# I do not plan on getting Modern Warfare 2(PC)



## TehSean (Nov 16, 2009)

If you've been following the game at all, then you already know that it's got problems on the PC.

Just wondering if other people have built up enough concern like I did to not pick up this hot title.

Don't get me wrong. I like CoD. It has been a great series, but the choice for Activision to offer no discounts, only premiums with collector's editions, while at the same time removing a lot of PC functionality we've enjoyed since there was first online multiplayer seems like a really tough sell.

I hear the game's single player campaign is shorter than normal, and all the bad press on the multiplayer. I've heard a lot of GOOD about the multiplayer, too, but it doesn't seem to outweigh what I think is holding it back.

I really want this to be a good game, but.. ugh..

Small things matter:
-I want to lean
-Micromod support (adjust server rules, such as banning perks from use or adjusting spawn times)

Big things really matter:
-I want 32 players at least
-Dedicated servers and manual browsing
--I dont know how functional the matchmaking is in MW2, but it was horrible in L4D.

So yeah. I dunno. I'm sure it's a fun game and it'll be fun to play on a friend's console or PC, but what that'll do for me instead is just tide me over and make me glad I didn't have to pay full price for something I felt could have been worth it if the small things were addressed.

Honestly, if those little things were adjusted, I'd pick it up.


----------



## Vintage (Nov 16, 2009)

are you going to boycott it, then?

if you do, make sure you actually boycott it instead of saying you're going to boycott it and then just playing it anyway


----------



## TehSean (Nov 16, 2009)

If I don't purchase the game, but still play the game in some capacity, I'm not supporting the financial interests of Activision, which is probably the reason they make games.

I'm not BOYCOTTING the game. I'm not some crazy zealot. If the game is there. In the same room. I'll play it for free. I just don't think it's worth the price right now.

Yeah, I've seen members of the MW2 Boycott on STEAM with people playing the game. hahaha.

But yeah.... No...


----------



## Furlop (Nov 16, 2009)

1. Wait for Battlefield Bad Company 2
2. Play L4D2 and all the other great games that come out around this time
3. ?
4. Profit


----------



## Maikeru (Nov 16, 2009)

Is Bad Company 2 going to be BALANCED FOR LEAN?  

Also yeah a large part of the Boycott group on Steam ended up buying the game anyway, because they have no sense of conviction. :b  If you're going to boycott a game, DON'T. BUY. IT.


----------



## Lazydabear (Nov 16, 2009)

Its ment to be for players age 17 and up I manage to encounter kids 16 and under playing it on Xbox live as far as Parents are consern news never really report the content of the game or bother explain very well on there part what the game storyline was about.

Even Gamerblogs were talking about the issues here a link to one.

http://www.gossipgamers.com/fox-news-fair-balance-debate-on-modern-warfare-2/


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2009)

TehSean said:


> If you've been following the game at all, then you already know that it's got problems on the PC.


lolnope. Same game on consoles, no problems.




> -I want to lean


Campt those corners, use that crutch. How about learn how to play, stop sucking?


> Micromod support (adjust server rules, such as banning perks from use or adjusting spawn times)


I say this should be an option, but it's not and it's not a problem. Unlike COD4 there's no OP perks like jug, marty, and 3x nades.



> -I want 32 players at least


You haven't played the game, I can tell because by saying you want more people in there is not something anybody that has played would say. There's too many people with 18 already.


> -Dedicated servers and manual browsing


So you can pick that one map you're good at and stick to it all day getting XP. Crutch, get used to all maps.


> -I dont know how functional the matchmaking is in MW2, but it was horrible in L4D.


It's very good.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 16, 2009)

Maikeru said:


> Is Bad Company 2 going to be BALANCED FOR LEAN?


No. There's no lean in any Battlefield game.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 16, 2009)

Lazydabear said:


> ...far as Parents are consern



fffffffffff


----------



## Adrianfolf (Nov 16, 2009)

Besides all the lame banned perks from 4 have all been removed


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 16, 2009)

I would pick Modern Warfare 2 for the PC up if it had mod tools.

Otherwise I just don't see the point. I am still making maps for the original Half Life for that specific reason.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 16, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> lolnope. Same game on consoles, no problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You're a really abrasive person and I guess really proud of it through your openness.

A lot of the weapons pierce walls. So you can shoot the walls in most cases. I think it adds a lot of depth to the game and discourages run and gunning. To be honest, if you want a run and gun game, you can always duel in http://www.QuakeLive.com

I've always liked leaning features in games because it rewarded anticipation more than rushing did and it was just easier overall for me to confirm the position of someone running full-bodied in the open than anything else.

Uhhhhh so I dunno. Grenade launchers always equalized camping. Being patient and going around them while they're staring out from the corner worked, too. 

There are always solutions.

I've seen some of your arguments and that they complain about inflating lists to make a point, but you're kinda doing the same thing here, too, and putting up straw-men that I haven't even mentioned.

A lot of servers have communities based around them, with local forums, etc, etc. How am I supposed to stay in touch with Hypernia or TheDoorman, or some other communities I'm familiar with that host hundreds of members? They're pretty confused about the whole thing and are still working it out, just playing with close friends for the time until they can organize themselves better. Clan servers are really fun to be on, especially for the challenge and how crazy they can get when you start talking with them. Haha.

No, I haven't played the game, that's probably why I said I haven't played the game in the original post, but you're welcome to assume that I didn't. I was hoping I wouldn't have to make so many corrections to what you *think* I'm saying, instead of having some sort of discussion!

Anyway! You said that the maps were crowded even at 9 v 9. I think the person limit has a lot more to do with p2p limitations than map limitations. The designers demonstrated their capability to create large-scale maps when they had World at War published, so the idea that their map balance was based entirely around a 9 v 9 experience and not the drawbacks of exceeding it using p2p (I beta tested in Huxley, which used p2p, and the stability would drop off pretty quickly if a room filled up. I want to say it was 9 v 9 as well, but can't remember..)

What I'm saying is that the designers could have produced enormous maps that they could then attach the tag "recommended for 12 players or more", "recommended for 6 v 6", "recommended for duelling", and such. 

I'm not against this game too deeply. I played Halo 2 to death afterall, and I'm sure I'll draw some heat for enjoying that game. Their UI funct's are very similar at the root, but the diff is that H2 was Xbox exclusive. This game is not. So I don't see why we can't enjoy more manual controls on the PC that may allow us to tune the game to our particular, individual liking. If others choose not to learn about it, then that's fine, but we shouldn't be punished for wanting to be curious about functions that existed in games 10 years ago. It's a devolution brought on by shortened attention spans. Games had manuals, then the manuals moved into the game as tutorials. Blah blah blah. So, the engine functions are removed in light of less interest in its capabilities.

Which is ok I suppose. There are menu options that adjust those things less finely, but still functionally.

These are some of my questions, thoughts, concerns, and a whole lot of speculation.

I've played CoD4 extensively, however, and I want to believe that they handle *similarly* with a few tweaks, bells and whistles adjusted, like the transitions between L4D 1 and 2 campaigns so far. Similarities, differences, but altogether familiar?

I'm sure the game is good and I'll probably pick it up if they have a sale or a special, but it just isn't worth the money for me right now, to strip out a lot of functionality that could have easily been corrected without them pushing their form of cloud computing.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm boycotting it, too. I'm not sinking any of what precious cash I get into a game built by a company that hates its employees and its customers, where I'm forced to run it a certain way, paving the way for even more limitations on the PC gaming market. I'm not supporting this kind of business model, and purchase is not an option for me, nor is purchasing it on a console - Not only do joysticks suck ass for shooters, that's also exactly what they want, so the lackeys in finance can point and shout, "Look, look! The PC version didn't do well compared to the PS3/360 versions! Let's not make one next time / Let's make it pay to play to recoup the losses!"


----------



## TehSean (Nov 16, 2009)

It is really hard to find an end-user review that goes into detail from loading the game, how matchmaking works, the good, the bad during gameplay, and one that isn't blatantly biased, too.

Blurrrrgh. It's mostly the same canned review over and over again "PC controversy" "Sure is fun" and some grumbling that single player is too short.


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2009)

TehSean said:


> snip


Please stop talking about the game like you've played it; the bullet penetration is a lot different in this game compared to cod4 for instance.

Lean is a bad idea, it's being taken out of almost all FPS's and with good reason, it encourages camping corners. Have you faced a sniper that can abuse a corner with lean? He can pop out around and kill somebody with each shot, then duck back in making it nearly impossible to get him without explosives and by that time he's already gotten seven kills and dieing to get another seven is a good thing.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 17, 2009)

Well. When they drop the price, I'll drop some money in their pocket. z.z;


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 17, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Well. When they drop the price, I'll drop some money in their pocket. z.z;



See you in two years.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 17, 2009)

Runefox said:


> Not only do joysticks suck ass for shooters,



This isn`t Red Faction for the PS2 we are talking here. The joysticks on the 360/PS3 are actually quite good for first person shooters. Hell the 360 controller was practically made for them.


----------



## Ojikori (Nov 17, 2009)

Ok first off I don't play CoD on the PC but from the way I look at things it wasn't the best of ideas for them to remove the dedicated servers and lower the match size...It has worked in the past so why fix what isn't broken right?


----------



## Runefox (Nov 17, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> This isn`t Red Faction for the PS2 we are talking here. The joysticks on the 360/PS3 are actually quite good for first person shooters. Hell the 360 controller was practically made for them.



No sir. Joysticks in general are shit, plain and simple. They are a continuous form of input, therefore when the joystick is pressed, the movement is constant until it's let go. This means that no matter how precise you want to be, you need to constantly judge how long it'll take for that joystick to centre. A joystick has a lower reaction time, lower precision, and lower turn rate.

A mouse on the other hand is an absolute input device - Movement is precise, and it moves when you move and stops when you stop. It's more natural, and a lot less stiff (look at ANY console gameplay video versus a PC equivalent and you'll see what I mean - Typical console shooters have jerky aiming, usually along one axis at a time, with a sensitivity curve that means even a full tilt of the joystick will require about half a second to ramp up unless you have the sensitivity altogether way too high). The only reason why the joysticks are remotely usable for anyone is because they've implemented a lot more interpolation in the reading of joystick positions and "magnetism". With a mouse, I can turn around in an instant, or move as little as I want as quickly as I want, locking onto targets under my own will. Not so with a joystick.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 17, 2009)

Maybe you suck with joysticks.  :3


----------



## DragonRift (Nov 17, 2009)

Runefox said:


> "... Not only do joysticks suck ass for shooters ..."



That's because you hardly ever play shooters with console controllers.  Current-gen consoles especially have improved vastly to where controls feel very fluid and natural to the gameplay.  Sure, you can't zip around to your target behind you like you can with a mouse and keyboard, but it's a known fact that controllers don't "suck ass" for shooters.

Try telling that to people who have no problem shredding players nightly.  The REAL benefit of consoles?  They don't have to put up with dickfucks who use auto-aim bots and other hacks which pretty much destroyed the enjoyment of PC shooters for me five years ago.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 17, 2009)

NewfDraggie said:


> See you in two years.



That's ok. There's always CS with perk mods that've been around long before CoD 1 debuted. The games are essentially the same with different shrink wrapping.

Well. Within 1 year, Battlefield 3 is expected to hit the market and that's a pessimistic estimate based on rumor. So. Not if I see you first. :^)

Within 1 year, Mass Effect 2 comes out. Beyond then, Assassin's Creed 2 debuts. There are plenty of titles that I can spend hard-earnt money on and ignore CoD5 with only a little patience and a lot of foresight. EX: Even though ati's the only company with a DX-11 card, I expect nvidia to come out with a better model of DX-11 hardware if only because their late competition means they know exactly what specs they have to best when producing it! And then the price wars will begin.

Soooo my decision to wait is ok, and probably better in the longrun in light of criticism that the story segment of CoD is too short. ME-2, however, won't be so slim on story.

..and that will have mod support, opening the door for the fairly successful BF2: Project Reality MOD team to step in and play with some iteration of the Frostbite engine. I only mention that one mod because that's the one I enjoyed the most at the time it was created.

edit: It's always been known that controllers suck ass for shooters and part of why they removed leaning from the game. Leaning gives those people on defense a strong advantage, making their opponents aim at a seemingly microscopic target. Newf will call you a newbie for leaning, but in a lot of competitive communities, calling someone a newbie instead of exploring solutions, to see if something merely requires skill to overcome, is indicative of that complainer's willingness to concede to defeat and turn to the age old solution of making fun of someone for finding and exercising an advantage over others.

But, the mood of the community's changed to a public feel and everyone's been given a fair shake, even at the expense of the game's depth. When DoD came out, it was a shock to the CS community. The game was better-played through vile camping because the maps were so complex and littered with cover and alcoves that rushing meant you had to check dozens of possible hiding spots while holding the run keys. For most, it was impossible, so the pace of the game slowed down and became more realistic because of it.

So I saw that as an evolution of game design. 

 By removing leaning function, it makes it significantly fairer to kill someone functioning in either stance(atk v def). So it's good for the gaming industry to be as inclusive as possible and I appreciate their support for a wider audience, as opposed to a game that's floundering right now entitled Shattered Horizon if only because their development team decided to publish without support for DX9 users, which are still largely the audience. Exclusive. Needlessly so.

Back on the subject of joysticks.
It's why a lot of games, like Halo, had soft autoaim that couldn't be turned off (the effect of aiming at an enemy's center caused the crosshair to magnetize to them, assisting the player in aiming.) In my opinion, joysticks, thumbsticks, etc, etc will always suffer from the 'pat my head, rub my tummy' feeling of aiming.

And certain games are more fun with sticks anyway. Flight games and racing games come to mind in particular. Or older emulated titles from the N64 and such, but I've never enjoyed them and think that most people who do enjoy them in shooters are either very practiced (I remember I became fairly responsive after overplaying Goldeneye), or are simply in the right game at the right time! When the game's designed around the player not having to respond to a high volume of possibly-flanking targets, the need of a mouse-like reflex becomes unnecessary, again, an explanation for the 9 v 9 balance.

Disclaimer:
This isn't a rant on the game and should be interpreted more as observations and speculation. So with that in mind, I'll be back in a while. L4D-2 is out.


----------



## Holsety (Nov 17, 2009)

> and it moves when you move and stops when you stop.


Unless you're like me and have to use a shitty wireless mouse.

;_;



DragonRift said:


> That's because you hardly ever play shooters with console controllers. Current-gen consoles especially have improved vastly to where controls feel very fluid and natural to the gameplay. Sure, you can't zip around to your target behind you like you can with a mouse and keyboard, but it's a known fact that controllers don't "suck ass" for shooters.


They "suck ass" in comparison to a mouse, though.


> Try telling that to people who have no problem shredding players nightly. The REAL benefit of consoles? They don't have to put up with dickfucks who use auto-aim bots and other hacks which pretty much destroyed the enjoyment of PC shooters for me *five years ago.*


Five years ago != now? Probably just personal experience but I haven't had to deal with a hacker for a good year or so <_<


----------



## DragonRift (Nov 17, 2009)

Holsety said:


> Unless you're like me and have to use a shitty wireless mouse.
> 
> ;_;
> 
> ...



From friends that play games like *Battlefield*, *Team Fortress 2* and *Call of Duty* on their PCs on a regular basis, I never hear the end of their complaints about mods, bots and hacks.  Even *Modern Warfare 2* was plagued with available auto-aim hacks not even 24 hours after release.

While I highly agree that mouse/keyboard controls are far more precise, it doesn't change the fact that the PC versions of shooters get plagued more by asshole hackers, bent on ruining the fun for everyone else.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 17, 2009)

TF2 isn't *plagued*, but that's from a huge amount of interest from Valve and its fans! A lot of other PC releases don't get plagued until they're near the end of their lifecycle, where the community just.. isn't as vigilant anymore.. and at the launch, when the most bugs and exploits appear. Later they get excised, at the peak of the game's lifecycle.

So it's true for most games! Even consoles have had cheats and exploits from superjump to packet editing with a little bit of router-work and good ol plug-pulling to boot.


----------



## Runefox (Nov 17, 2009)

DragonRift said:


> That's because you hardly ever play shooters with console controllers.  Current-gen consoles especially have improved vastly to where controls feel very fluid and natural to the gameplay.  Sure, you can't zip around to your target behind you like you can with a mouse and keyboard, but it's a known fact that controllers don't "suck ass" for shooters.
> 
> Try telling that to people who have no problem shredding players nightly.  The REAL benefit of consoles?  They don't have to put up with dickfucks who use auto-aim bots and other hacks which pretty much destroyed the enjoyment of PC shooters for me five years ago.



There is no doubt that it's _usable_, but I find it almost impossible (being a mouse user) and incredibly stiff. Again, gameplay videos show a lot of that is still around; Pit a mouse user against a joystick user of similar skill and the mouse user will win out in most situations because he can respond more quickly and accurately.


----------



## Xaerun (Nov 17, 2009)

Maikeru said:


> If you're going to boycott a game, DON'T. BUY. IT.



You my friend are wise beyond your years.

Also my main gaming machine is a PS3, so uh
Yeah

I guess I'll buy it when I'm not dirt poor


----------



## TehSean (Nov 17, 2009)

It's pretty good advice. If you believe in something, don't do something that negates the belief. ......yeeeee-yup.

Anyway! There are some discounted copies of the game floating around through Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list..._3?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1258494582&sr=8-3

Cheque it out.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=Modern+Warfare&x=0&y=0 (main page..ish.. Make sure you confirm which version you're browsing! Check to see if it's on the platform you want. 40ish bucks seems a lot more fair so I'll have to see what's up next paycheck and see if prices go down a bit more :^). This is a good thing wooooo.)


----------



## Torinir (Nov 18, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Anyway! There are some discounted copies of the game floating around through Amazon.com
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-list..._3?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1258494582&sr=8-3
> 
> Cheque it out.



Sorry, we only take Visa, MasterCard or American Express.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 18, 2009)




----------



## TehSean (Nov 18, 2009)

Sinjo said:


> Sinjo is a derp derp derp



There should be an image macro for people who think they're clever for reproducing the work of others!

edit: Anyway, one of my problems with the game is the price of the game. Soooooo if any actual deals pop up, then it'll be worth getting for less than full-price.


----------



## Sinjo (Nov 18, 2009)

TehSean said:


> There should be an image macro for people who think they're clever for reproducing the work of others!
> 
> edit: Anyway, one of my problems with the game is the price of the game. Soooooo if any actual deals pop up, then it'll be worth getting for less than full-price.


Reproducing? I hotlinked it from the original website :>


----------



## TehSean (Nov 18, 2009)

Yeah. Well. I already noted earlier in the thread that I've seen it already. :C But uh. If nobody else has seen it yet then I guess that's helpful.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Nov 19, 2009)

TehSean said:


> There should be an image macro for people who think they're clever for reproducing the work of others!
> 
> edit: Anyway, one of my problems with the game is the price of the game. Soooooo if any actual deals pop up, then it'll be worth getting for less than full-price.



So what's the problem with the price of the game?  It's $60: the same price that Halo 3 was.  The same price that CoD4 was.  FUCK it's the same price that CoD3 was when it first came out iirc.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 19, 2009)

The problem is that I don't want to pay that price. It's not a tough concept to grasp.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 19, 2009)

TehSean said:


> The problem is that I don't want to pay that price. It's not a tough concept to grasp.



10$ more? Well get used to it as games are soon going to be embracing it. You either assimilate to changes in the culture or you pack it up and move on. I am planning on buying Mass Effect 2's special edition. (80$) and am putting away dollars every day for it now even.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 19, 2009)

:^) .. I don't have to get used to it when I can find sellers that go below the retail's bar.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 19, 2009)

TehSean said:


> :^) .. I don't have to get used to it when I can find sellers that go below the retail's bar.



Then stop complaining about the sales being higher


----------



## TehSean (Nov 19, 2009)

Why should I stop complaining? If I didn't complain, then it wouldn't chip in toward the idea that prices and discounts should be offered to loyal consumers.

It would also have an effect on third party sellers, who would have to go even lower to remain competitive.

What I'm suggesting makes sense. So... why should I shut up? .. because someone out there who was part of a boycott jumped at the game for full price anyway? .. because some people here didn't look for a better deal?

I think it's pretty plain, mathematically, who comes out ahead here after it's said and done.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Why should I stop complaining? If I didn't complain, then it wouldn't chip in toward the idea that prices and discounts should be offered to loyal consumers.
> It would also have an effect on third party sellers, who would have to go even lower to remain competitive.
> What I'm suggesting makes sense. So... why should I shut up? .. because someone out there who was part of a boycott jumped at the game for full price anyway? .. because some people here didn't look for a better deal?
> 
> I think it's pretty plain, mathematically, who comes out ahead here after it's said and done.



People have ALWAYS since the dawn of currency complained about price, people ALWAYS will. You complaining about Activision charging you more isn't new, or actually original since people do it all the time, yet they have the sense to actually shut up when they notice they are cheap bastards.

Complaining over a company charging you for 10 $ wont do anything. Game companies charge you 60$ on consoles is because 10 $ apparently goes toward royalties to Microsoft and Sony. However Activision charging you 10$ for the PC version is completely out of Kotick's greed. Kotick wont go on this forum and say. "Gee TehSean's argument really inspired me. I am going to go pitch to our board developers our next game should be ten dollars cheaper"

The reason they charge you so much in the first place is for profit. The actual game could probably cost around 20$ to you, but the rest is profit to the companies. Nothing is just going to happen because your bitching about price. People are always going to buy it anyway and nothing will change. This is Capitalism not Socialism, your supposed to make more money then the competition at whatever cost

EDIT: Also relating to your comment about 3rd party retailers. You do know they also make profits from the games they sell. So begging and complaining about games being expensive wont "Touch their hearts". It means more money for you (the fish) and less money for them (the fisherman).


----------



## TehSean (Nov 20, 2009)

We all contribute in our small way.
I did not suggest that I am responsible for the currents in the oceans and the air. The community subconsciously decided what's correct and what is not and a single person was not responsible for a marketting campaign's delivery.

Change comes through massive groups of people somehow arriving at a unified decision and by not supporting it, then.. I dunno. It doesn't happen!

But yeah. I didnt have to complain about the price to find a better deal.

So I'm still stuck on why my desire to find a better deal for a product everyone else paid more than I did for brings out your animosity!


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Change comes through massive groups of people somehow arriving at a unified decision and by not supporting it, then.. I dunno. It doesn't happen!



Yes change comes through massive groups to spur a unified decision. Except it doesn't work out when A: The company doesn't give a shit (See boycots). B: When the "change" is just the players being petty and cheap. And C: When you don't actually threaten the companies properly. (Threatening not to buy the product? LOL They don't care if 500 disgruntled players want the game for cheaper. They still have like 6 million other players that are going to buy it. Eventually the 500 will buckle down and play it anyway.)



TehSean said:


> But yeah. I didnt have to complain about the price to find a better deal.
> 
> So I'm still stuck on why my desire to find a better deal for a product everyone else paid more than I did for brings out your animosity!



So stop complaining like a cheap peasant and suck in your pride. The game companies aren't going to give a shit some disgruntled gamer on a forum is complaining about price. Just because you found a "better deal" doesn't justify begging companies to lower their prices. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## Keshiji (Nov 20, 2009)

This reminds me when Unreal Tournament 2003 came out and it was something completely different compared to UT99.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 20, 2009)

There was a ~700,000-body boycott, but that never worked out as everyone fagged out and got the game anyway.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> There was a ~700,000-body boycott, but that never worked out as everyone fagged out and got the game anyway.



There you go. Game companies know that sweaty mouthbreathers that are gamers aren't going to live if the game comes out, all their "Friends" are playing it and they don't have it.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 20, 2009)

Well. Go to Amazon.com if you want to get the same product for a fairer price.

Edit: Your examples of failed boycotts have logical results. They failed.... woooow......

You need to look at failing games for better examples of their reactions to passive boycotts. There's a 75%-off sale for a game called Frontlines: Fuels of War. Why do you think that is? .. well.. because of the very large loss of interest in the game due to the 1-2 punch of L4D2 and MW2. They've taken all consumer interest away, so in order to try and get the fanbase enlarged a bit, they offer the deal.

Why didn't MW2 do that? Welllll... The majority of people wanted it yesterday.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 20, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> There you go. Game companies know that sweaty mouthbreathers that are gamers aren't going to live if the game comes out, all their "Friends" are playing it and they don't have it.



I'm still working on it.  Even if it's still ~100,000 it's a fairly big impact.  But I'm probably the only one left.  :T


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Well. Go to Amazon.com if you want to get the same product for a fairer price.



Exactly, again stop complaining about price if you can already find it cheaper used or from other companies not looking for massive profits.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 20, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Exactly, again stop complaining about price if you can already find it cheaper used or from other companies not looking for massive profits.



You're just gonna cause a recursive loop with that attitude mister!


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:


> You're just gonna cause a recursive loop with that attitude mister!



...okay... your not going to get very far with that "Oh 10$ more is so expensive and I don't want to afford it so I'll just find it cheaper. But I'll just bitch about it anyway." ...mister


----------



## Keshiji (Nov 20, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> find it cheaper used



You can do that with this game? As in you don't need to put your CDKey somewhere? Becuase if that's the case buying it cheaper won't exactly allow you to play the game in a computer o.o


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 20, 2009)

Keshiji said:


> You can do that with this game? As in you don't need to put your CDKey somewhere? Becuase if that's the case buying it cheaper won't exactly allow you to play the game in a computer o.o



Consoles.


----------



## Keshiji (Nov 20, 2009)

LotsOfNothing said:


> Consoles.



But weren't they talking about the PC version?


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

Keshiji said:


> You can do that with this game? As in you don't need to put your CDKey somewhere? Becuase if that's the case buying it cheaper won't exactly allow you to play the game in a computer o.o



Unless the guy gives you the CDKey and uninstalls his copy? I still remember buying Half Life used and seeing I could install it on my PC and play it online using the CD Key. Steam however was a different story.



Keshiji said:


> But weren't they talking about the PC version?



The argument was about the game itself, not what version of it.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 20, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> ...okay... your not going to get very far with that "Oh 10$ more is so expensive and I don't want to afford it so I'll just find it cheaper. But I'll just bitch about it anyway." ...mister



For me, 10 dollars more is 2 hours of work after taxes and expenses. That's a quarter of a work day. Good god man, have you no perspective.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:


> For me, 10 dollars more is 2 hours of work after taxes and expenses. That's a quarter of a work day. Good god man, have you no perspective.



So if your not willing to spend more for the now more expensive hobby of gaming all you want to do is complain about it? Thats not a very healthy attitude. I'd shudder to think what would happen if you decided to collect things like computer parts and they suddenly jack up the price. Would you suddenly cry and complain that "Oh Nvidia is charging me 200 dollars." *several more hours of whining in a topic page*


----------



## TehSean (Nov 20, 2009)

They do jack up the price, but the progress of game software itself moves so sluggishly that the hardware that is 1 or even 2 generations behind the cutting edge is more than sufficient to run games that release during the cutting edge hardware releases that I end up saving a great deal of money anyway when the time to upgrade comes.

STEAM is used to survey hardware that runs Valve games as well, as long as the end-user opts in. This allows Valve to set requirements on future game development and lowers the requirements to include as many players as possible. What ends up happening is that the recommended requirements for enthusiast players are lower than other titles. It's a practice that many shrewd developers are adopting.

Edit: Because of Valve's leadership on what a game's graphical requirements are, I haven't had to purchase a major upgrade in terms of GPU for about 3 years now... besides, a lot of the more popular cards of today go well under 200 USD.

So what you said falls flat on its face.

I don't know why being smarter with my money when it comes to luxuries is so offensive to you. You should try saving your money and realizing what it's actually worth. You're spending way too much if you bought this game at full price! (to whomever it is concerned. Not just you, Cryo!)


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:
			
		

> STEAM is used to survey hardware that runs Valve games as well, as long as the end-user opts in. This allows Valve to set requirements on future game development and lowers the requirements to include as many players as possible. What ends up happening is that the recommended requirements for enthusiast players are lower than other titles. It's a practice that many shrewd developers are adopting.


Valve is different because of Steam. Because they don't get that big of a profit from Steam. The majority of profits companies get (at least it was several years ago) comes on disk.



> So what you said falls flat on its face.


I heard that phrase back in fourth grade. Now people say stuff like, "Your argument is invalid". Or "Your shit is whack"


> I don't know why being smarter with my money when it comes to luxuries is so offensive to you. You should try saving your money and realizing what it's actually worth. You're spending way too much if you bought this game at full price! (to whomever it is concerned. Not just you, Cryo!)


No sorry you misinterpreted what I said. I wasn't offensive at your cheapness. I was offensive at the fact your bitching about the price when you already got the game cheaper.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 20, 2009)

Welp. That's capitalism. Do it cheaper.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:


> Welp. That's capitalism. Do it cheaper.



Capitalism is a dog eat dog world. It's about making as much money as possible, not lowering prices.


----------



## TehSean (Nov 20, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Capitalism is a dog eat dog world. It's about making as much money as possible, not lowering prices.



So, I am not trying to eat the other dog by undercutting their retail price. Ok.


----------



## CryoScales (Nov 20, 2009)

TehSean said:


> So, I am not trying to eat the other dog by undercutting their retail price. Ok.



Again my problem with your argument isn't the fact you got a cheaper price. It's the fact you got a cheaper price, brag about it, and then bitch about the fact the retail price is more expensive anyway.

Honestly do you have anything better to do? Such as play MW2?


----------



## TehSean (Nov 21, 2009)

You're giving me something better to do! :^)


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Nov 21, 2009)

Proof that MW2 isn't worth its hype.


----------

