Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 3:23 AM
Sat Nov 21
50 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/19/09
Maybe I just haven't been keeping up with the news on this, but it seems like people were still in the speculation-on-gameplay stage. And I'm pretty sure the movie had something to do with suddenly hammering it out the door.
Which... to me signals that it's probably rushed to get out and not so great. Given the launch of Champions Online, I'm even more skeptical.
Wait and see.
11/19/09
KIDDING!
11/19/09
I've not seen a lot about the ground based stuff however, and what I have seen was a bit meh, unfortunately. At least there's going to be a public beta so I can try out and see what I like.
11/19/09
[blogs.citypages.com]
11/19/09
Crazy what people will do / pay for beta testing a game.
11/19/09
They had a writing contest for a slot in the closed beta, way back during summer. I entered a piece - didn't think it was too shabby, but of course it didn't win.
And then the forums went berserk. The winner of the contest broke the word limit, and the folks on the forum wanted blood.
It was ugly.
11/19/09
Wow, that's pretty crazy, YOU BROKE THE WORD COUNT, NOW YOU DIE!!!
11/19/09
11/20/09
11/20/09
#speakup
11/18/09
11/16/09
Another issue I see with this concept of charging for extra features or services in games like Call of Duty is the fact that many people already pay an XBox Live subscription fee. I have no problem doing so, I feel I get good value for the price. But I would have a hard time paying for XBL as well as paying extra to play games on XBL (outside of MMORPGs. I understand the fees involved in that type of game.)... #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
"Our gamers are telling us there's lots of services and innovation they would like to see that they're not getting yet."
And what's the number one "service" gamers (at least PC) would like to see? Dedicated servers. So Activision charges a monthly license fee to allow *you* to run a dedicated server on *your* machine.
And I would wager that the license agreement would preclude you from charging others to actually play on *your* dedicated server, running on *your* machine, over *your* net connection.
An alternative of course being that Activision runs the servers and charges the players to use them, or even that while using the aboves scenario of licensing dedicated server software to end users, somehow charging players for the ability to access those servers. #activision
11/16/09
It's hard ignoring high DLC for games you love. I understand. In terms of the "marketplace", that's our problem... and our choice. My choice is to avoid games that seem designed from the ground-up to suck both value from themselves and money from my wallet.
Purchasing games that are "complete" - no online enabled features, no DLC planned - sometimes gives me the warm, cuddly illusion that I'm actually getting more for my money.
So uh... thanks, Activision? For that? #activision
11/15/09
11/15/09
Everyone who supports Activision after this string of ripoffs. #activision
11/15/09
You don't exactly have the right to look down on others because they support a company you personally dislike.
11/15/09
People have different opinions, I to believe that present day Activision is the Antichrist. Just look at all the guitar hero spin offs and the lousy pc port of modern warfare 2. #activision
11/15/09
It's consumers like yourself that lap up anything that's thrown at them that cause companies like Activision to see the profit in exploitation. #activision
11/15/09
In my opinion Activision is nowhere as bas as EA.
But I agree, consumers themselves are to blame, because they just add fuel to the fire via buying everything that these companies throw at them. #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
11/16/09
For example, If a Guitar Hero game has 30 tracks, so many features and costs $60 and a Rock Band game released at the same time had 50 tracks, the same amount of features or more and costs $45, you'd be getting ripped off if you were to buy the Guitar Hero game over the Rock Band game regardless of whether you found the Guitar Hero game fun or not. I don't think it needs to be said but the example was a hypothetical one.
Now, despite knowing you won't listen to me, I'll say that the many of the decisions that Activision-Blizzard have made in recent times have exploited the consumers who buy their products. #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
Take something mundane for example...like a hammer. You see two hammers on a shelf, both are made from vanadium steel, both have the same style of rubber grip and look identical apart from different brand logos. One of them is $15 and the other is $25. The $25 hammer is a ripoff because there is a product just as good for cheaper. #activision
11/16/09
But that's not what's being done here, really, so...
In *this* case, Acti/Bliz offers you a nifty designer hammer that also happens to be indestructible, with the promise that in the coming weeks/months/years, said hammer will continue getting better and better as long as you keep paying for it.
So long as their promise is kept, well, you're getting your awesome niftier as time goes by hammer, right? So as long as that's what you wanted, you aren't really getting ripped off.
It isn't really a poor model in concept. I mean, I may have paid Blizzard 600+ dollars in subscription fees or something, but during that period that I played WoW, I didn't really feel the need/desire to buy that many other games. I was always satisfied with what I had, because Blizzard worked hard to keep my interest.
It's a business model. WoW worked, and is continuing to work, and it follows this model. WoW is so hard to beat right now because it IS so good, and a lot of why it's so good is because they never really stopped making it better.
Think about that. #activision
11/16/09
What I'm talking about is decisions such as, in the case of the PC version, the removal of dedicated servers. You're being ripped off if you go pay $60 for that for multiplayer when you can get better for cheaper. #activision
11/16/09
I honestly don't get your argument here.
There must be some reason you think people are buying it if they can indeed get it better elsewhere for cheaper. Or are they all so mind-numbingly stupid that they can't tell the difference (and if that's the case then what does it matter anyway).
MW2 was the most successful release ever, so clearly people bought it. The question is WHY, if it was indeed inferior to other things that cost the same amount of money?
Look, you shouldn't be worried about paying 60 for consistantly inferior products. That sort of thing doesn't usually survive in a free market. What you should worry about is a new standard being set, and all of the sudden finding yourself paying 15 bucks a month to use a service that was essentially free to play up till then - and paying that 15 extra for every game... in other words, if EVERY game starts charging you 15 bucks for matchmaking services that were free once upon a time, then, sir, you have something to be worried about.
Even that is rare in a free market though. Again, if the product truly is inferior to other similarly priced products, then people simply won't buy as much of it, and the development winds will change whatever people hated.
MW2 and the loss of dedicated servers doesn't seem to have gone over as badly as claimed however. A very small minority are being very loud over the change and actually not buying it and (presumably) enjoying it. #activision
11/16/09
MW2 sold a lot based on MW1, not really on it's own merits so while I wouldn't go so far to say everyone buying it is mindnumbingly stupid, those who bought it on PC were willing to allow themselves be ripped off or were none the wiser that they were being ripped off.
Look, you shouldn't be worried about paying 60 for consistantly inferior products. That sort of thing doesn't usually survive in a free market. What you should worry about is a new standard being set, and all of the sudden finding yourself paying 15 bucks a month to use a service that was essentially free to play up till then - and paying that 15 extra for every game... in other words, if EVERY game starts charging you 15 bucks for matchmaking services that were free once upon a time, then, sir, you have something to be worried about.
I'm not worried about paying 60 quid for inferior products because I educate myself enough as a consumer as to ensure that doesn't happen. I am worried that it sets a new standard and as can be seen by Carmacks decision to not have dedicated servers for the multiplayer component of Rage, that standard seems to be being set. Of course, having the standard you mention being set isn't a happy thought either.
Even that is rare in a free market though. Again, if the product truly is inferior to other similarly priced products, then people simply won't buy as much of it, and the development winds will change whatever people hated.
And like in the case of EA, that will probably be what happens with Activision. However, just like EA, it's going to take a while before the mass market realises that they are being exploited and sold inferior products.
MW2 and the loss of dedicated servers doesn't seem to have gone over as badly as claimed however. A very small minority are being very loud over the change and actually not buying it and (presumably) enjoying it.
PC figures say otherwise. The low number of PC sales for MW2 shows that the "very small minority" didn't buy it and the very large silent minority on PC would appear to be much smaller than that miniscule vocal minority. #activision
11/16/09
You take your opinions as fact even worse than I do. #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
The problem with all of your arguements is they only fit YOUR situation. As soon as you put someone else in the shoes, the situation changes outside of your scope. By your statement, I can assume that music plays no important role in your life and your enjoyment of rockband/guiterhero relies solely on the amount of content. I play instruments, love music, and only care about what songs come with the game, not how many. So, clearly, your arguement makes no real sense because it's too one sided. #activision
11/16/09
I guess it did need to be said. Pity you didn't read it.
I'm not going to dwell on this any longer. Clearly I have a different definition of what constitutes exploitation and ripping off the consumer so I'll agree to disagree and move on. #activision
11/16/09
I will say that, to you, MW2 is a rip off because you expect dedicated servers. If MW2 had dedicated servers only though, I would feel ripped off everytime I have to spend 30 minutes to find a server that doesn't have parts of the game turned off because PC gamers are 8 year old girls about anything that might be considered to allow "cheap kills". #activision
11/16/09
Also, I'm sorry but if you can't learn to read server names or use filters and spend 30 minutes finding a server then that's on you. Finally, calling PC gamers 8 year old girls totally invalidates any opinion you might have on the matter.
I'm done. Good day, sir! #activision
11/16/09
I paid for this game (CS:source) after playing the beta for a long time. I really enjoyed the game. But then mod tools came out that allowed you to disable certain weapons. A lot of really bad custom maps started poping up all over the place, or only DE_DUST gets played, all the time. Now theres RPG servers and gun game servers. Now I don't play because it takes me hours to find a server that just plays the game. And when I do, I favorite it, but next time I come on, it's always full.
Dedicated servers and their freedom RUINED the game for me. Really turned me off of PC FPS multiplayer in general. Too many 8 year olds that just turn off things they don't like. Gun too strong in your opinion? Take it out! Can't figure out how to counter the shield? Don't allow it! In my opinion, it's pathetic and I don't see how any of you can complain about a "gimped" game.
I read about CoD4 servers that turned off kill streaks, how is that not gimping the game. I probably get killed 80 times by a helicopter for every helicoptor I call in, but it feels so good when you get one that I never cared. Now if I bought it and couldn't find a server that left killstreak perks on, I would feel infinitely more ripped off than you do now. INFINITELY, and it's very much the reason why I purchased the 360 version, gave up the KB and mouse, so I could get matchmaking. Now I get in a game within 60 seconds, every time, and it's always the game rules that I chose from the menu, nothing is ever gimped, I never get immediately kicked because of "reserved slots".
So, again, your entire arguement falls completely flat if the consumer in question is anyone different than you. Its understandable to be annoyed with the decision if you like dedicated servers, and I'm not so narrow minded to judge you for that fact as you are, but lacking the ability to realize it's a personal preference that other people simply don't like? Seriously? No one is getting ripped off that is getting exactly what they wanted, no matter how indignant you feel about dedicated servers, because we are NOT YOU and we make decisions based on our own wants and needs. It's really not that hard of a concept to understand, unless you are a immature, simple minded 12 year old that thinks everyone who like dedicated servers is dumb simply because you don't agree with it. #activision
11/16/09
11/16/09
Secondly, the servers that turned off killstreaks were probably competition servers where the people who run the server are part of a competitive caln and need to be able train their ability not rain down death from above with a flying aimbot. Also, it took me all of 10 seconds to find a low latency server in COD4 that in it's name said Stock Maps and No Rules. Again, you argument falls flat.
So, in conclusion, you don't understand what it is you are arguing about and that makes your entire argument pointless.
@Sacgamer: PC version of MW = Lean, console, 64 player games, ability to administrate games effectively, low latency always-on servers, ability to immediately ban hackers. Price: $45-50
PC version of MW2 = No Lean, maximum of 18 players, no administrative powers, high risk of jumping into high latency volatile games. Works on a delayed ban system meaning hackers can ruin whole games before getting VAC banned. price: $60
Now you talk about how the price is the same as the console versions and how it's not a ripoff. Unfortunately for you, you don't understand pricing. The reason that console games get a markp above PC games is because there are license fees to pay for. PC games don't have this problem and thus should be reflected in the price. If this is not reflected in the price, you are being ripped off as the price has been artificially inflated for no reason other than to exploit the consumer and bring in more money.
Arguing that the control scheme is better is pointless. I could say that the PS3 control scheme is better than the 360 control scheme and by your logic, it would then be ok to charge more for the PS3 version.
In conclusion: PC version of MW2 is a ripoff. #activision
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
11/15/09
With the strict control that Activision-Blizzard is exhibiting with IWNet and BattleNet2.0, just about everything is on the table right now. #activision
11/15/09
I really hope maps and mods created by the community aren't charged for. My God, I didn't even think one would have the indecency to charge for something like that.
"user created" being the key words here. #activision
11/15/09
11/15/09
I've played tons of custom maps on Warcraft 3, and there are tons of different versions for them. The problem then, with this, is that if a single user has sole rights to the map they make, that will prevent others from improving upon it. Thus we will have to depend on this sole individual to update his/her game.
I kind of like that users can take another's work and improve upon it, or change it to something else. This will stop all of that.
11/15/09
So, when they look at past sales history of DLC people have shown that there is enough out there that WILL buy providing it's made just good enough, and packaged well enough, to satisfy their need. When you look at it from that angle, and taking into account that the only platform that could take advantage of user-created content has been neutered in favor of a closed system, there really is not any monetary reason for them to offer the ability for any user created content or tools to create the content to be provided. The only exception I can see being made for this would be in the case of Starcraft 2 but even then that's not certain.
Part of me really hopes I'm wrong but judging by the moves that are being taken I seriously doubt it. Welcome to the console age and it's best that you get used to having to pay for your content from most developers and/or publishers otherwise you will be in for a lot of disappointment down the road. #activision
11/16/09
[www.sc2blog.com]
So although what you say is perfectly sound, since they can now control content completely with the like of IWNet and BattleNet2.0, There is then monetary reasons to allow user created content since they would undoubtedly share a portion of the cost of a map, etc while only sacrificing a couple of mbs of server storage space.
11/16/09
A lot of the clamor, though, is about Battle.net, which Blizzard uses for Diablo and its RTSes. This has always been free, and it sounds like Activision wants to start charging for it.
The thing, though, is that the free model has done incredibly well for Blizzard over the years. All of the free user-created maps accessible on the free Battle.net in StarCraft and then WarCraft 3 have kept those games alive for many years (more than a decade in StarCraft's case). They continue to sell quite well despite so old precisely because users continue adding value to them. If they tried to charge us for the privilege of making their games better, I very much doubt this dynamic would be able to continue. As someone who is looking forward to making and distributing custom maps for SC2, I would find this very disappointing. Luckily, I don't think it's going to happen.
However, the main reason I replied was because you have a Lunamaria icon which I wanted to tell you was awesome. #activision
11/16/09
Sure they profit too because they get a share of this money. But as long as they still leave the option for content to be free it's an excellent approach.
At least it's way better than the MW2 approach of "let's kill moding and custom content so we don't have free competition for our overpriced lowquality DLC". #activision
11/16/09