It's mainly from the Far Eastern markets. Games are given away free, but they're pay to play beyond a certain level. It avoids the piracy problem there quite neatly.

There appears to be some sort of cult forming around this phenomenon trying to rationalize why that is correct.  In some universe, the fact that Big Rigs is an epic failure means that it is justified having a greater rating than the PC version of MW2.  As I see it, that is some sort of warped reasoning that totally trashes rating systems.  I am sorry, if a game sucks more, it should have a lower rating.  And, if you want to totally trash MW2 for the PC, rate it a 5.  A 5 is totally forgettable.  Being less than 2 isn't.  Less that 2 makes a game totally memorable for how bad it is.

One has to wonder when a game takes this form, exactly what kind of game will it be.  A game supported by that ends up tending to be massive multiplayer in nature, where you need a bunch of people playing.  One has to wonder how games that are not this, will end up being supported.  Will we get epic single player experiences with high production value?  I don't see that.  I will see massive multiplayer, and easy to make flash games.  So, the middle of the road stuff will end up disappearing.  Those games end up migrating to consoles.

I believe several things you have seen with MW2 were done to be able to have uniformity in the game development process between the console and PC.  In other words, develop the same product, but release it on the PC also.  Have the online play the same, and map the gameplay to it.  It was done to save on development costs, and have uniformity between platforms.

Ok, in regards to the score for the games, it does appear that Internet fanboys of all stripes are the worst.  Fanboys will end up being fanboys.  This still doesn't reduce the fact that the levels of hatred at the PC version of MW2 is laughably awful.

Not necessarily, publishers will still need PC sales to make many games viable.

As for software as a service- you already pay a subscription to Live to play anything on line, and I'd be very surprised if IW.NET didn't eventually become a subscription service. In fact, given Activision's comments today, it looks like a given.

This is why PC gamers are so pissed- the concept of paying for online play and map packs has now been established and embraced and companies are being encouraged to push further and further away from a great value model to one in which you end up paying again and again. I really don't understand why console gamers aren't pushing the other way and demanding the benefits that PC gamers have had. You should be backing us up, rather than bending over for the publishers.

Console gamers do get nickel and dimed more. The thing is, nearly all those PC games that get revenue from subscriptions or microtransactions are either free, or can only be afforded in such a way (like MMOs). Console gamers pay overpriced stuff, while PC gamers get them for free AND better stuff.

I garauntee you that console game sales far outweight the revenue from microtransactions, DLC, and subscription revenue.  This is in stark contrast to PC game revenue, where they are equal.

I don't really know what you're saying there. There's nothing inherently wrong about MMO subs, microtransactions or DLC. I'm talking about stuff that formerly would have been free, now being charged for.

MS tried to charge for GFWL and fortunately, it was a resounding flop. MS charge for XBox Live and rake in a billion a year in subs. Once this is established as the norm, consumers lose, both console and PC gamers.

So you are saying the concept of subscriptions, DLC, and microtransactions is sound in practice, you just don't want it to come to things you like?

I do not want to put words in his mouth, but what I *think* he is saying, and what *I* at least would say - is limiting the free stuff, and charging for anything... as opposed to keeping the free stuff and also charging for new content.

The best recent model for a customer friendly DLC/Micro is Dragon Age. It is clear that EA intends to offer DLC and Micro add-ons to the game and charge for them. However, instead of locking the system and making it so their content is the only game in town, they have provided the most robust set of modding tools to date for an RPG platform and encourage community content.

Instead of taking something FROM the customer, they let the customer keep what they already had from their previous games ( modding / free content) and offer their own. Instead of subtracting value from their product, and possibly adding it back for a cost, they simply add more value... for a cost. If you do not want their new content, you do not have to pay... however they are confident in their abilities to make something people will pay for, so they do not need to gimp their actual product.