surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
It's been done before; plenty of games that get DLC already have un-activated parts of extra content on the disc.
10 to 1, DLC. Maybe half-finished on the disk and still in development. Maybe completely finished and just waiting for an arbitrary "release date" and a price tag.
Either way, if it's on the disk already, I'm not shelling out my money for it. This seems to be becoming a running trend in the industry and I already think it's bullshit.
Either way, if it's on the disk already, I'm not shelling out my money for it. This seems to be becoming a running trend in the industry and I already think it's bullshit.
Devil's Advocate: Two things.
Maybe it'll be like the Mosh Pit and Deathmatch Express playlists, and the gametypes will be randomly added at a later time. Possible reasons include: failure to fully debug the gametypes, failure to make the gametypes properly balanced on enough maps, or maybe just the business model of releasing features a bit at a time to keep the game fresh.
Second, there haven't been many games (I can't recall any personally) that sold basic gametypes (two of them are CTF and VIP variations) as DLC. So, I'm somewhat skeptical that they'll sell them as standalone DLC. Perhaps they'll include them with the inevitable Map Packs to sweeten the deal (though maybe charging more because of it), and the new maps might also be designed with the new gametypes in mind. Maybe it will be like Payload in TF2, considering that the Global Thermonuclear War gametype is somewhat unique.
Maybe it'll be like the Mosh Pit and Deathmatch Express playlists, and the gametypes will be randomly added at a later time. Possible reasons include: failure to fully debug the gametypes, failure to make the gametypes properly balanced on enough maps, or maybe just the business model of releasing features a bit at a time to keep the game fresh.
Second, there haven't been many games (I can't recall any personally) that sold basic gametypes (two of them are CTF and VIP variations) as DLC. So, I'm somewhat skeptical that they'll sell them as standalone DLC. Perhaps they'll include them with the inevitable Map Packs to sweeten the deal (though maybe charging more because of it), and the new maps might also be designed with the new gametypes in mind. Maybe it will be like Payload in TF2, considering that the Global Thermonuclear War gametype is somewhat unique.
The thing is, there can be more to this than the money. The initial development could have included this as a measure to help keep people playing the game.
You've got Modern Warfare 2, an amazing multiplayer suite, but when players start to let their interest lapse a bit and move on to other games, they've got this quick and ready-made ace-in-the-hole to help draw some of their customers back to the game. And that will probably provide them enough time to have something else fully tested and prepared for the next lapse, something they'll have been working on essentially since the release of the game itself.
It seems to me that it was probably a move to buy themselves more development time for DLC, or for whatever else they're working on. They don't have to cram together a lousy content pack a few months out to keep the playerbase interested, they can just "unlock" the content they've already made and continue working on something that's slated for further down the line.
It's smart. It's just lousy to have to pay extra later for something already on the disk.
You've got Modern Warfare 2, an amazing multiplayer suite, but when players start to let their interest lapse a bit and move on to other games, they've got this quick and ready-made ace-in-the-hole to help draw some of their customers back to the game. And that will probably provide them enough time to have something else fully tested and prepared for the next lapse, something they'll have been working on essentially since the release of the game itself.
It seems to me that it was probably a move to buy themselves more development time for DLC, or for whatever else they're working on. They don't have to cram together a lousy content pack a few months out to keep the playerbase interested, they can just "unlock" the content they've already made and continue working on something that's slated for further down the line.
It's smart. It's just lousy to have to pay extra later for something already on the disk.
@Sexualchocolate: Indeed.
Could be something they cut out of the game pre-launch offc. But restricitng content that's already on the disc looks like the new trend. :p
Could be something they cut out of the game pre-launch offc. But restricitng content that's already on the disc looks like the new trend. :p
@Guncannon
I doubt the TF2 Payload model will be true, as this works on existing maps. If that was the case, they shouldn't have a spawnpoint for the Nuke.
I doubt the TF2 Payload model will be true, as this works on existing maps. If that was the case, they shouldn't have a spawnpoint for the Nuke.
@Jon B
Yeah, I stretched things a little for that point. Still, I was thinking more in terms of gameplay balance. I can see if they wouldn't make one gametype available if, during playtesting, one side seemed to win far too often on enough maps, or some other factor (like perks) that made the gametype less fun.
Yeah, I stretched things a little for that point. Still, I was thinking more in terms of gameplay balance. I can see if they wouldn't make one gametype available if, during playtesting, one side seemed to win far too often on enough maps, or some other factor (like perks) that made the gametype less fun.
There is two parts to this story I'd say. They will either be just put up sometime since we've already seen how quick they can change playlists and have it work. Or it will be dlc but with new maps that are built for the playlists. I can't believe anyone would think that Infinity Ward would charge for playlists.
@Guncannon
Yeah, I see what you mean. I'd imagine most of the S&D maps would already be balanced for it, but hey, IW are so determined that the game isn't balanced for anything that I'd believe you if you said that was their excuse.
Yeah, I see what you mean. I'd imagine most of the S&D maps would already be balanced for it, but hey, IW are so determined that the game isn't balanced for anything that I'd believe you if you said that was their excuse.
Oh, fucking sweet, they used my tip :D
Yeah, I'd seen this and I figured that somebody should pick up on it. If they charge for DLC that's included with the retail game so many are going to be pissed.
Well...more pissed than we already are at IW/Activision for gimping the PC version.
Yeah, I'd seen this and I figured that somebody should pick up on it. If they charge for DLC that's included with the retail game so many are going to be pissed.
Well...more pissed than we already are at IW/Activision for gimping the PC version.
Possibly special playlists that they will roll out from time to time (similar to Halo 3's double exp weekend playlists).
if its on the disc when i buy it i should own it. Unlockable content and DLC on the release disc is utter garbage and a ploy to make more money.
hahaha this is great. im enjoying pc users fighting back with this game.
if only people hadnt bought some 300 million billion copies, i'd be happier. but, whatever. at least we pc gamers have a better chance of being taken more seriously next time around (not that i will buy that game either, but whatever)
if only people hadnt bought some 300 million billion copies, i'd be happier. but, whatever. at least we pc gamers have a better chance of being taken more seriously next time around (not that i will buy that game either, but whatever)
Sorry guys, this is the way they meant the game to be. It's the developers' vision. If you don't agree with every aspect of the game, you are a crybaby with a false sense of entitlement. Sorry.
@-PL-
I kept thinking that was sarcasm every time I read it. It took me at least 4 times to realize you probably were serious.
I kept thinking that was sarcasm every time I read it. It took me at least 4 times to realize you probably were serious.
@-PL-
We can disagree with any aspect of the game we wish. It's just foolish to demand that it be different because we "deserve" more; I don't think anyone has even done that here. Personally, I disagree with the "No Russian" mission's inclusion, and I disagree with this. I don't think the game's design should be any different based on the fact that I disagree with it, or that different choices should have been made to please me specifically. I don't think the game is even any worse for wear because of their choices, either. It's still a great game.
I just think the trend of "unlocking" content and labeling it DLC is bullshit. Period.
We can disagree with any aspect of the game we wish. It's just foolish to demand that it be different because we "deserve" more; I don't think anyone has even done that here. Personally, I disagree with the "No Russian" mission's inclusion, and I disagree with this. I don't think the game's design should be any different based on the fact that I disagree with it, or that different choices should have been made to please me specifically. I don't think the game is even any worse for wear because of their choices, either. It's still a great game.
I just think the trend of "unlocking" content and labeling it DLC is bullshit. Period.
-PL-
Yes, Activision/IW MEANT the game to not have dedicated servers, MEANT it to have the Console just be "locked", MEANT for DLC to be charged even though it is on the disk (PS3/XBox 360) or downloaded (Steam). Yes, you console gamers are getting screwed too. This is Scamco version 2. If you think we are crybabies for getting ripped off, someone needs a brain.
Everything Activision and IW have said to us about MW2 was a lie. Just like the cake.
Yes, Activision/IW MEANT the game to not have dedicated servers, MEANT it to have the Console just be "locked", MEANT for DLC to be charged even though it is on the disk (PS3/XBox 360) or downloaded (Steam). Yes, you console gamers are getting screwed too. This is Scamco version 2. If you think we are crybabies for getting ripped off, someone needs a brain.
Everything Activision and IW have said to us about MW2 was a lie. Just like the cake.
-PL-
It seems you are just a rather bitter person about the fact that only the PC version is getting all this free stuff. Frankly for the extra 10 dollars that PC gamers had to pay to get it the unlocking of free DLC is rather apropos.
It seems you are just a rather bitter person about the fact that only the PC version is getting all this free stuff. Frankly for the extra 10 dollars that PC gamers had to pay to get it the unlocking of free DLC is rather apropos.
@Nortonantivirus
I think you're overstating things just as badly as -PL-. These were design decisions. To be "screwed" implies that we were told one thing and given another. We were not promised gold and given shit in a box. I don't recall hearing about any other gametypes until this discovery. I don't recall being told that they would be available with a direct purchase of the game.
Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to state that gamers that purchase Modern Warfare 2 are being ripped off. They are buying an excellent, well-developed title. The lack of dedicated servers is a bust for some. The "unlock" method may be a lousy thing to do, but such decisions do not in fact imply, suggest, or prove that the game itself as purchased is bad or not worth the price tag.
I think you're overstating things just as badly as -PL-. These were design decisions. To be "screwed" implies that we were told one thing and given another. We were not promised gold and given shit in a box. I don't recall hearing about any other gametypes until this discovery. I don't recall being told that they would be available with a direct purchase of the game.
Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous to state that gamers that purchase Modern Warfare 2 are being ripped off. They are buying an excellent, well-developed title. The lack of dedicated servers is a bust for some. The "unlock" method may be a lousy thing to do, but such decisions do not in fact imply, suggest, or prove that the game itself as purchased is bad or not worth the price tag.
@Blindfire
Several weeks before launch, this was said by 402, the community manager for IW in regards to MP on the PC "PC will be the same it always was". Now, given the fact that all the other CoD titles developed by IW have had dedicated servers, wouldn't you think that statement to mean that there would have been dedicated server code?
Then, just a couple weeks closer to launch, the IWNet shit dropped. PC got SCREWED. And yes, PC gamers who buy this shit are getting ripped off. $10 more for a console port, and a horribly shoddy one at that? RIP OFF. And yes, it's a terribly shoddy port. Please, head on over to the IW forums once they come back up (they've apparently crashed as of now) and take a look at all the technical issues with the game, most likely a DIRECT RESULT OF THE PORTING PROCESS. Blue screens, memory errors, locking and freezing after loading levels, players with ATI cards (ironically ATI makes the Xbox GPU chip) have issues rendering the water in the game. It uses the SAME engine as CoD 4 FFS. The only plausible explanation is that they didn't take the time to even bother with the PC version and just ported it straight over from the Xbox without even messing with the code too much, which is evidenced by the fact that opening up the dev console (which had to be hacked open despite the fact that the manual that comes with the retail game has the ~ key assigned to "CONSOLE" on the controls page) and typing in "xblive", which produces several results about connecting to LIVE.
So, yes, any PC gamer that supports this shit supports companies taking a shit on PC gamers as a whole. I will call them traitors and I will say "TOLD YOU SO" when they complain about the shittiness of the experience. IW/Activision sold this as a PC game, only those of us who patrol the Internet looking for these tidbits of news knew about it before launch, just look at how far the petition has shot up since launch. Angry people finding out and feeling duped that they spent $60 on a POS console port.
Sorry, but it's time to "nut up or shut up" and if you can't nut up as a PC gamer, then shut up.
Several weeks before launch, this was said by 402, the community manager for IW in regards to MP on the PC "PC will be the same it always was". Now, given the fact that all the other CoD titles developed by IW have had dedicated servers, wouldn't you think that statement to mean that there would have been dedicated server code?
Then, just a couple weeks closer to launch, the IWNet shit dropped. PC got SCREWED. And yes, PC gamers who buy this shit are getting ripped off. $10 more for a console port, and a horribly shoddy one at that? RIP OFF. And yes, it's a terribly shoddy port. Please, head on over to the IW forums once they come back up (they've apparently crashed as of now) and take a look at all the technical issues with the game, most likely a DIRECT RESULT OF THE PORTING PROCESS. Blue screens, memory errors, locking and freezing after loading levels, players with ATI cards (ironically ATI makes the Xbox GPU chip) have issues rendering the water in the game. It uses the SAME engine as CoD 4 FFS. The only plausible explanation is that they didn't take the time to even bother with the PC version and just ported it straight over from the Xbox without even messing with the code too much, which is evidenced by the fact that opening up the dev console (which had to be hacked open despite the fact that the manual that comes with the retail game has the ~ key assigned to "CONSOLE" on the controls page) and typing in "xblive", which produces several results about connecting to LIVE.
So, yes, any PC gamer that supports this shit supports companies taking a shit on PC gamers as a whole. I will call them traitors and I will say "TOLD YOU SO" when they complain about the shittiness of the experience. IW/Activision sold this as a PC game, only those of us who patrol the Internet looking for these tidbits of news knew about it before launch, just look at how far the petition has shot up since launch. Angry people finding out and feeling duped that they spent $60 on a POS console port.
Sorry, but it's time to "nut up or shut up" and if you can't nut up as a PC gamer, then shut up.
I still don't see what the problem is with paying the same as the console version for a slightly better game overall.
@Arkhon
It's not "better". There's nothing in MW2 that's better than MW1. Oh, and the console version only costs $60 because there's a licensing fee through MS and Sony. That tacked on $10 is nothing but pure profit for Activision. Nothing more than $10 worth of wallet raped tacked on there because they knew they could get away with it on such a huge franchise.
In short, this game is shit compared to what it should have been, you know, A PROPER FUCKING PC GAME.
It's not "better". There's nothing in MW2 that's better than MW1. Oh, and the console version only costs $60 because there's a licensing fee through MS and Sony. That tacked on $10 is nothing but pure profit for Activision. Nothing more than $10 worth of wallet raped tacked on there because they knew they could get away with it on such a huge franchise.
In short, this game is shit compared to what it should have been, you know, A PROPER FUCKING PC GAME.
@N0R3M0RS3
"PC will be the same as it always was". Did they say there would be dedicated servers? That seems to me to be a pretty general statement, likely referring to the idea that the game will be good. More than likely said in order to help ensure more PC gamers purchase the game. I don't see a promise there. Just a statement made by somebody trying to keep people happy and ready to pick up the product.
I don't recall arguing for the dropping of dedicated servers. I think it's crap, especially as a person who cut his teeth on PC FPS games. The dedicated server is a staple of PC multiplayer, and should have been included. I won't be spending my money on the PC version for exactly this reason, but I also think that everyone has the right to make up their own minds on the subject. Value, generally speaking, is subjective.
Technical issues are present in all games. Not just PC games - everything. You can find bugs anywhere if you're looking for them. Modern Warfare 2 may have more than its fair share of bugs, and yes, I am more than willing to stipulate that they are probably present due to the porting process.
Finally, any PC gamer that purchases this game pretty much just supports this game and supports this company. They may not be well informed. They may not care. It doesn't really matter. But there is no grand conspiracy going on here; I don't think anyone's going to look at Infinity Ward and jump onboard the fail train they've created with the PC release of MW2. Gamers will put their money where they think they can get the most value. The more gamers burned by their experience with the PC version, the less of an audience Infinity Ward is going to have for its next title coming to the platform. There is a consequence for every action, and Infinity Ward may well feel the sting of their actions in the future.
As for 'nutting up or shutting up', I'm not sure what to say in response. I'm not spending my money on it for PC because I don't want to spend years waiting for patches to make it as playable as the console counterparts (which, I would be willing to bet, it eventually will be), so... infer what you will from that, I suppose.
"PC will be the same as it always was". Did they say there would be dedicated servers? That seems to me to be a pretty general statement, likely referring to the idea that the game will be good. More than likely said in order to help ensure more PC gamers purchase the game. I don't see a promise there. Just a statement made by somebody trying to keep people happy and ready to pick up the product.
I don't recall arguing for the dropping of dedicated servers. I think it's crap, especially as a person who cut his teeth on PC FPS games. The dedicated server is a staple of PC multiplayer, and should have been included. I won't be spending my money on the PC version for exactly this reason, but I also think that everyone has the right to make up their own minds on the subject. Value, generally speaking, is subjective.
Technical issues are present in all games. Not just PC games - everything. You can find bugs anywhere if you're looking for them. Modern Warfare 2 may have more than its fair share of bugs, and yes, I am more than willing to stipulate that they are probably present due to the porting process.
Finally, any PC gamer that purchases this game pretty much just supports this game and supports this company. They may not be well informed. They may not care. It doesn't really matter. But there is no grand conspiracy going on here; I don't think anyone's going to look at Infinity Ward and jump onboard the fail train they've created with the PC release of MW2. Gamers will put their money where they think they can get the most value. The more gamers burned by their experience with the PC version, the less of an audience Infinity Ward is going to have for its next title coming to the platform. There is a consequence for every action, and Infinity Ward may well feel the sting of their actions in the future.
As for 'nutting up or shutting up', I'm not sure what to say in response. I'm not spending my money on it for PC because I don't want to spend years waiting for patches to make it as playable as the console counterparts (which, I would be willing to bet, it eventually will be), so... infer what you will from that, I suppose.
@Blindfire
No...just, no. That statement was pretty much a straight up lie. That statement was designed to not piss off the fan-base on PC...and it came back to bite them in the ass. They say that IWNet (FAILNet seems a more appropriate term) is the biggest investment they've ever made towards one of their PC games. Now, as such, would you not be lead to believe that they had begun working on this a little sooner than a month before the game released, that at the time of that statement he was in full knowledge of the consolization of the PC version? It seems quite apparent that he was knowledgeable of the changes and yet blatantly lied about it at a more popular venue than the one where he announced IWNet, a small podcast listened to mostly by modders (really stupid place to decide to announce it, right in the faces of the people it affects the most).
And, no, you may not have mentioned dedis specifically, but you did ask how exactly the game constituted a ripoff...and, well, a 5 hour campaign and FAILNet makes for a pretty damned big ripoff.
And sure, technical issues may be present in other games, but other games aren't MW2. Other games aren't the biggest media release ever. They had an obligation to at least beta test the goddamned thing before they released it. Now, if they'd have played it in the current state it's in now, I'm pretty sure they'd have run into the problems that so many are running into.
There is no supporting IW or the game without supporting the shit they've given PC gamers as a whole. If you support them you provide positive feedback for their decisions, the shitty ones included. Behavior such as this can only be changed by providing negative consequences, especially with how much money is involved here. Being all kind, gentle and coddling them with 'constructive criticism' will only prove to do nothing. They'll promise to do better next time and then when time comes around again (2010-2011, judging by how often they're popping out these titles) to release a new one, it'll be the same shit all over again because they did it before and got the money. The only way to properly change this is to cut off the money, which is unfortunately an impossibility due to the console crowd lapping this shit up like it's milk laced with tobacco wrapped chunks of heroin. They're fucking addicted to anything that has "Call of Duty" slapped across the front of the pretty little box.
And from that I infer that you did not choose the nut up approach. I bet you're a smart enough guy to guess what I'd tell you to do then ;).
No...just, no. That statement was pretty much a straight up lie. That statement was designed to not piss off the fan-base on PC...and it came back to bite them in the ass. They say that IWNet (FAILNet seems a more appropriate term) is the biggest investment they've ever made towards one of their PC games. Now, as such, would you not be lead to believe that they had begun working on this a little sooner than a month before the game released, that at the time of that statement he was in full knowledge of the consolization of the PC version? It seems quite apparent that he was knowledgeable of the changes and yet blatantly lied about it at a more popular venue than the one where he announced IWNet, a small podcast listened to mostly by modders (really stupid place to decide to announce it, right in the faces of the people it affects the most).
And, no, you may not have mentioned dedis specifically, but you did ask how exactly the game constituted a ripoff...and, well, a 5 hour campaign and FAILNet makes for a pretty damned big ripoff.
And sure, technical issues may be present in other games, but other games aren't MW2. Other games aren't the biggest media release ever. They had an obligation to at least beta test the goddamned thing before they released it. Now, if they'd have played it in the current state it's in now, I'm pretty sure they'd have run into the problems that so many are running into.
There is no supporting IW or the game without supporting the shit they've given PC gamers as a whole. If you support them you provide positive feedback for their decisions, the shitty ones included. Behavior such as this can only be changed by providing negative consequences, especially with how much money is involved here. Being all kind, gentle and coddling them with 'constructive criticism' will only prove to do nothing. They'll promise to do better next time and then when time comes around again (2010-2011, judging by how often they're popping out these titles) to release a new one, it'll be the same shit all over again because they did it before and got the money. The only way to properly change this is to cut off the money, which is unfortunately an impossibility due to the console crowd lapping this shit up like it's milk laced with tobacco wrapped chunks of heroin. They're fucking addicted to anything that has "Call of Duty" slapped across the front of the pretty little box.
And from that I infer that you did not choose the nut up approach. I bet you're a smart enough guy to guess what I'd tell you to do then ;).
@N0R3M0RS3
I never said it was true. I said it was a statement, and conjectured that its purpose was probably aimed and designed to get people to not worry and spend their money on the PC version of the game. And, from your response, it certainly seems like it hasn't had the desired effect, and it has almost definitely bit them in the ass at least a little.
With regard to the PC version being a ripoff, I think you've sold me on that. An extra 10 bucks entirely for profit and less functionality than the console versions is certainly not fair by any stretch of the imagination. This I will concede; your argument is sound.
As for support, it's up to every individual to put their dollar where they think it will give them the most value, or where their conscience or values tell them to. Modern Warfare 2 for the 360, in my book, is an excellent value. If Infinity Ward's PC offerings do not perform up to par, I simply won't buy them. I have no criticism, constructive or otherwise, to offer them on the subject. They are a developer and I am a customer. I am only valuable to them because I am a market for their products. A means to an end, that end being profit. Perhaps eventually they will stop making PC games if enough people like me stop purchasing on the platform because the version is sub-par. Perhaps the lousy performance and inception will teach them to put more time and polish in on their PC offerings, to perk up the market and pick up gamers like me. I honestly don't know what the result will be, but poor performance in any medium with enough volume will almost certainly not go unnoticed for too long.
On the consoles, the game is good. The single player could stand to be longer, and I could still have done without the infamous "No Russian" segment, but that doesn't stop the game itself from being good. The PC version, apparently, does not perform up to par, and that is a pity indeed.
I never said it was true. I said it was a statement, and conjectured that its purpose was probably aimed and designed to get people to not worry and spend their money on the PC version of the game. And, from your response, it certainly seems like it hasn't had the desired effect, and it has almost definitely bit them in the ass at least a little.
With regard to the PC version being a ripoff, I think you've sold me on that. An extra 10 bucks entirely for profit and less functionality than the console versions is certainly not fair by any stretch of the imagination. This I will concede; your argument is sound.
As for support, it's up to every individual to put their dollar where they think it will give them the most value, or where their conscience or values tell them to. Modern Warfare 2 for the 360, in my book, is an excellent value. If Infinity Ward's PC offerings do not perform up to par, I simply won't buy them. I have no criticism, constructive or otherwise, to offer them on the subject. They are a developer and I am a customer. I am only valuable to them because I am a market for their products. A means to an end, that end being profit. Perhaps eventually they will stop making PC games if enough people like me stop purchasing on the platform because the version is sub-par. Perhaps the lousy performance and inception will teach them to put more time and polish in on their PC offerings, to perk up the market and pick up gamers like me. I honestly don't know what the result will be, but poor performance in any medium with enough volume will almost certainly not go unnoticed for too long.
On the consoles, the game is good. The single player could stand to be longer, and I could still have done without the infamous "No Russian" segment, but that doesn't stop the game itself from being good. The PC version, apparently, does not perform up to par, and that is a pity indeed.
@Blindfire
The "Unlock" DLC is known NOT to work on PC. It is also known to piss people off. Beautiful Katamari for the 360 had like 1/2 the game "Unlocked" with DLC. Did anyone think that was a good deal? I know that is overstating it a bit, but last time I checked I have yet to pay for DLC for L4D and TF2. Both have had major updates way after they were released. And TF2 came out over two years ago! Also $60 for a gimped version downloadable off of Steam? WTF is that?!?!
I am fully ignoring any glitches, as this does happen to every game. The XBox Live stuff may have been left over code not because of porting (Borderlands .ini files proves this). But if you don't give me the full game I paid for and take away features I expect (lean, servers, >9v9, ect), I say its a bad purchase.
Some people say we are wrong for feeling "entitled", but if Halo 3 or Killzone 2 had multiplayer that was worse than Halo 2 and KZ1 respectively and cost $70 (10 bucks more) wouldn't you feel ripped off?
The "Unlock" DLC is known NOT to work on PC. It is also known to piss people off. Beautiful Katamari for the 360 had like 1/2 the game "Unlocked" with DLC. Did anyone think that was a good deal? I know that is overstating it a bit, but last time I checked I have yet to pay for DLC for L4D and TF2. Both have had major updates way after they were released. And TF2 came out over two years ago! Also $60 for a gimped version downloadable off of Steam? WTF is that?!?!
I am fully ignoring any glitches, as this does happen to every game. The XBox Live stuff may have been left over code not because of porting (Borderlands .ini files proves this). But if you don't give me the full game I paid for and take away features I expect (lean, servers, >9v9, ect), I say its a bad purchase.
Some people say we are wrong for feeling "entitled", but if Halo 3 or Killzone 2 had multiplayer that was worse than Halo 2 and KZ1 respectively and cost $70 (10 bucks more) wouldn't you feel ripped off?
@Nortonantivirus
Just to be clear, I hate "unlock" DLC. I thought it was bullshit the first time I heard about it. I think it's bullshit now. You can bet everything you've got that I'll still think it's bullshit tomorrow morning. Having to pay extra for something that shipped with a game is a load of garbage that I absolutely do not agree with in the slightest.
My question is this. Can you say that anyone who paid for Modern Warfare 2 was doing so with the assumption that the content described in this article was included in the package? I know that I didn't know it was in there. I bought the game they gave me. Finding out this content was on the disk was a surprise to me, and as a result of this revelation I will not be partaking of any DLC purchases which include this content, because I do not believe I should be paying extra for something that shipped on the disk. So I won't partake of the content they produced in this manner, and I won't pay extra for it. But I did pay for what they led me to believe was in the package, and I got what I paid for. There was no snake oil to be had.
The PC version may have less than what you expected. It lacks certain important multiplayer features for PC games. It may not perform as well as some others have expected it to. They are right to be angry, and you certainly have a right to your own anger. The fundamental reason here being that games should work. People spend hard earned money on them, and they shouldn't have to spend more time doing tech support than enjoying the game. I've had this happen to me more than a few times, and it's about as raw a deal as it comes.
My argument is simply that one can not imply that we are being lied to or given a raw deal simply because this content (by this I mean only the "DLC") is on the disk. We were not told it would be on the disk when we bought it. We were not expressly told it wouldn't be, either. But this content was not used to coerce anyone into buying the game. No one made the purchase expecting this content, and then was rendered shocked to find it wasn't available.
I am still of the belief that the game should have included dedicated servers on the PC version. More than 9v9, from my perspective, was not really a must as much as the servers. Nice, but not absolutely essential. But the lack of dedicated servers was enough to ensure my purchase was for another platform. I think that it negatively impacts the multiplayer community of PC gamers, and thus I didn't spend my money on it. It was, for my money, a less attractive prospect than one of the console versions.
Just to be clear, I hate "unlock" DLC. I thought it was bullshit the first time I heard about it. I think it's bullshit now. You can bet everything you've got that I'll still think it's bullshit tomorrow morning. Having to pay extra for something that shipped with a game is a load of garbage that I absolutely do not agree with in the slightest.
My question is this. Can you say that anyone who paid for Modern Warfare 2 was doing so with the assumption that the content described in this article was included in the package? I know that I didn't know it was in there. I bought the game they gave me. Finding out this content was on the disk was a surprise to me, and as a result of this revelation I will not be partaking of any DLC purchases which include this content, because I do not believe I should be paying extra for something that shipped on the disk. So I won't partake of the content they produced in this manner, and I won't pay extra for it. But I did pay for what they led me to believe was in the package, and I got what I paid for. There was no snake oil to be had.
The PC version may have less than what you expected. It lacks certain important multiplayer features for PC games. It may not perform as well as some others have expected it to. They are right to be angry, and you certainly have a right to your own anger. The fundamental reason here being that games should work. People spend hard earned money on them, and they shouldn't have to spend more time doing tech support than enjoying the game. I've had this happen to me more than a few times, and it's about as raw a deal as it comes.
My argument is simply that one can not imply that we are being lied to or given a raw deal simply because this content (by this I mean only the "DLC") is on the disk. We were not told it would be on the disk when we bought it. We were not expressly told it wouldn't be, either. But this content was not used to coerce anyone into buying the game. No one made the purchase expecting this content, and then was rendered shocked to find it wasn't available.
I am still of the belief that the game should have included dedicated servers on the PC version. More than 9v9, from my perspective, was not really a must as much as the servers. Nice, but not absolutely essential. But the lack of dedicated servers was enough to ensure my purchase was for another platform. I think that it negatively impacts the multiplayer community of PC gamers, and thus I didn't spend my money on it. It was, for my money, a less attractive prospect than one of the console versions.
This is why Activision hates PC's - They can't charge the shit out of them for DLC that is already on the disc without people pulling the game apart. I bet this is why they are trying to fuck over PC owners so much so that they just grab the console versions instead.
a couple new games modes for DLC? I think not IW you can do much better than that. Plus we dont even know if it is real! why do we immediately jump to conclusions?
<a href="http://www.sohbethiphop.com" title="dans kurslari,hiphop,dans okulu,dans grubu,kadıköy dans kursları,dans kursları istanbul,dans casting,kadıköy,dugun dans dersi,dans koreograf,R&b,istanbul,break dance,dans" target="_blank">dans kursu</a>
<a href="http://www.trdans.com" title="dans dans dersi,hiphop,breakdance,dans casting,dugun dans dersi,dans koreograf,R&b,dans okulu,kadıköy dans kursları,dans grubu,istanbul,dans organizasyon,dans" target="_blank">dans kurslari istanbul</a>
<a href="http://www.dans.com.tr" title="dans kurslari,dans dersi,hiphop,salsa,dans organizasyon,kadıköy dans kursları,istanbul dans kursları,dans okulu,dans grubu,dans casting,dugun dansi dersi,istanbul,dans grubu,kadıköy,R&b,latin dans,break dance,dans" target="_blank">dans</a>
<a href="http://www.dansorganizasyon.org" title="dans dans dersi,dans organizasyon,dans ajanslari,dans ajans,,dans casting,dugun dans dersi,dans koreograf,R&b,dans okulu,kadıköy dans kursları,dans grubu,organizasyon firmasi,istanbul,dans organizasyon,dans" target="_blank">organizasyon</a>
<a href="http://www.facedans.com" title="dans dans organizasyonlari,dans organizasyon,dans ajanslari,dans ajans,,dans casting,organizasyon,organizasyonu,organizasyonlari,dugun dans dersi,dans koreograf,R&b,dans okulu,Face,Face dans,kadıköy dans kursları,dans grubu,organizasyon firmasi,istanbul,dans organizasyon,dans" target="_blank">Face</a>
<a href="http://www.trdans.com" title="dans dans dersi,hiphop,breakdance,dans casting,dugun dans dersi,dans koreograf,R&b,dans okulu,kadıköy dans kursları,dans grubu,istanbul,dans organizasyon,dans" target="_blank">dans kurslari istanbul</a>
<a href="http://www.dans.com.tr" title="dans kurslari,dans dersi,hiphop,salsa,dans organizasyon,kadıköy dans kursları,istanbul dans kursları,dans okulu,dans grubu,dans casting,dugun dansi dersi,istanbul,dans grubu,kadıköy,R&b,latin dans,break dance,dans" target="_blank">dans</a>
<a href="http://www.dansorganizasyon.org" title="dans dans dersi,dans organizasyon,dans ajanslari,dans ajans,,dans casting,dugun dans dersi,dans koreograf,R&b,dans okulu,kadıköy dans kursları,dans grubu,organizasyon firmasi,istanbul,dans organizasyon,dans" target="_blank">organizasyon</a>
<a href="http://www.facedans.com" title="dans dans organizasyonlari,dans organizasyon,dans ajanslari,dans ajans,,dans casting,organizasyon,organizasyonu,organizasyonlari,dugun dans dersi,dans koreograf,R&b,dans okulu,Face,Face dans,kadıköy dans kursları,dans grubu,organizasyon firmasi,istanbul,dans organizasyon,dans" target="_blank">Face</a>
follow
