I don't know/care what dedicated servers are, so I'll still buy it.

1. Oh, that thread, thanks for reminding me! That thread started with people claiming that COD4 sold less than 2 millions on PC, and I stepped up by posting a strong, reasonable argument:

"Anyone that believes that COD4 PC sold less than 2 millions must be tripping. Are you seriously telling me that COD4 PC sold LESS than S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (which sold over 2 millions, and that figure is almost a year old)??? Come on, Stalker almost never showed up on Top Charts, while COD4 PC DOMINATED the Top Charts for AGES!!!!

Even now COD4 is showing on charts: currently 9th on Steam and 12th on Impulse, two of the most popular DD services.

I have many times debated about the numbers from Activision, and have made extensive posts about it. Here's my reasoning as to why COD4 PC could even be a 10 million seller: http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2436222"

ioi then said that they would count every sale of a game (retail or DD) together, which is false. WoW box sales DON'T COUNT as boxed sales, and are bundled into the MMO revenue. And, like most companies do, Activision probably bundles digital sales with the distribution revenue or some other place, NOT the PC revenue (but I'm not sure about this one).
And that was the only "decent" argument in the thread, since the rest were pretty much only saying that "COD4 didn't sell well because there's alot of piracy on PC", which is pathetic at best. A game can sell amazing and still be pirated alot.

My reply to ioi:

Almost no publisher releases figures of digital sales because that only undermines their relations with retailers, or because they have too much at stake on retail. The only big publisher I can think of that talks of digital sales is EA, but that might be because EA is the major publisher that is currently pushing the digital and online business more than any other major publisher.

And is false that when Activision talks of figures, they're for worldwide or includes digital sales. When they said that COD4 sold 7 millions, everyone thought that it was a worldwide figure, but infact it was a figure from only about 6 countries, which were tracked by NPD, Charttrack and GFK. They didn't include dozens of countries, nearly all of them PC-centric markets. They didn't include a single country from eastern europe, where Stalker sold 1 million.

That 7 million figure actually helped in knowing how much COD4 it had sold on PC, in those markets. I had estimated that around 2.2 millions from those 7 millions were from the PC version, and that didn't even include dozens of PC-centric markets or digital sales. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/post.php?id=2436222

There's just NO WAY that COD4, which dominated PC Retail charts for months, dominated Digital charts for ages, and is still selling even now, NO WAY that it only sold around Stalker, a game that did not even appear more than a couple of times on retail charts and barely set foot on top digital charts.

COD4 sold ABOVE the level of Sims 2 and World of Warcraft in it's first year, and even now it still has strong legs, especially considering it hasn't even dropped in price.

After some other guy posted a link about Stalker having sold 2 millions, everyone stopped posting against me, and most people's reaction was "wtf?! COD should be selling way more than Stalker! Then COD4 should be way above 2 millions"

4. Word-of-mouth is a big thing on PC. Especially when less than 15% of sales of most PC game are made in their first month after release. Another factor is that there are alot more options on PC to buy from, so a PC gamer can ignore MW2 and still have a bunch of other games to try.

LOL. Are people so naive and blind?

Not sure it is undoubtedly, someone must have had some solid reasoning, othersise  I don't think Activision is of the mindset to lose money for the fuck of it.  Especially, given people's opinions here, that the PC sales made a rather very large chunk of CoD4 sales.

This is why montana was the best mod ever!

Judging by the low number of preorders for MW2, no.

Honestly, more times than not, when I get "owned" I'm really just afraid to explain my controversial, disruptive, and polarizing opinions, so I accept others getting the last word. Doesn't mean they're not wrong, if I don't respond. Letting others get the last word from time to time is a good idea.

Also, I think my "owning others" to "getting owned" ratio is quite good.

I get a lot of flack from stating my opinion, because apparently the way I state it makes it sound like I'm stating an absolute. That's just a bad habit I have, I've said it before, always assume I'm stating an opinion.

Well Zen, everyone should always assume that what someone else says is an opinion.  No one should fault you for have a firm stance. 

On a tangent here, it's no secret that the PC has been falling behind in exclusive AAA content lately. That's because there really is no first party. In spirit it would be Blizzard, but with RTS and MMO they are basically stuck on PC until Mouse and Keyboard support hit the console, and also they make about 2 games a generation. :P

My point?

Well, SP focused games like Uncharted 2 are well received on consoles. People still love them there. With the PC gamers different gaming tastes, can a game like Uncharted 2 or MW2 survive on great SP campaigns alone?

Or, are console gamers simply willing to spend more money for less "value."

The online shooter has always been the social interaction, and the specifics of that game seen to take a backseat experience. If someone was an expert at CS, he's be an expert at MW2 very quickly. Much like rehashed console games, like Madden. CS is Madden 2k, and MW2 is Madden 2009, in my example. However, the engine that game was based off of, Half-Life, was a much different experience than any other shooter. That's not to say that rehashes can't be great. See Mario Galaxy. I'm implying that with FPS on PC, their SP is often the main differentiation, and not necessarily their MP, aside from the obvious, like map changes and graphics. Your friends are still your friends, no matter what game you play, and they are the main gameplay feature in online play for many folks. Do PC gamers require constant updates to that formula, or would they be willing to accept a game that left it out, and still pay full price?

I think a large amount of console gamers would still buy MW2(or Uncharted 2) without multiplayer at all. Would a large amount of PC gamers. With their differentiating tastes for freedom, we discussed earlier, are they satisfied with standard SP content from a good developer? Or do they require that MP experience?

It's ironic though...that most PC gamers(like myself) have spent well over 1000 dollars on their gaming rigs. I've setting right around 2k right now, for mine. However, it seems they are much more frugal when it comes to games and their value. How come a console gamer will pay 60 bucks for a nice 10 hour game, but a PC gamer(in my experience, like this thread) complains over paying less money for the same game, if it doesn't have certain multiplayer aspects that make it infinitely playable?

I guess I'm not very frugal, and I'm not that value oriented when it comes to gaming. I'd rather have 4 hours of new content, than a million hours of a repeated experience. I think a LOT of console gamers will be buying this game just for the single player.

My favorite PC exclusive over the last few years has definitely been The Witcher. It wasn't a AAA game, by any means, but it was a very fun game, and I had a great time with it. It was SP, I'm not sure it had MP. Was it worth the money, without an online element, to most PC gamers? Is that why it probably didn't get the sales it deserves? Is that MP element a main reason developers are afraid to put high budget SP games exclusively on PC?