Modern Warfare 2 Surpasses $1 Billion Mark; Dedicated Servers What? 258
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."
vote with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [shamusyoung.com]
Doesn't say much (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:vote with your money (Score:5, Insightful)
It shows that people just joined the bandwagon before they even tried the game or knew how the changes would work out. It's easy to click a button on a internet site that says "boycott!" and then go back to eat a pizza while watching the countdown timer for release date.
Re:MW2 (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The single player mode in MW2 is a marginally updated version of MW, more like an expansion pack. The textures have higher resolutions, and they have a few gimmicks like the ice climbing scene, but that's about it. There's no 'wow' moment like when you controlled the AC130 for the first time in MW (the Predator drone in MW2 is too similar to the AC130 to be considered innovative). There's no new groundbreaking revolutionary ideas.
2) The multiplayer is entirely compromised due to hacking. I originally also thought that the lack of dedicated servers was not an issue, since I also never really played on the modded servers. However, as 50% of MW2 games end in a tactical nuke, I've learned that the key benefit for dedicated servers is that the server admin polices and bans cheaters. And if a server got overrun by cheaters you could just flee to another one that was better managed. Clearly the automatic anti-cheating provisions do not work - hackers can always side step whatever protection the game has, much like computer viruses constantly evolve and find new ways to side-step the anti-virus protection. What's happening is simple: they're looking for ways to monetize the multiplayer franchise (think WoW), and that starts with controlling it.
In summary: single player is too short and not innovative enough, and multiplayer is overrun by cheaters and too restrictive for the end user. The COD franchise is being monetized ruthlessly by the parent company - good for their shareholders, bad for the gaming community. Interestingly, the PC community has responded the strongest to these issues (look up the GameSpot average user rating for COD6 on the PC - it is mediocre - and compare it to COD4). The console community has been much less capable of independent critical thought, partially because cheating is probably much less of a problem. Perhaps they're just trying to kill the PC version - they may think they can make more money off consoles.
Re:MW2 (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
This is true for so many games. I'd almost always rather have the game the way the developers made it because the a huge number of user mods for multiplayer games end up being total, annoying, unbalanced, non-fun, mind-bogglingly stupid crap. Anyone who has played a moddable online game has certainly encountered these sorts of modded servers at least once before leaving the server faster than a rat can get off a sinking ship.
Of course there are the mods that do improve games, and then there are the astonishingly rare creme de la creme mods which manage to become full blown games in their own right.
McDonald's sells more than Red Robin or Wendy's (Score:5, Insightful)
But it doesn't mean their burgers are better.
Just sayin'
Re:MW2 (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
dedicated servers allows the community to police itself very much like open source software does. The fact you are not a serious gamer does not mitigate this fact, for you or for anyone else. Upgrade treadmills suck, and that's the only reason for lack of public dedicated servers. Also, arguing from popularity is fallacious. You should know better.
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.
A blatant misrepresentation of the history and impact mods have had on the games they modify and the communities that support them.
Re:vote with your money (Score:1, Insightful)
I voted with mine. Simply didn't buy it. Didn't sign any petition or crap like that - just didn't (and won't) buy the thing.
Might not mean a whole lot with their sales still being high, but that's $60 not in their pocket.
FAIL! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:vote with your money (Score:1, Insightful)
Ever seen a non-hypocritical boycott? I haven't, as soon as they think no-one's looking...
Re:McDonald's sells more than Red Robin or Wendy's (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure how this is offtopic. I'm commenting on the correlation between sales and quality in the topic title. It's unfortunate that I have to spell this out for someone.
Marketing budget > dev budget (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually worse than doing nothing (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
This article forgets something (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:vote with your money (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's not that hard, why aren't everyone making billions of dollars of single FPS games?
Because not everyone has the millions of dollars required to convince all the retards that their game is groundbreaking and new.
Good games don't make money, well marketed games make money.
Unfortunately the two are nearly wholly unrelated.
People get what they want (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:But what of the long term value? (Score:1, Insightful)
No offense but you're a bit biased considering what your company does, mind you, I agree with you.
Re:Steam fail (Score:1, Insightful)
Only really a decent game for consoles (Score:5, Insightful)
A little look at the user reviews in Amazon for the PC version (here [amazon.co.uk]) and by contrast the XBox version (here [amazon.co.uk]) 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 ...
Re:MW2 (Score:2, Insightful)
In CoD, after you die, you get to see the other guy shoot you in the kill cam. When they're aimbotting, there is no transition from one point to the next. The crosshairs instantly jump directly onto you when the shot is taken.
The wallhacks which target people through walls are a bit harder to spot. The one I looked at on youtube puts a nice yellow box around every player. I suspect there are at least as many people using wall hacks as aimbots. You'll see on the kill cam where they're looking at the entire battleground, move over a player that can't be seen from distance, then zoom in and take a shot.
It isn't merely about people being really good, it's about doing the impossible. I defy you or anyone to move your mouse across 50% of the screen for an accurate headshot so quickly that it doesn't travel on any point in between. Now do it 25 times in a row - all headshots, no misses. Oh, and do it without regard to which weapon you're using.
I can understand about dedicated servers and presenting the game to the average player but there needs to be a votekick or something available.
Oh, that amount will go higher soon! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
despite how the game was or what it earned... (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
I like it (Score:3, Insightful)
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 :)
Re:vote with your money (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MW2 (Score:1, Insightful)
You just wrote a beautiful justification for DRM-controlled platform, applications, and inputs (i.e. XBOX 360) which also happens to explain why I no longer play multiplayer games on a PC.
Yes, using a mouse is wonderful thing, but dealing with all of the issues inherent to a platform where people can run anything from an aimbot to a kernel debugger (and always wondering whether that guy that shot you is cheating) is not my idea of a good time.
Re:MW2 (Score:1, Insightful)
This is where I'm going to disagree a lot. First of all you don't need to use a mouse and keyboard, you could have easily just used a controller on a 360 for the same experience. You prefer playing games with a mouse and keyboard,
No, I don't. I "prefer" it because playing with a controller makes you look like you're a 5 year old playing his first FPS. Mouse and keyboard is superior to controller in every way for first person shooters. There is no denying this. While you can play decently using a controller, for sure, the same player using kb and mouse will do much better if he has the same amount of practice.