this, there is a good MP review bit here: http://www.gamearena.com.au/pc/games/title/modern-warfare-2/reviews.php?id=5033868

strictly PC MP, should give a better sight of the reason behind all the rage, MW2 on PC is not competing against the 360 or PS3, it's competition is CoD4: MW on PC, and MW2 is pure fail when compared to the game from the previous installment of the game on the same platform.



^ True word.



Slimebeast said:
dbot said:
Slimebeast said:
dbot said:
I am sure that dedicated servers will return for the next COD. They only problem is they will come with a subscription model.

What tipe of subscritopn model? Casn u xplain how that works?

Sure, you buy the game and pay a monthly fee to Activision to play online.  The current retail model doesn't work for games any longer due to rentals and pirates. Moving to a subscription based model would allow the publisher to gain revenue from these people.  It's the Warcraft model for other genres.  

Are these your own speculations though (and maybe some industry speculation and analysis)?

Because Ive never heard any concrete plans about this so far.

It's speculation, but I think it will happen sooner than you think.  Kotick has been dropping hints for the last couple of years.  The latest article is included below.  I think the dedicated servers issue on pc is a precursor to a monthly service fee.  I think the next COD will include a monthly service fee for dedicated servers.  This will probably include consoles as well.  

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/104/1044965p1.html

November 12, 2009 - The online business models for many of Activision's key franchises could start to change in the near future. 

During today's BMO Capital Markets Conference, CFO ofActivision Blizzard Thomas Tippl was asked if the successful World of Warcraft online business model will ever translate into the publisher's other major franchises, such as Guitar Hero and Call of Duty. While Tippl said WoW's model is difficult to replicate, players should expect new monetization models for its other titles soon enough. 

"It's definitely an aspiration that we see potential in, particularly as we look at different business models to monetize the online gameplay," said Tippl. "There's good knowledge exchange happening between the Blizzard folks and our online guys." 

"We have great experience also on Call of Duty with the success we had on Xbox Live and PlayStation Network. A lot of that knowledge is getting actually built into the Battle.Net platform and the design of that," he added. "I think it's been mutually beneficial, and you should expect us to test and ultimately launch additional online monetization models of some of some of our biggest franchises like Call of Duty." 

Tippl added there is a demand from its core fanbase willing to pay for additional services and content. 

"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet. From what we see so far, additional content, as well as all the services Blizzard is offering, is that there is demand from the core gamers to pay up for that," Tipple explained. 

A supposed leaked online survey from June possibly hints at what Tippl is driving at. The survey centered around the idea of a monthly service that gives subscribers additional multiplayer and gameplay enhancements for future Call of Duty titles.



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

no offence but i find console online so much simpler....all you have to do in general (like cod4) is search for game and thats it....you dont have to choose a server and mess aorund looking at its ping or anything



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Around the Network

You're French?
Kinda agree I would say online on console suck compared to a PC but it depends of the games too.
I don't care of those "problems" when I play online with a console even on a Call Of Duty.



JaggedSac said:
I started my gaming career as an online PC gamer. Had a Lan party for the Quake Beta release(nail gun bitches), played the hell out of the original TF mod for Quake(2Fort4 baby), Quake 2, a Quake 2 mod called Battle of the Sexes(a TF rip off), UT, UT2004, Rainbow Six, Tribes(hell yeah baby, best pc online game eva), and I find console online gaming to be perfectly adequate.

I actually prefer the idea of matchmaking. Team vs team, no joiners. Who you start against is who you end against. This idea does not necessarily have to use peer to peer, but the service is more scalable and manageable using it. I have played around 2000 matches of Halo 3, and I can honestly tell you, I sure wouldn't have played that fucking many if lag was an issue.

As for controls, it would only matter if input devices were mixed. As long as everyone is on even ground, it doesn't mean shit to me. I am perfectly adequate with either dual analog or mouse/keyboard.

Graphics are not really a concern for me, Tribes, my favorite pc FPS of all time had mediocre graphics even on release. The only impressive thing was the map sizes. Gameplay is FAR more important to me.

Mods can sometimes be good, if you can find a diamond in the rough, I already mentioned I played the original TF and a Quake 2 BOTS mod(which my father was actually a map designer for). But it doesn't matter to me as long as the original game's design keeps me coming back, ie. Tribes or Halo.

I have gotten to the point where I just like joining up with a party of my buds and going from playlist to playlist and game to game and just having a good time. Console has just suited my lifestyle more as of late. There is nothing wrong with online console gaming, it is perfectly adequate, and quite well suited to the matchmaking paradigm.



Well put!



NKAJ said:
no offence but i find console online so much simpler....all you have to do in general (like cod4) is search for game and thats it....you dont have to choose a server and mess aorund looking at its ping or anything

Umm... selecting a server is about as difficult as changing the channel on TV. 



Chairman-Mao said:
uggh we get it PC gaming is sooooooooo amazing. So....how much did your rig cost? $1500? $2000? Even higher?

I would expect on a machine that costed 4 figures ($1000+) that the online gaming would be better then a system that costs $299. Oh and the 7 million people who bought MW2 on day one for PS360 don't seem to mind.

see that's what I hate, my rig is better than any console and cost less than 4 figures.  My friend just bought one himself (he didn't make it, so his cost a bit more) but still only 1200 and way more powerful than any console.  And pc's are used for a ton other than just games.

 

but again dont' bring up cost ever.  If your gonna compare pixels between the two consoles no matter how small they are then any pc gamer has the right to lip off about the max computer setting, doesn't matter the price.  or when talking about our games, should we have to state at all time what we paid for the game or system.  Like if you got your PS3 for 600 then your games are all not counted cause i got a 360 or 200.  no that don't matter.  

 

Quit bringing up price.  What gives you the right to brag about your game, but we can't because ours is on the PC, which pc costs more.  But hey the games costs less.  I can' tbelieve you loosers pay a minimum $10 more for your games, and ha at paying for online at all.  



irstupid said:
Chairman-Mao said:
uggh we get it PC gaming is sooooooooo amazing. So....how much did your rig cost? $1500? $2000? Even higher?

I would expect on a machine that costed 4 figures ($1000+) that the online gaming would be better then a system that costs $299. Oh and the 7 million people who bought MW2 on day one for PS360 don't seem to mind.

see that's what I hate, my rig is better than any console and cost less than 4 figures.  My friend just bought one himself (he didn't make it, so his cost a bit more) but still only 1200 and way more powerful than any console.  And pc's are used for a ton other than just games.

 

but again dont' bring up cost ever.  If your gonna compare pixels between the two consoles no matter how small they are then any pc gamer has the right to lip off about the max computer setting, doesn't matter the price.  or when talking about our games, should we have to state at all time what we paid for the game or system.  Like if you got your PS3 for 600 then your games are all not counted cause i got a 360 or 200.  no that don't matter.  

 

Quit bringing up price.  What gives you the right to brag about your game, but we can't because ours is on the PC, which pc costs more.  But hey the games costs less.  I can' tbelieve you loosers pay a minimum $10 more for your games, and ha at paying for online at all.  

Just tell them they have to add in the cost of their amazing 52" HDTV as well which cost liek what? 2k?