Slashdot Mirror
Modern Warfare 2 Surpasses $1 Billion Mark; Dedicated Servers What?
The Opposable Thumbs blog is running an interesting article contrasting everything Activision did "wrong" in creating and marketing Modern Warfare 2 with the game's unqualified success. Despite price hikes, somewhat shady review practices, exploit frustrations, and the dedicated server fiasco, the game has raked in over a billion dollars in sales.
"There was only one way to review Modern Warfare 2: on the Xbox 360, in Santa Barbara, under the watchful eye of Activision. Accepting the paid trip, along with room and board, was the only way you were going to get a review before launch. Joystiq noted that this broke their ethics policy, but they went anyway. Who can say no to a review destined to bring in traffic? Shacknews refused to call their coverage a 'review' because of the ethical issues inherent in the situation, but that stance was unique. The vast majority of news outlets didn't disclose how the review was conducted, or added a disclaimer after the nature of the review was made public. This proved to Activision that if you're big enough, you can dictate the exact terms of any review, and no ethics policy will make news outlets turn you down."
I think the game is great, especially multiplayer with its leveling, perks and the amount of customization you can do to your characters game style. Even those who complain about things are still playing it full force.
It's also nice that you can just jump in to the game (without friends, or with them in same lobby - you always get to same side and see each others with different color on radar and name). No need to hunt for different servers which can be crappy. Yes, there are host migrations and other stupid things sometimes, but the easiness to just jump in to the game outweights them. I'm not a serious gamer and neither are majority of people.
When the cheapest way to get a product is $60, of course you're going to beat sales of something that costs $15 or less.
This doesn't make sense. You aren't going to beat a great and popular movie that costs $15 with a mediocre or bad game that costs $60. The higher priced product also has to be good, which MW2 definitely is.
But who cares? The majority of gamers will experience the game on consoles, and PC gamers don't need things like a console for tweaking the game or support for mods.
No they don't. Me and almost all of my friends play it on PC because of keyboard and mouse. And to tell the truth, I rather don't see so much tweaking and mods by the users and get all stupid doom and quake sounds or no gravity when I join the server. I like the game the way IW made it.
Why spend all this money on flying journalists to a resort in Santa Barbara? Because it works. Activision refuses to comment on the review situation, and the Metacritic score for the game stands at 94 percent.
And the game actually being great has nothing to do with it?
I don't spend that much in games, but I've spent days playing MW2. It deserves the scores it got, it's definitely the best game of 2009.
Next time you have to be female, 36c and agree to extensive cavity search to review the product.
Buying the game gives as signal that you agree with Blizzard-Activision's actions. $1 Billion revenue says that Blizzard-Activision did an excellent job.
The following screenshot is a clear indication a lot of people can't stick to their principles: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/mw2_boycott.jpg
After all, take a look at all the Madden games for console, people pay $60 for a game every year which is exactly the same except somebody replaced a few textures and swapped out the names. All this shows, in my opinion, is that people buy the hype.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
But it doesn't mean their burgers are better.
Just sayin'
It sounds like you're the friend who can't work his computer. I am not a fan of a lot of things Steam does, but being hard to use is not one of its problems.
CoD:MW2 had a budget of 200M$. From those 200, only 70 were spend on the development of the versions for all the different versions : PC, XB360 and PS3. 130 were used for marketing. It tells us that the actual game as less "value" than the way it is marketed.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
I consider myself a hardcore PC gamer. I pretty much switched to playing multiplayer FPS games almost exclusively after Doom came out; I just love the genre and the competition of playing against real people. I loved it so much it ended up becoming my job; me and some friends founded a company to provide multiplayer gaming servers for other people in Australia (which went on to become the biggest online game service provider in Australia, blahblahbalhablah).
As a Ye Olde Time PC gamer, I remember the days of games like Doom, Quake, Half-Life, and Unreal - when you could drop AUD$80 on a game and know that you were going to be able to play that game for years, because it had freely downloadable and publicly available dedicated servers, meaning anyone could run a server anywhere in the world, at any time, with any settings. Not only that, the games were generally moddable - which meant the game experience would always be changing.
This model brought about things like Counter-Strike (probably the most successful multiplayer FPS ever), Desert Combat (directly responsible for the development of Battlefield 2), Day of Defeat (one of the first of manymanymany WW2 shooters). It brought about Team Fortress, which has since turned into Team Fortress 2 - another staggering success story. (Lucky Valve are still on the ball.)
There's been a clear paradigm shift recently though. I feel that it began with Battlefield 2, and more games are following the new model. Yes, there's a clear focus on console gaming. But more significantly, I feel, is the focus on trying to really sell brands over and over again as fast as possible.
With few exceptions (Blizzard, Valve), game developers and publishers don't want you to be playing the same game for three or four years. They want you to upgrade to the new hotness so they can get another chunk of cash out of you.
I didn't buy MW2 - I'm completely and utterly uninterested in it if it doesn't have dedicated servers, and I put my money where my mouth is and didn't buy it even though I've heard its pretty awesome. But it's hard for me to come out and say what IW are doing is clearly wrong - because obviously it's commercially successful. I do feel it's not in the best interests of gamers - I think we'd get much more /value/ if they went back to the old model. But MW2 has set a precedent, and I'm sure MW3 is already on the drawing board and not very far away.
What it says is that you are specifically not to be listened to. Had they actually boycotted it and not bought it, it probalby wouldn't have had to much of a negative impact on overall sales, but it would have at least given Activision pause. Companies always want to make more money and they'd have wondered "How much more could we have made, had we given people what they asked for."
However what this does is send the message that even if people want something, you can safely ignore them, they'll buy your shit anyhow.
I'll never get people like this. As you say, people need to vote with their dollars. If you don't like something, don't buy it. I don't own Modern Warfare 2 because it looks like the single player isn't worth much and they crippled PC multiplayer. So, not for me. What's more, there are TONS of games out there of all kinds. It isn't like this is the only shooter around. If a given game doesn't give you what you want, get another. Heck my problem is not too few games to play, it is too little time to play them. I've got games I'd like to get but haven't the time to play them.
This behaviour always amused me in MMOs. People would whine and scream about how bad the game was and organize "protests" where they'd all show up in an area and submit GM tickets and such. Of course, they kept paying. My thing is always "If you aren't having fun, why are you paying?" They seemed to be under the false impression companies cared how they got your money. They don't, they just care that you pay. If you pay to be angry and protest, ok fine whatever.
Just spend your money on shit you like, and don't spend it on shit you don't. You'll find things work out much better that way.
Namely is the game fun and entertaining? The answer to that is a resounding yes. If a game is the above it can be forgiven for lots of flaws and that is why the game has passed the $1 Billion mark in cash.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
It's not the hype. It's just that the discriminating buyers are the minority. Most people want crap, or what "elitists" think is crap. Kind of like soap operas, which many people consider junk, yet are extremely popular. Or reality shows. Or big budget effect movies. Companies just do what most people are okay with. A minority of people want dedicated servers, so there's no big need to implement them. Having a patch a few days late doesn't matter to most, either, I'd bet. Most people are willing to live with minor setbacks.
I've put DVD inside, installed it and typed CD-Key. Hey, that was it! Hooah!
And: I have router. Router is connected to NATed LAN. The retail game I bought was in polish. I already had steam account, that I made without any issues whatsoever.
AND you know what? When I come to work and there was time when I was really bored, I gave it a try - launched steam and in "My Games" there it was - MW2, just pressed install and it downloaded and installed game no problem!
Those issues you encounter are your own fault. You expect steam/game client to work its way thru default HTTP port or what? If you are blocking your own traffic on firewall, then expect shit to happen. If you don't, then I don't know what you are doing on /.
A little look at the user reviews in Amazon for the PC version (here) and by contrast the XBox version (here) is quite enlightening.
Basically if you've played Online FPSs in the PC in the last 10 years (with large matches, low lag, effective banning of cheaters and user maps and mods) this game will seem mediocre to you at best: people complain of lag (due to no dedicate servers), unpunished cheating (like aimbots) and pestering behaviour (teenagers playing music in voice), no user extendability (as per choice of the maker: no user mods or maps, only paid for - DLC - extensions) and second-hand market killing measures (online activation mandatory on the PC).
This means that this game should be really be seen as two separate games "Modern Warfare 2 XBox" and "Modern Warfare 2 PC" with the first being quite successful (thanks in in no small part to hype and slick marketing) for the target platform and audience and versus the competition in that platform (console games tend to be simpler and played by a younger audience) and the second being very mediocre from the point of view of that target audience and versus the competition in that platform.
It's thus not surprising that you have two almost completely opposite sets of reviews, since the game really has two faces ...
That's merely Activision's decision tho. Infinity Ward had $70 million to develop the game (actually Activision tried to give them more, but they declined). Since it is actually a great game, Activision saw that it would be good to spend that on marketing. Putting $130 million in marketing budget of a crap game would not only be really risky, it would be outright stupid.
What Activision wants to spend on marketing is irrelevant to game quality or Infinity Ward.
When people have to replace their banned copies.
Why banned you ask? Well, we don't have dedicated servers, people hosting games local. What does it tell the /. crowd? Right. That cheating is far from impossible. And, wonder over wonder, the cheats are in.
This week the call of a worrying friend reached me. He joined a MW2 game, was wondering why everyone was 70 with 10 honor levels on top of it. Two kills later he knew why: He was 70 himself (instapromotion from about 50). He quickly quitted, fearing a ban, but, well, the "damage" is done (damage being relative, after all, who doesn't want to reach 70?).
Now one of three things can happen. First, Activision bans everyone who increased his level with invalid means. Meaning, that that Damocletian sword is looming over everyone's head because you can't just "avoid" cheat servers. You join a game and bam, you're a cheater. Second, they can do nothing. Which essentially means that the leveling aspect of the game is essentially gone to waste because you pretty much have to create a level 70 character to compete sensibly. Unless you enjoy being the target dummy for the army of 70s running circles around you. Or they can only ban those that started the cheating (provided they can find out who modified the server and who didn't with at least some accuracy). Then you still have a buttload of 70s running around, because for every cheater you can have a game full of players who, willingly or accidently, blew up their level.
Pest, cholera or typhus, free choice.
And that problem will not vanish. As long as you don't have control over the game servers, you cannot control cheating.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It was never about money for me. I had the money to buy it if I chose.
It was about what we lost in the process. This precedent allows the publisher to charge $59.99 for every game the publish in the future.
It also allows them to ignore customer complaints like they were selling a commodity.
We lost ground. If you don't think you're a part of that we, you're so sadly mistaken. You're a part whether you like it or not.
Our platform was traditionally the only one which allowed full control of the game. That is no more. There will be no further innovation by the community.
Since our gaming platform has been overwhelmed by the casual, uninformed player, we lose more and more ground. The PC used to be the game proving ground, now we get leftovers if we're lucky. We must settle for console ports a year after release.
So fuck you all! I hope your nintendo thumbs cramp up and provide you with intense unending pain!
They're using their grammar skills there.
Who gives a crap what anyone else thinks...
I play it on the ps3 though, and while I really want to scream cheater at some of those 12 to 15 years old bragging about killing everyone, as far as I know, there are no real widespread cheats for the console...
The difference I guess is at the end of a game.. where I just got my ass handed to me, I am a gracious loser, but I love to point out to the winners that while I did lose, I accept the fact and move on, they are however douchebag winners...
Although I have been getting better lately, with some of the perks.. and a tactical knife.. I annoy the crap out them :)
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
95% of the criticism I've heard about this game comes from, drum-roll please... PC Gamers I've logged nearly 130 hours of MW2 on PS3 and 50 on XBox 360 since it came out (Obviously I don't have a girlfriend).I've never had any problems with aimbots. Maybe one out of a hundred matches have had a connection problem, which which was rectified by moving the host. I've encountered only five or six games in which glitching was actually an issue. I've never had any confusion or problems getting together with friends due to the centralized server. The game play is great and the levels are amazingly well thought out. Stop blaming the game. The fact is that for all the graphic superiority and mouse/keyboard functionality, the PC has it's own flaws that degrade the game to the point where you aren't satisfied by it. Also, do you really think that having private servers would help? Or have private servers been putting a pretty enough band-aid on the PC gaming experience that people haven't noticed it's not quite what it's cracked up to be?
Dress for success AND excess.