Since y'all mentioned the IW dedi-server incident, I might also mention that DICE/EA also cashed in and took advantage of that very fact. Sure Treyarch said they'll have dedicated servers. But one has to wonder just how things are going to be designed in their latest iteration of the CoD franchise.
Look at how CoD4MW was set up. Dedicated server, mod support, map editor, etc. One of the few gripes? All that information about your player profile is stored locally and if you lose that or it becomes corrupted, it's gone. Forward 1 year later when Treyarch took the same engine and designed it around WWII era, complete with official built-in Zombie co-op mode. But is there any other difference between WaW and MW? Nope. No difference at all. People even dubbed WaW as a reskin of MW, since a lot of the things inherent in MW is also present in WaW, including the engine's limitations and how it stores a player's profile. Yet in WaW, the player profile is a bit more valuable to keep around and safely backed up, due to the Prestige levels.
From what I gathered from the fury storm (aka: the bitching and whining), it's mostly about public dedicated server files as well as map creation tools. Bad Company 2 recently received their "Map Pack 4," which forum posters have now referred to as "Mode Pack" due to what's given. Thus far, all of the maps we were given as "packs" were nothing more than the same maps seen and found in the retail install, except they are alternate/different game modes for players to play on. Example using CoD4 map called Shipment -- Say Shipment can only be played in TDM. They then release Shipment again, except now you can play Capture the Flag. Then some weeks later, Shipment is released yet again except this time you can now play Headquarters on it. Follow my drift?
The fury storm over at the EA UK forums is pretty much the same that y'all have voiced about on IW and Blizzard as well -- "They're not listening to us", "They already got our money. They could care less." And it's no surprise that people are constantly outraged in how things are turning out. People vote with their wallets. And I do believe that's to be the case for those who stick to their words (unlike some of the so-called MW2 boycotters). But such a thing is a double-edged sword. Reduced sales = less motivation and inclination to produce a PC version of the product. Money do talk and right now, the one that is doing the most talking is, unfortunately, the console. Xbox 360 and PS3 players are all getting their stuff and they are paying up the wazoo because they don't want to deal with the intricacies and insanity of troubleshooting PCs. And that's understandable. Yet while the devs and publishers are looking at the console platforms with $$ in their eyes, PC players are left out in the cold with nobody to talk to from any developer.
Only saving grace in all of this is if the developers actually listen to what the PC gamers want, and to let the PC platform become the platform of choice for gamers. Console players are free to play their games on their closed platform. But I don't. It's hard enough trying to play CoDWaW demo on console. And it took me several frustrating tries to finish off the first Bad Company in single player. PC is still the platform of choice if I want to play a FPS. But it's worrisome when several of the FPS games that has potential to do well receives lackluster attention and the PC gamers gets the shaft (see OpFlash:Dragon Rising).
Login
FAQ
Search
Members
