Infinity Ward... I am disappoint

Regarding the overall trend of game companies not bringing their games to the PC, or not doing much for the PC market: The truth is, there isn't as much money to be made in the PC market as there used to be.

Year after year, the PC market gets smaller and smaller. The MMO industry is basically carrying the PC market, since you've got WoW that is selling tons of copies still. Besides that, you're not seeing the millions and millions of copies sold on the PC (or even hundreds of thousands), like you are on the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

Luckily for the PC, making a game that works on the 360 means it will basically work on the PC no problem. This probably makes it so more games cross over from the 360 to the PC.

All in all...it's all about Return of Investment...and there just isn't a ton of money to be made on the PC. This is probably why you see this trend.

For IW in particular...they're more than likely doing IW.NET so that they can build their own walled-garden, ala Battle.Net or even Steam, where their community is tied to their games and brought together through the IW.Net services. It probably makes things more secure since I'm guessing you have to have your account connect to the net..like Steam...and it will probably make IW more money in the long run since they can use IW.Net to upsell you on add-ons to the game and other features/services.

Lastly, I just want to add that in that interview he never said there would be no modding and no mapping. That's just speculation on the writer's part.

I think the reason why the PC market has been dwindling over the past years is because of the state of today's economy. As QforQ said, the MMO industry is essentially carrying the PC market on it's shoulders, and I personally think it's because of the sheer amount of cost in trying to keep up with advancing technology. People would rather buy a $200-$400 console, which is also user friendly and not complicated to set up, over a $900-$2000 PC.

Not to mention that, although there is still a bajillion people who have PCs at home, there are a billion people who own consoles and who probably use them more than their computers because consoles are more user friendly to those people who either couldn't give a damn about the many features their PCs offer or don't know HOW to use them, i.e. playing a movie, listening to music, or (case in point) playing games. Also, the PC has always been a single-user platform, while the consoles offer multi-user play (such as splitscreen) on the same system, making it ideal for parties or simply having a friend over.

You can blame Microsoft for all of that. By creating the XBox as a means of leveraging software companies they couldn't buy, they inadvertantly caused all the developers they leveraged to write everything to work best on an XBox. Few people a PC version of a game designed for a platform.

If some of these developers would design games for the PC, and offer a platform version later, people would want the PC version. (Just as happened with SimCity 2000, which just didn't work very well on the Playstation.)

So long as the XBox is THE medium for new games, everyone will be writing either for the XBox or specifically to compete with the XBox. Even the Wii was created just so Nintendo could offer something Microsoft can't.

I think it's too soon to QQ and say you won't be getting MW2 or any future IW title. Personally, I'm not the least bit worried and my opinion of either MW2 or IW themselves hasn't changed.

I won't comment much yet as I'd prefer more solid info.

However, I will say that when you eliminate incentive to buy PC games, people will stop buying them. Game companies know this and currently that seems to be the direction they want. Does that mean the market prefers console gaming or does that mean companies are pushing console gaming and thus creating the market for them?

I think it's a fine line. There's plenty of reasons for consoles doing better, but I believe it has large part to do with game company decisions based on profit than it does with easy of use or other related reasons why consoles may doing better. All valid reasons though, of course.

@LordXenophon - That is also another reason to be concerned. When the PC was dominant in gaming, companies pushed the envelope in developing games. Making the games do a lot more, be more graphically aesthetic, and make other kinds of improvements as hardware became more and more advanced.

Gaming and hardware had a sort of beautiful coexistence that few other industries have ever had. Games and hardware advancing side-by-side. New hardware advances leading to new gaming engine advances, and new game engine advances giving rise to new hardware to better run those engines.

With game companies becoming more console oriented, the advancement... the drive to do more is gone. There's no desire to see "what can we do that is better than before" or "how far can we push this now". They limit themselves to a predefined box and work around that box.

This is one reason that I haven't really been happy with many of the more recent releases by a variety of developers. It's starting to get stale. There's no life in what's been published of late. It's the "same shit in a different wrapper."

I'm just hoping that Dragon Age and Borderlands will revive my hope in the future of gaming.
@HighSimSim - How much was your TV? And did you spend extra every month for XBL Gold to be able to play online?

I have always figured the trend towards consoles lately stems from the fact that finally console capabilities can begin to compete with what a new PC can do. Not to mention that when developing a title for PS3 or 360 you know that compatibility across the board is not going to be an issue. Where as PC there are so many variables to take into account.

Before this generation of consoles you would be hard pressed to find more than a few titles that were released on PS2 or Xbox as well as the PC Simultaneously.

So yes I would say definitely ease of use is an issue in the changing trend, not only for the user for for the ease of developing as well. Not to mention the fact that consoles can now realistically compete with PC as far as graphics and overall technology going into the games. I mean really, in 93" console gamers were just starting to get into SNES, while PC gamers were dominating Doom.

Xenophon I absolutely agree with you as far as PCs and Games having pushed each other in the past and even today but on a much smaller scale as yes alot of developers are focusing more and more on the console market. However understanding this trend seems pretty basic to me.

Just a good video card these days costs more than a current console. So of course from a business standpoint if the price point for the game is going to be equal on console or PC you have a much better chance at increased sales if you focus on the console market. The bulk of consumers is going to like the fact that any console release is guaranteed to work on their existing console.

I would be lying if I said I had never upgraded a specific component in my PC in the past to better play a specific game. But the fact of the matter is regardless of that component increasing performance in the future I still shelled out 150-300 bucks for instant gratification on a single title. Something most people cant do all the time.

@Torinir Meh, you have a point. Although I currently use a thirteen year old hand-me-down Panasonic 27" television, I see your comparison of the advancement of computers and televisions. And although we have to pay $50 a year for Xbox Live, when you compare the costs of keeping up with consoles (including accessories such as controllers, televisions, etc.) as opposed to keeping up with computers (i.e. graphics cards, RAM, etc.) it is much more cost effective in the long run. That is, unless you make your computer or television last longer than it is supposed to.

@HighSimSim - Meh, I keep my systems for a few years at least... only when I can't get any new games to play on the system will I leap forward. That's usually 3-5 years between purchases.

Direct comparison of price for consoles and computers isn't quite a good measure of anything unless you are going to do an in depth analysis of all the peripherals and their costs. You also most consider all the non-gaming uses for computers...and the fact that you're going to be buying a computer regardless. Even then, the prices are going to range a good bit based on your gaming habits and computer needs.

I have yet to see any real research done on price comparisons with actual data to back them up. If anyone knows of some, please share :D

Price will vary depending on specs for PC. And you can often find one manufacturer or another who will have components or even full systems on sale.

Yes an In-depth analysis of price would of course take it to another level, but realistically if you think about it using the 360 as an example it was released in 2005, and with no hardware upgrades will run any new 360 game perfectly. As far as PC's go unless you spent a big chunk of change your 2005 PC with no upgrades isn't even close to cutting edge anymore.

So for the average gamer whose pocketbook is more focused on their rent and car insurance a console is going to be a much more feasible option. So if said consumer makes up a larger percentage of the buying power why wouldn't you as a game developer focus a little more on that demographic.

True. My brother just bought a custom built PC for $700 that is pretty beastly, so I guess who and where you choose to buy your computer from count as well (or even if you have the know-how to custom build one yourself). But thinking about computer upgrades, I would say that this could also fall back on the user - we may know what to buy for our PCs to increase performance, others (such as casual gamers) may have no clue. This knowledge barrier may force people away from computers to the consoles.

I would also agree with the possibility that the companies are also steering people away from PCs, take for example Microsoft and their Games For Windows. I remember when they made such a big deal out of GFW and now I don't hear anything about it, potentially because M$ is suggestively pushing developers to the 360.
@colliny2k I believe there has been such research done by people such as Wedbush Morgan Securities' Michael Pachter that show the prices of the consoles (Xbox 360, Playstation 3, Nintendo Wii) as well as brand name computer manufacturers (Dell, Alienware, Hewlett-Packard, Gateway, IBM) that show that much more people buy lower priced machines (with Nintendo Wii raping everyone).

So here's an update:

"Speaking with GameTrailers, Pachter explained that Microsoft is making a serious push to turn PC gamers into 360 players, by giving PC gamers “an incentive to buy a 360” by “[putting] something that he really wants only on the 360." As a result of this push, these gamers, especially those who are multiplayer-focused, will ultimately have no choice but to, “pay [Microsoft] 50 bucks a year so that in a couple years, it’s 100 bucks a year. And that’s going up. We all know that.”

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/700070/Michael-Pachter-Predicts-Xbox-Live-Price-Hike.html

mmm... IW is really shooting themselves in the foot now...

http://www.fourzerotwo.com/?p=745 and http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2009/10/20/modern-warfare-2-dedicated-server-response.aspx

And I stopped playing consoles back in the days of SNES.

Sorry, it's PC or nothing here. Besides, I'd never touch a FPS game on a console. I can see RPG's and the like being good on a console, but a FPS is best played with a KB and Mouse.

FPS work fine with a controller imo.

The Metroid Prime games, Halo, many others worked fine with a controller.

100 bucks for XBL? I would not pay that.

Ah, I don't buy the XBox Live price hike. The only thing that would do is cause PC gamers to stay on their PCs and push console gamers to the PS3, especially now that the PS3 is more affordable than before and has an improving library.

I don't either, but this is M$ we're talking about here. They revolutionized greed. :P

@Torinir True. I bet the people over at Sony are praying for M$ to try that move. I know I'd run out and buy a PS3 the second it happened.

There are probably people in M$ waiting for M$ to do that. lol

@WILDMAMMOTH The economics of buying a PS3 because of a $50 increase don't make sense.

Most consoles, with everything said in done, will run about 400-500$. You could get 10 more years of Xbox Live for that amount of money...

@QforQ I wouldn't do it for economic purposes. I would do it to send a message.

I bought my PS3 used for $95. They don't spontaneously break, like XBoxes do.

@BiggusDickus Wow, how'd you do that? Under a 100?

I've owned pretty much every console ever made at one point or another and played PC games for about the same amount of time. Here's what I know:

1. Games are games, regardless of platform. Most console bashing stems from an effort to justify to oneself the choosing of one platform over another (sour grapes and all that). I've played every genre on both types of gaming systems (console and PC, for those keeping score), and the differences are negligible when you take a step back and really look.

2. I really hate to burst everyone's bubble (actually, I really love it), but Microsoft is a company, not an evil corporation out to fiscally sodomize the very people they rely on for their success. Microsoft (_not_ M$, you'd be better off just typing "I have an Internet connection and no imagination") wants to increase their market share, but so does Sony. So does Nintendo. That's the way business works.

3. You get what you pay for. Xbox Live has many benefits, benefits that stem from the $50 Gold members shell out every year (and who complains about spending $50 a freaking year?). PSN also has many benefits, but in different areas.

4. Many of you are going to dismiss everything I'm saying because it doesn't fit in with your notions of "How Things Work". That's okay, because I frankly don't give a rip. I'm going to play what I enjoy playing, and so should you. If you're not enjoying your entertainment than you're doing something wrong.

@mykalgaidin So the game play experience playing a First Person Shooter on a PC is almost exactly the same as the game play experience playing a First Person Shooter on a console? Umm... no...

Take a look at the game play videos on YouTube for any FPS game on PC, and try some of the high end moves that PC players make in a FPS on your console. I guarantee that it won't happen.

@EarthboundX The word of the day is "used." The used price varies quite a lot, based on condition, whether it's stolen, how old it is, and how long it's been sitting unsold in the pawnshop.

@LordXenophon I know the word used, haha, but under 100 for a PS3, wow.

@Torinir I've played Doom 3, and Half Life 2 on both the Xbox, and PC, they pretty much played the same, controller and KB and M, both work fine.

@Torinir I've had as much fun playing an FPS on a PC as I've had on a console. Since enjoyment is kind of the point of entertainment, not being able to pull off specific moves, I'd say the experiences are very comparable. Besides, when I play CoD4 online, I'm playing against other people using the exact same control setup as me. They can't do any moves that I can't do, so the experience isn't diluted in any way. Same thing when I play Team Fortress on a PC.

And I so called it. You pretty much ignored every other point I made once you found one that conflicts with your point of view.

@mykalgaidin That reminds me of someone....

You pretty much ignored every other point I made once you found one that conflicts with your point of view.

Great quote. She...

It's just a matter of finding the pawn shop where nobody who wants a PS3 ever goes. It also helps if the pawn guy only paid $50 for it, which happens a lot more than you might think.

@EarthboundX Didn't ignore you, your post didn't show up until after I'd finished typing mine. And I agreed with you.

Out of curiosity, what points of view have I ignored? I didn't ignore (to the best of my knowledge, but I'm not perfect), I simply disagreed.

And I'd love to pay under $100 for a PS3. Where can I get in on that, LargusGenitalias?

@Torinir I would definitely have to say that a mouse makes fancy plays a little more accessible for your average player. Believe me I used to have some Quake 3 arena videos that would make your eyes bleed. But to say they aren't doable on console, wrong. Ive seen better plays in MLG console FPS play than ive ever seen in a PC FPS. Its just a matter of getting used to not over compensating with the analog stick.

Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyxNln_4EWQ

@mykalgaidin I was just quoting what you said, cause I liked it, haha.

@mykalgaidin I agree with you, controllers work just fine with FPS.

@mykalgaidin Lol, I though "M$" was quite imaginative! Yes, Msoft (◄ is that better?) is a company, but they are also a company that goes to ridiculous lengths to make a profit.

Yes, games are games, not going to fight you there. I can't even really say that games on certain platforms are better than others just because of the platform it's on, but I guess this issue emerges from porting (i.e. the Battlefield games on the PC vs. the Battlefield games on the consoles).

I'd be hard pressed to argue over whether or not we should even be paying for Xbox Live. Yes, it comes with features that might arguably be worth the money, but really what do we get for that $50 a year? Arguably all the best features come free with a free, Silver membership, but we have to pay to be able to play games online with others? Where is the sense in that? Even Sony doesn't charge for online play because they know they shouldn't. Msoft (◄ ;-) ) doesn't even offer dedicated servers, which I think would be a fucking godsend considering the amount of latency issues on Live.

Personally, I think that since the right mod community literally means that you'll never run out of of things to do in the game.

Unfortunately however, people like me are in the low minority.

I think what MW2 are doing is going to kill the competitve community, its barely there with MW but without modding tools and no servers to buy you got no pro mod, you got no interaction with the community that truly makes this game feel unique. As soon as i heard that no servers were being released and it was all basically gonna be match making i just felt sorry for all the CoD teams gearing up ready for this release...

How are they going to play clan matches without dedicated servers? Without servers they control to put configs on...

To me a game is as good as it is as long as it has a competitive streak withit and for IW to take this out of their games is just fucking dumb... I'm sorry but it really is. They will loose sales over this decision and some groups might come out like the L4D boycott group... which i would join as i know myself with in IW there are people in there that have clans that played MW.

@danblu3 There's already 3 steam boycott groups against MW2 and an XFire group as well. The petition is up to 130k sigs. And the response by IW and 402 has been nothing less than a slap in the face to the PC gamer.

I am no longer disappointed, I'm furious. I'll be getting Bad Company 2 when it releases.

@Torinir I'm not so annoyed I'd sign a petition, not that game petitions ever do anything.

@EarthboundX It won't do anything, that's a certainty. IW has slammed the door shut on that point. But how they justified their stance was horrendous. And I don't mean the failed logic, either.

Insulting your customers publicly doesn't bode well for your potential sales.

And given a recent article on comments made by the CEO of Activision, it's giving us PC gamers a reason to believe that MW2 and probably most of the future releases by ATVI will be lighter and lighter on actual content and more about how much money they can beat out of their customers through DLC's and subscription based services.

http://bit.ly/NlDdK

@Torinir Egh, I hate most DLC, just look at Street Fighter 4 and Little Big Story, so much pointless skins for money.

I think ATVI wants their games to become like that one train sim that's on Steam, where there's tons of DLC's but the base game itself has little to no content.

@Torinir Well they will lose tons of customers if they do that.

Another example of bad DLC, I just bought Resident Evil 5 from Gamefly. I know they released a Vs mode, for 5 bucks, but from what I understand, it was already on the disc.

So they were just charging people for content that was already on the flipping disc!!

Man that pisses me off!

Plus the fact that playing a Vs game where you have to stand still to shoot is so stupid.

Agreed.

And if I recall correctly, RE5 wasn't the only recent release to have "DLC" actually be content that was already on the disk.

I think gamers in general are getting crapped on more and more.

But until we start slamming back at the companies that do this kind of BS, we're gonna keep getting lower quality games and less content while paying premium pricing. And the game makers will say "it's better that way." And sadly, some people will believe them.

@Torinir Well Hopefully Nintendo won't start on this DLC crap.

And I mean Nintendo itself, not all the crappy shovelware on the Wii. Nintendo itself is still the best first party developers out there, imo.

Oh, and I know Borderlands are already talking about DLC, and the game just came out! Wouldn't be surprised if that zombie DLC was already on the disc.

Same with Dragon Age Origins, already talking about DLC.

The only actually good DLC I can think of is for Fallout 3, and maybe some of the Fable 2 stuff.

@EarthboundX Yeah, Fallout 3 DLC pretty much contain really cheap expansion packs.

GOTY Edition FO3 went quite well with all expansions on there, but yes i can see why everyone is a bit miffed at what IW is doing.

Yeah they arent bad, except Op. Anchorage, which you can play through in 30 mins and is completely linear, no joke. But Broken Steel is awesome and point lookout has a nice area to explore.

Its just lack of the draw really on what games will give you now a days.

@JohnyQuesticle OA is one of those expansions that is best completed early in the game. Power armor + Gauss rifle before you hit L10 is sick.

@Torinir Can you complete it at 10?

You can complete it at any time once you get the signal from the Outcast base.

I'm another unhappy PC Gamer who is NOT buying this title until its fixed. I'm not dropping $60 on a broken game.

Yeah even though everyone loves to hate Halo 3 its a damn console game and still has matchmaking for your average player and a slew of custom options and forge for the map editing and MLG or clan playtypes. No real excuse these days to not have something of the like in such a huge title like MW2.

Well, all I can say is that I've taken the money I would have spent on MW2 and preordered Borderlands and DAO. :o

@Torinir Very good choices!

@Torinir Good choice indeed mate, and yea it sucks about what MW2 are doing. I wonder how it will play through though.

From what I'm seeing and hearing, it's supposed to be a bit of a mix between a FPS and WoW.

Ah yes a modern warfare WoW hybrid, our prayers has been answered... NOT.

LOL... nah, there's no vs modes from what I can tell, it's all co-op play, so it's not as important to have a ping balance than it is for balance in a vs heavy game like Call of Duty.

Oh i lost the plot i thought you was still on about MW2. Yea BL is sick enjoy it mate. x

Whoops, I thought you were inquiring about Borderlands. lol

well it could be a problem in some way. But im pretty sure it is not as insane as you expect if you actually played the game for awhile. Never judge the books from its cover until you have actually played on hands.

Ok here's the deal. Save your money, hold off for a week or so. I'll play the game and review it for you. Then you can make a decision. I'm talking about the PC version, no point in comparing it to other things (thats all just fuzz right now).