Digg.com - Modern Warfare 2 boycott.

pumaz · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:19

Makes you wonder what's the point of spending £100's on PC upgrades if this years biggest release is going to be no better/different to the console version. What else is comming out anytime soon that won't be a dumbed down console version and actually justify the purchase of I7, 5870 etc.

Personaly i think where seeing the begining of the end and we will all be using Consoles if we want to game.

rypt · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:21

Cannaton said:
The point is though rpyt, talk to most people and ask them what a 48xx series card is and they will be
Ask them what an Xbox is and I'm sure they'd have more of an idea.
Ofcourse I'm speaking without any evidence to back this up but most people (general public) don't seem to upgrade their PC much and usually use the same computer for around 3-5 years before buying a whole new one. That is simply going on people I've met and spoken to though, I agree with Tefal and doubt that most PCs are DX10 capable.

You're completely right about an average PC being way more powerful than a console, but that's no reason to take a pop at a perfectly good gaming platform. I think this whole boycott thing has gotten bitter and childish, it's IW's game they can do what they like with it.

The 1st is something that can be fixed via marketing, the reason XBox is so well known is because it is marketed so heavily, when was the last time you saw a TV advert for a graphics card?

It is perfectly valid to point out the weakness of the console, which is unable to deliver the same kind of visuals as a PC.

BoozerDawg · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:23

pumaz said:
Makes you wonder what's the point of spending £100's on PC upgrades if this years biggest release is going to be no better/different to the console version. What else is comming out anytime soon that won't be a dumbed down console version and actually justify the purchase of I7, 5870 etc.

Personaly i think where seeing the begining of the end and we will all be using Consoles if we want to game.

Which is why people need to either stop upgrading all the time as its not needed now, or Intel/AMD/Nvidia need to start funding there own games which push tech forward.

LOAM · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:23

http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6226758.html?tag=latestheadlines;title;1

There you go, read that and tell me how far he would go.

When he wasn't promoting the company's games or technology, Kotick was celebrating its laserlike focus on the bottom line. He pointed to changes he implemented in the past as being particularly beneficial, such as designing the employee incentive program so it "really rewards profit and nothing else."

"You have studio heads who five years ago didn't know the difference between a balance sheet and a bed sheet who are now arguing allocations in our CFO's office pretty regularly," Kotick said.

He later added, "We have a real culture of thrift. The goal that I had in bringing a lot of the packaged goods folks into Activision about 10 years ago was to take all the fun out of making video games."

Thats all you need to know

gurusan · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:23

nvidia do fund their own games

McGray · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:27

pumaz said:
Makes you wonder what's the point of spending £100's on PC upgrades if this years biggest release is going to be no better/different to the console version. What else is comming out anytime soon that won't be a dumbed down console version and actually justify the purchase of I7, 5870 etc.

Personaly i think where seeing the begining of the end and we will all be using Consoles if we want to game.

This is exactly my thinking at the moment.

All my planned PC upgrades are on hold, I'm gonna stick to the games I've already got as well.

My Xbox which I only use for watching films at the moment is going to become my games machine. Need to buy a new TV though or my missus won't be happy!

pumaz · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:35

BoozerDawg said:
Which is why people need to either stop upgrading all the time as its not needed now, or Intel/AMD/Nvidia need to start funding there own games which push tech forward.

I agree with you on both points, But for some of us especialy on this forum upgrading is a hard habbit to kick. I currently have a 9550, GTX 280 and 8GB Ram. and game at 1920x1200. With the obvious exception of crysis theres nothing my rig won't play smoothly. Yet i still get the itch to move up to I7 + 5870 and I thought I might see some bennefit with new games like MW2 but saddly not

I also think it would be a great idea if ATI and Nvidia started to produce first party games after all Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo often make the best games for there systems.

rypt · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:35

LOAM said:
the link is evident because they can force you to pay it, they are controlling who can and cant play online. Eventually they will move to charging for patches. It wont stop at DLC.

It'll become COD:WoW tbh ... £35 to buy the game, £10 / month to play it online, £10 per DLC pack, £10 per "update"

eekfek · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:44

pumaz said:
Personaly i think where seeing the begining of the end and we will all be using Consoles if we want to game.

McGray said:
This is exactly my thinking at the moment.

All my planned PC upgrades are on hold, I'm gonna stick to the games I've already got as well.

My Xbox which I only use for watching films at the moment is going to become my games machine. Need to buy a new TV though or my missus won't be happy!

so because one game doesnt have dedicated servers the whole of PC gaming is going to die !! rofl and lol !!

McGray · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:47

It's not one game though is it....?

ROFL! LOLZ! LMAO!

pumaz · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:47

Don't think they will ever charge for patches or updates that fix things etc. but I can see once they've squeezed out the PC as a gaming platform they will introduce monthly subs like WOW and we already pay for DLC .

eekfek - I said the begining and it's not just one game, Care to list all the games you know for a fact that are comming out that push the PC and and arn't dumbed down console ports

m0r94n · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:54

eekfek said:
so because one game doesnt have dedicated servers the whole of PC gaming is going to die !! rofl and lol !!

One of the biggest games, made by one of the biggest developers and published by one of the biggest publishers? I think its going to have a lot of influence on other companies decisions.

something daft already!! · 21 Oct 2009 at 11:59

I know of only one game which may or may not be coming to PC which is Stalker COP. I understand there is a Russian version around which has been translated. TBH Stalker is a very good game if a little clunky looking at times.

TriedandTested · 21 Oct 2009 at 12:14

rypt said:
It'll become COD:WoW tbh ... £35 to buy the game, £10 / month to play it online, £10 per DLC pack, £10 per "update"

If they did end up doing that (which I very much doubt) think of what amazing content they could bring to the MW franchise - more SP content, more MP maps, weapons, gametypes - much like WoW keeps adding (what I presume is good) content to all it's subscribers.

However, WoW has to pay for their servers...MW wouldn't so I think they would struggle to justify a monthly fee.

Participant · 21 Oct 2009 at 12:16

mr_x_plosion said:
Do you think there is any chance they will change their mind?

118644 Total Signatures now, that's a lot of angry people.

If all of those people would otherwise have paid say £30 on average for this game, that's lost revenue of more than £3.5m. That matters to anyone, let alone Activision.

(That's not in direct response to your post btw mr_x_plosion).

Shamikebab · 21 Oct 2009 at 12:22

Robbie G said:
If all of those people would otherwise have paid say £30 on average for this game, that's lost revenue of more than £3.5m. That matters to anyone, let alone Activision.

(That's not in direct response to your post btw mr_x_plosion).

But they wouldn't

Being generous I'd say at least a third will buy the game anyway, and another percentage weren't going to buy the game in the first place and just added their signature.

cheets64 · 21 Oct 2009 at 12:25

Thorpy said:
After that response im not even gna buy it for SP.

Dont be a wet lettuce 4p get it on the 360 and I will own you, yeah

4p · 21 Oct 2009 at 12:26

cheets64 said:
Dont be a wet lettuce 4p get it on the 360 and I will own you, yeah

~>Dg<~ · 21 Oct 2009 at 12:27

^^^^^^^ yes it might matter but if they charge for map packs like they do on the console with a very similar structure already in place they can charge the same fee and theyll make more than not having the iw net in place .

this will happen why do you think they ve done it.

theyve basically took all influences out of the game from other companies and placed it into one package for ultimate control . some things are better the way they are but that doesnt make them money does it so theyve decided to do there own.

once they started with the map packs you can be damn sure theyll charge for mods or any other content they can get money for. it will basically be like a mini steam product.

if you look at map pack sales alone on cod games it runs into millions apon millions at tenner a time it will soon add up.

Craig R · 21 Oct 2009 at 12:29

Shamikebab said:
But they wouldn't

Being generous I'd say at least a third will buy the game anyway, and another percentage weren't going to buy the game in the first place and just added their signature.

According to a poster earlier in this thread there have been 100,000 cancelled pre-orders from one retail outlet alone.