If you read this site regularly - or for that matter many other gaming websites - you have surely heard the flash and thunder surrounding the PC version of Modern Warfare 2. More likely than not, most of you are already Sick and Tired of the debate, and have either jumped to your chosen side of the fence or tuned out.

That's understandable. There are far more important things to be angry about, and "our" (namely PC gamers') behavior is making opposition to Infinity Ward's decisions look petty, a waste of rage from a bunch of spoiled, out-of-touch curmudgeons. I'm frankly disappointed at many PC fans for the tone they've taken, and the sense of entitlement permeating some of the arguments has just soured the discourse.

At the same time, I feel that we have a point, one that gamers who don't have the details need to hear. To make our case known may help others see just what it is we stand to lose, and perhaps even understand what they might have to gain should they decide to advocate in our favor.



Lockdown

Some console gamers may be confused as to why we're ticked off about this. Understanding requires that one dig deeper, to what lies under any one concrete feature being discussed.

What lies at the heart of this issue isn't dedicated servers, player caps or mod tools. What lies in the eye of the storm here is a question of control, specifically, how much control players have over their experience of their game. How much power should the publisher and developer be able to actively wield over their audience? In Infinity Ward and Activision's case, the answer seems to be "all of it."

If you've ever come across a PC vs. console debate, you've probably read the word "console-ification" being thrown around as an insult. You've probably brushed it off like you might brush off the insult "microsh*tting f*gtart." Unfortunately, it's much more true than many of us would like to admit. Consoles are essentially closed platforms. From patch certification to censorship to DLC, players exist at the mercy of their "benevolent" publisher, manufacturer and developer overlords.

That situation has its own benefits for the audience, of course. It's overlord's interest to make consoles and their software attractive by keeping the experience streamlined and accessible. At the same time, the potential for abuse is almost infinite. Certain publishers' various DLC schemes are good examples of how power can corrupt.

It's been creeping into PC gaming for some time now. EULAs, DRM, install limits, and even digital distribution, all have allowed overlords to exert more and more power over the player. The result is that people don't really own the games they buy anymore. You don't buy a game, but a license to play. At times, gamers are treated less like customers and more like supplicants.



YOU CAN'T DOING IT WRONG

New generations of games, on PC and consoles alike, have consistently championed a player's freedom to "play the way they like." Huge releases like LittleBigPlanet and the Xbox Indie Games toolset are built around the idea of allowing users to direct and create their own experiences. To an extent, even RPGs like Fallout 3, action games like Red Faction: Guerrilla and shooters like Far Cry 2 have laid claim to liberating players.

But that's not the entire truth. Players are "liberated" within very specific boundaries. You can make any level you like in LittleBigPlanet, as long as it doesn't look like a level from another game. You can play the way you want, but only as far as the overlords will let you.

That's rarely the case with the PC, though. Mod tools, the command console, and the ability to dig into files allows PC players to endlessly tinker with the games they play. For multiplayer games, like-minded players could gather in their own servers, playing whatever insane mods or maps they liked. Modern Warfare 2 put the lid on all of that, through the forced integration of its IW.net service (and cutting server support), and the lack of mod tools or other essential tweaking devices.

The ability to add customized content is something that PC players take for granted, and is something console gamers will want to start demanding more often, if they truly like the idea of creating their own experiences. Infinity Ward's decision to exert absolute control over Modern Warfare 2 has essentially locked players out of the game, further reducing any sense of ownership they have.

Of course, one might ask why mods are necessary at all. Shouldn't we be content to play the game the way its developers intended? Sure, that may be true. They have undoubtedly put a lot of work getting Modern Warfare "just right" for everybody, but it should be said that some of the greatest games of all time were born from players' ability to screw around with the games they buy.

Counter-Strike, Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead, and even base concepts for games like Battlefield 2 (whose developers were hired out of a mod team by DICE), all came from mods. Locking down the game the way they've done will ensure that, now and forever, Modern Warfare 2 will only be experienced the way that Activision and Infinity Ward want you experience it, and at the price they want you to pay.



Garbage in, garbage out

Amateur programmers and most anyone who's played seriously on a PC might be familiar with the saying above. It's true: gaming on the PC can be, at times, too much work. Forwarding ports, adjusting drivers, playing with .ini files, coordinating hardware setups, and all kinds of bullsh*t holds up the experience.

At the same time, it's that kind of flexibility, that freewheeling nature that makes PC gaming the most liberal, open, universal environment around, the kind that's helped birth a significant percentage of Indie Nation's subject matter.

Modern Warfare 2 will now never be a part of that. While Infinity Ward's decisions have theoretically stopped anyone from putting "garbage" into the system - through cheating, hacks and things that require high levels of access - they've also prevented anyone from using genuine work and genius to squeeze gems out of the incredible engine they've created. While it is ultimately their decision to make, it is one that shows just how they regard the things that make the PC platform so unique.

Of course, it's not necessarily within Infinity Ward's interests to give gamers the ability to go through Modern Warfare 2's guts. After all, why let players create their own maps when they can be made to pay for new map packs? Why allow players to mod in a zombie mode or hyper-realistic gametype themselves, when they could be made to buy the same through DLC? Games are a business, and there is money is to be made. More than any other thing, absolute control of a platform allows for absolute control of how content is monetized. Short of buying all the world's computers and replacing them with consoles, this is as close as Activision and Infinity Ward will get to exerting absolute control over PC gamers.



A two-way street

Don't get me wrong though. This isn't All Their Fault. PC gamers have willingly ceded some of their control in exchange convenience and ease of access. Steam and digital distribution are hallmarks of this change. I love Steam, as a service. It's critical to the way I play PC games, and without it I wouldn't have much of my game catalog. Further still, an amateur analysis of Steam's DRM functions shows that even with this partial cession of my ownership, Steam remains the most liberal, friendly and diverse platform in the PC gaming space.

But if I love Steam so much, why am I upset? After all, Modern Warfare 2 will be using Steamworks, and Steam's competitors are boycotting the game in protest. Shouldn't I be happy that the biggest PC game release in a long while will be fully integrated with my platform of choice?

Sadly, I'm not technically proficient enough to provide a detailed answer to that question, so I'll cop out and let Ars Technica and PC Gamer's Tim Edwards explain some of the math behind my distress.

For some color I'll just put up a couple of quotes from IW's dream-crushing Q&A session, and Ars Technica's response:

"Q: Ignoring IW.net, is the PC version a direct port of the console version?"
"A: No, PC has custom stuff like mouse control, text chat in game, and graphics settings."
"Ars Technica: This is the amount of work that went into the PC version: you are given the ability to use a mouse, to use text chat, and to adjust graphical settings. Are your fears now put to rest?"



Silent antagonist

I did however mention early on that these changes highlight the struggle for control above all. That's what hasn't been sitting well with me.

As noted above, Steam is now the de facto standard for the PC gaming industry. That wasn't always the case. It took Steam a long time to become what it is now, and Infinity Ward's decisions (especially with IW.net) remind me quite unpleasantly of Steam's early, painful days.

The releases of Half-Life 2, Bioshock, and even Call of Duty 4 serve as stark monuments to the obstacles laying in the path to the top. Authentication servers melted down, networking errors chocked the channels, and virtual structures collapsed under the press of millions of eager gamers. Some games were practically unplayable for days as 3rd-party DRM clashed with Valve's own processes, and people got pissed off.

No matter how many times Valve insisted that they were ready for the crunch, nearly every super-huge launch exploded spectacularly on day one (and not in a good way). And this is on the most stable, reliable system around. Even Valve wasn't out to shatter the foundations of the PC multiplayer environment, as Infinity Ward is set to do.



They're not stupid. They know what they're doing, and teamed up with Valve, they've never been in a better position to try. And yet they've refused to talk to us, to convince us that what they're doing is worth it. Valve spent years hyping up Steam. They released game after game on the platform long in advance of Half-Life 2, and still botched the launch so badly that "Steam" became a dirty word for some time after. Is it any wonder that we're skeptical?

By comparison, the "hype" for Modern Warfare 2's foundation-shattering features came almost without notice. The server cuts were only revealed on a random podcast. We only found out about the lack of mod tools and admin controls on a live chat session a week ago. [b]The damn game launches in tomorrow. And all they give us in response is a plea for our trust?

Everything they've done so far reveals a seemingly calculated lack of concern. Had the question not been asked on that podcast, I get the impression that they'd just have gone ahead launched, letting the changes spring up on everyone like a World at War attack dog. Rock Paper Shotgun has a rather apt reference to The Hobbit that I'll use here:

"You know the scene in the Hobbit where they arrive at Beorn’s house? Rather than the whole mass of ‘em going in at once, they just send a couple in first, and then gradually reveal exactly how many dwarves are going to be scoffing his honeycakes. The idea being, that he’d tell them to sling their hook if they all marched in at once. Since the number of how many smelly, bearded bastards are going to be staying in his gaff creeps up on him, he rolls with it."

That's what's happened. Rather than being transparent about it and letting us know just how this could possibly be better than what we're used to, Infinity Ward let the dwarves sneak in, all in the hope that we wouldn't look around and see the sh*t-ton of dwarves mucking up the carpet.



The Gorill-Arrrr in the room

You could simply dismiss this all as a wake-up call to PC gamers, a bucket of water in the face that finally convinces us that Consoles Are Where It's At. Unlike some frothing lunatics, most of us know that we're no longer the dominant platform. That doesn't change the fact that Infinity Ward is asking us to take a big step in the dark, without those Prestige Edition goggles.

And of course there's piracy. Things get ugly whenever this is brought up, so I'll just link to an early post, and add this: If piracy prevention was Infinity Ward's only concern, the forced Steam install would have have done everything they could possibly manage, perhaps even more than doing some stupid sh*t like using Starforce or SecuROM. The server controls et al are irrelevant to the matter and only serves to highlight how much they intend to clamp down on the audience.

Whether this is all worth it will eventually be decided by the game's performance. My point is that we're not overreacting. We're not flailing about irrationally. The parties involved have given us no concrete reason to believe that Modern Warfare 2 will be significantly better for the change, and all evidence so far - from the raised price point ($60 from $50) to the stealth announcements - points to their using the weight of the game's release to establish precedent for deepening the level of control they have over the individual player's experience.

To answer the question that I have undoubtedly raised in your mind, no, I'm not boycotting the game. I barely play multiplayer games on any platform, so its actual impact on me personally is minimal.

And yet the fact alone that I'm upset serves to highlight why we think the issue is so significant. Modern Warfare 2 is the biggest release in a long time, and will have some influence on the future of PC gaming. Therefore, I encourage anyone concerned about what that future might look like to vote with their wallets.

This is by no means the end. This is just one game. The PC is the most liberated gaming platform you'll ever find. I just want folks to know what it might mean for them should they decide to give that liberty up.