Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for PC is now a LEGIT console port

[minmaster]

it's good news because this might allow the PC version's price to drop pretty quickly. i'll pay 20 bucks to play single player campaign.

 

[Bill Brasky]

Originally posted by: slayer202
are the IW servers a bnet clone, or does a player host the games? wtf. do they really expect people to host 40 person games on their home pcs? I'm finding this hard to believe. can anyone show us some proof on whether IW hosts with their own servers or not?

It will be a listen server setup, which is identical to consoles. IWnet will have servers that store stats, handle the matchmaking, and find the player with the best hosting connection. Once the game starts, the server will be the chosen host. I was confused about this too, and I had to actually listen to the original interview with Robert Bowling to find the answer. I can't remember where I found the link, but if you want me to look, I will.

To handle the big games (32 player), they are banking on some people having really good internet. Obviously it will be too laggy to be playable.

Bowling interview starts at 1:39

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/2369799

 

[Dumac]

1up's view on it. I was interested in what they would say, as 1up always seemed as a very console-biased site to me..

Source

Just Why Do PC Gamers Hate Modern Warfare 2's New Matchmaking System?
Confused by all the hubbub about IWNet? Read on for a breakdown of what has PC gamers in an uproar.
By Chris Pereira, 10/21/2009

Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2

Unlike previous Call of Duty games on PC -- and most other first-person shooters, not to mention most other genres, too -- Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 will be shipping without the usual multiplayer server browser, instead making use of a new matchmaking service called IWNet. A petition asking Infinity Ward to reconsider its decision to allow traditional dedicated servers has now been signed by nearly 130,000 individuals. Amazon.co.uk's reviews section for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 is littered with more than 125 1-star reviews, most all of which are complaining about IWNet and the perceived restraints it brings with it. It's clear that we're not dealing with a few fanboys who are crying foul, even if it is nothing more than the vocal minority.

Infinity Ward has responded to the outcry by citing the many advantages that IWNet will provide gamers with. IW boss Jason West told Game Informer, "We're just prioritizing the player experience above the modders and the tuners." And clearly, the outrage is coming from the community that worships both mods and clan servers very highly. The simple solution would be to offer both server browsing and matchmaking, but West rightly concludes that doing so would "bifurcate the community."

Community Manager Robert Bowling offered up a list of reasons why gamers should be happy with the move to IWNet -- most notably, fewer cheaters, a party system, and matchmaking. Sounds pretty good, right? And although West's joke that he told GI -- "We thought maybe it would be cool if the fans could play the game" -- may have peeved off some, there remains something about IWNet that has hardcore PC gamers pissed off. Something that they claim is more than just the idea of change.

So just who is right, and who is wrong? Both sides have points. And if you're a console-only gamer, all of this is likely lost upon you. It's important to know that the term "dedicated servers" refers to a server that is acting as the host for a game session, collecting and sending data to all of the players in that particular game. This is opposed to a peer-to-peer setup that has one player acting as the host, which is neither as efficient nor as fair as a dedicated server. Dedicated servers are often run by individuals or clans who opt to run custom content in the form of user-made maps, weapons, player skins, and so on. "Server browsers" (see image below) are a list of all available servers running the game you're looking to play along with information about it such as the server name, ping, number of players, map name, any mods running, and so on. Some console games do use them, though rarely if ever will you find a console game with the sheer number of servers that you do with many PC games. And "mods" don't necessarily refer to the cheats or hacks that a console gamer might think of when they hear the term -- they can consist of user-made maps, new weapons, reskinned characters, and more (the screen above shows a zombie mod for Call of Duty 4).

With that in mind, let's take a look at a basic pros and cons list of what the implementation of IWNet really means for gamers:

Pros:

* Matchmaking: Being able to simply choose some basic settings (deathmatch, team deathmatch, CTF, etc.) and hit one button sure is an easy way to get in and get playing. Infinity Ward promises that matchmaking will get you playing with others of the same skill level, meaning fewer instances of landing in games with tournament-level players who can pick you off with a handgun from a football field away. This should also put you in games that your computer has a strong connection to, so that you don't have to hassle yourself with trying to look for a game with a low ping that will stutter the least because of a bad connection.
* Lower Barrier to Entry: For the hardcore crowd, scrolling through a server browser might seem like a cakewalk. But for a casual gamer who perhaps isn't used to doing this, matchmaking will remove the daunting task of wading through hundreds (if not thousands) of server listings trying to find a game that is playing a certain map with an acceptable ping that isn't full or empty.
* Fewer Cheaters: This might not be 100%, but putting the responsibility of weeding out cheaters on automated systems maintained by IW is a very appealing prospect. It's even more appealing when considering that the alternative is hoping that someone is hanging around your server with the power to kick or ban modders.
* Party System: Anyone who has played Halo 3, Uncharted 2, used Xbox Live's party system, or played any number of other more recent releases on consoles knows the beauty of parties. Easily moving from game session to game session with a group of friends at the push of a button is immeasurably more handy than having to share a game name or IP address with your buddies or clan members.

Cons:

* No Mods: Perhaps the greatest appeal of PC games lies in the mod community. Beyond the appeal of higher resolutions, keyboard and mouse control, and lower prices (although that isn't the case with Modern Warfare 2), mods can help to greatly extend the life of any PC game. Shooters, in particular, are often the recipient of grand remakes and enhancements by way of modders, whether that come in the form of new weapons, redesigned HUDs, and additional maps. IWNet does away with all of this, as servers can no longer be run by individuals who opt to use modded content.
* Lag: Try as it might, matchmaking isn't a perfect system. While it ideally will find you a game with both players of the same skill and a low ping (giving you a lag-free game session), you can't count on it to always pick out a server that will give you the most lag-free experience possible.
* Downloadable Content: With user-made maps out of the equation, you're stuck with what maps ship on the disc and any subsequent releases by way of downloadable content. This might not strike console gamers as unusual (unless you've gotten a taste of the world of mods with Unreal Tournament 3 on PlayStation 3), but for the PC crowd that are used to getting an unlimited amount of uncensored, unmitigated content for free, this is a massive departure from the norm.
* Matchmaking: As nice a convenience as it can be, the time that you'll sometimes spend trying to find a match by way of matchmaking is time that could have otherwise been spent playing the game. (Perhaps this will be improved, but any Halo 3 player knows the horrors of waiting many minutes in order to match up with a group of other players, especially when you're in a group yourself.) Gone is the ability to denote a server as your favorite. Doing that would allow you to immediately jump into a game with a familiar map rotation and set of rules that is frequented by people whom you've played with in the past but don't necessarily wish to befriend. Communities form on servers. With IWNet, that can't happen in the same way as we're used to seeing in FPS games on PC.
* Griefers: If you opt to play in a private match, you'll be given free reign over the game session you're in. But players are powerless to do much more than mute a player and leave negative feedback when playing on an open, public server with someone acting like a jackass by screaming into their microphone, interfering with the game, or whatever else they can think of. Anti-cheating measures can't do anything about this, whereas playing in the traditional type of PC server -- where player admins capable of kicking/banning players could be lurking on a server -- could lead to that player being banned.

What this really comes down to is a matter of choice. IWNet eliminates much of the choices and freedom that PC gamers have enjoyed for years, and it's also removing one of the greatest advantages to playing games on a PC in mod support.

The appeal of this for Infinity Ward and Activision is very obvious: It'll make things much easier for the average to get in and play a game; it may help to curb piracy by checking that you're using a legitimate CD-key (though Infinity Ward claims matchmaking won't have much of an impact on piracy); and it incentivizes downloadable content to a market that could otherwise turn to an unlimited supply of free, community-made DLC.

It's clear that neither side is entirely right or wrong. For now, PC gamers are going to be forced to either boycott the game or use IWNet, as the game is still on schedule for its November 10 release. Whether Infinity Ward caves in and provides server browsing support at a later time remains to be seen, but for the time being, they seem to be sticking by their guns. And rightfully so -- no one has actually seen IWNet in action, so it'll be interesting to see if the hardcore crowd's fears are alleviated when Modern Warfare 2 is released.

They bring up good points, but the article comes off more as explaining the situation to console gamers than really going in-depth.

 

[Wuzup101]

I was actually going to buy the game for 360 as I'm not all that hard core with shooters anymore... and I just picked up a 63" plasma to play ps3 / 360 on. Ironically, I won't be buying it for 360 (or any other platform) because of this change. I started gaming on the PC (with games like tribes / ut / cs / etc...) and I won't support a company that is going to do stupid stuff like this. I honestly would have probably ended up buying a copy for both the 360 and the computer... sad really...

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: GullyFoyle

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: GullyFoyle

Originally posted by: Red Irish
The pc gaming industry is in a healthy state. Games on this platform are not simply console ports that increasingly fail to take advantage of the capacity of the pc and we should all buy the latest hardware to ensure that we get the most from future releases.

Complaints about aspects such as the lack of server support or Lan play can be attributed to an extrememly vocal minority: most people are extremely happy with the state of the industry and wouldn't change a thing. If Call of Duty is printed on the box, there is clearly nothing to complain about.

Sounds like you don't know really understand what all the hubbub is all about. You should spend more time with your head outside the bag

I mostly agree with you on one point, people are pretty happy about the state of PC gaming. They like that PC games offer more than most console games. Free maps, mods, expansions. A better online experience.

That's why they are pissed that IW is trying to take that all away. Get it?

And they are doubly pissed because the source has Call of Duty printed on the box. Lots of people were really lookng forward to more of a good thing. A lover scorned...

sarcasm /'s?rkæz?m/ [sahr-kaz-uhm]

?noun 1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.

I want to (weakly) defend myself by saying the term "troll" did cross my mind, but in the interests of maintaining a positive dialog, I hesitate to roll that out unless 100% certain. I rolled the dice and posted what I did because I just thought the reference to your avatar would bring out a lol or two.

No need to defend yourself. All's well that ends well.

 

[WraithETC]

Pros: 1. Matchmaking: Being able to simply choose some basic settings (deathmatch, team deathmatch, CTF, etc.) and hit one button sure is an easy way to get in and get playing. Infinity Ward promises that matchmaking will get you playing with others of the same skill level, meaning fewer instances of landing in games with tournament-level players who can pick you off with a handgun from a football field away. This should also put you in games that your computer has a strong connection to, so that you don't have to hassle yourself with trying to look for a game with a low ping that will stutter the least because of a bad connection. 2. Lower Barrier to Entry: For the hardcore crowd, scrolling through a server browser might seem like a cakewalk. But for a casual gamer who perhaps isn't used to doing this, matchmaking will remove the daunting task of wading through hundreds (if not thousands) of server listings trying to find a game that is playing a certain map with an acceptable ping that isn't full or empty. 3. Fewer Cheaters: This might not be 100%, but putting the responsibility of weeding out cheaters on automated systems maintained by IW is a very appealing prospect. It's even more appealing when considering that the alternative is hoping that someone is hanging around your server with the power to kick or ban modders. 4. Party System: Anyone who has played Halo 3, Uncharted 2, used Xbox Live's party system, or played any number of other more recent releases on consoles knows the beauty of parties. Easily moving from game session to game session with a group of friends at the push of a button is immeasurably more handy than having to share a game name or IP address with your buddies or clan members.

First of all lets define the average PC gamer who will play COD MW2. This person will have to have a gaming PC no doubt. Having a gaming PC means you either built it or was knowledgeble enough to know which one to buy. This person has also likely played other FPS games on PC which by probability alone will mean they have experience with a server browser. Thus the average PC gamer who would happen to play COD MW2 would know how to use a server browser or would be able to figure it out.

1. Match making is no easier than a server browser. A server browser is like searching for items on newegg and amazon you can easily sort and search 1000's of items no sweat. If someone knows how to shop on amazon or online they can use a server browser to find a type of match. Match making in other games has proven to be a pain. Street Fighter 4 for which peer to peer connections make sense has a terrible match making system.

Difficulty of your opponent is infinitely more dependant on how popular the game is. Most public servers will have a good mix of people if the game is popular. A newb probably won't run into a tournament clan playing a private game.

2. These casual players he describes don't exist on the PC gaming side. What PC gamer hasn't played counter strike or any valve multiplayer game or any unreal tournament game or basically any pc multiplayer FPS? Hes describing Joe Average who owns a 360 or PS3 who won't be playing on PC anyways.

3. Not likely. Even on a closed system like the xbox there are cheaters what makes you think this will make any difference? It will be even easier to cheat now as you can't ban a cheater since there are no specific servers or admins.

4. Games for Windows Live promised the same thing and has more than 1 PC game under its system and it is a dismal failure. Yes a party system makes sense if you can't choose a server. If you can then its not difficult to get together with your friends. Also people play games like WoW on PC who organize in huge groups at specific times with no problem at all.

Steam allows you to join friends games directly too and also has dedicated servers for all of its multiplayer valve FPS games so the two things aern't exclusive anyways.


The author basically wrote the PROS of the article in relation to someone who won't be playing on the PC in the first place. If all his PROs are important to you than you obviously will be playing on a console. Joe Average doesn't drop $800+ dollars on a gaming computer that he is intimidated to play on.

 

[imported_Asianman]

It'll feel really weird not playing a new call of duty game this year, but still, I refuse to support this act. Haven't Valve proven that PC gamers enjoy the freedom, the complexity and the extra effort our platform requires? Counter Strike is still one of the most popular games at LANs and other functions, and it's the mods and people we play with that adds to the experience. A good multiplayer game should be more than just a good game, it should be a second universe that you can stay in, to play and compete with people with common interests.

I've organised competitions based around MW before. We had fun because we knew each other, and setting up the server was a five minute process. After that it was just pure competitive goodness. If we loose the ability to do that, then why bother with this game? A good part of the game was just pulling off some awesome kills that keeps us talking for weeks. That's the kind of stuff that's actually important in a game, and if IW is not providing that, then why would we buy the game?
Maybe I'll just stick to Nazi zombies:thumbsup:

 

[Jack Flash]

So, no one, not a single soul has tried IW.net and can speak to its performance? Yet there is this immense backlash? IninfityWard did drop the ball with their announcement. There should have had ample demonstration of the system that's in place, but who's to say it won't work very, very well?

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
So, no one, not a single soul has tried IW.net and can speak to its performance? Yet there is this immense backlash? IninfityWard did drop the ball with their announcement. There should have had ample demonstration of the system that's in place, but who's to say it won't work very, very well?

If it really is players hosting the matches than the performance does not depend on their system. The matchmaking would but that's only a small fraction of the game. Who cares if it's easy to get into game if they're laggy as hell?

The thing that pisses me off the most about this is they're acting like they're doing this for the good of their customers. If they really wanted to please their customers they could have implemented both like BF2 does.

 

[GullyFoyle]

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
So, no one, not a single soul has tried IW.net and can speak to its performance? Yet there is this immense backlash? IninfityWard did drop the ball with their announcement. There should have had ample demonstration of the system that's in place, but who's to say it won't work very, very well?

Because this is not the first player hosted multiplayer system ever. People have been exposed to it enough in the past to know it's weaknesses and how it compares to a dedicated server system.

People know there is a difference between their home internet connection and that provided by a datacenter.

 

[Jack Flash]

Originally posted by: GullyFoyle

Originally posted by: Jack Flash
So, no one, not a single soul has tried IW.net and can speak to its performance? Yet there is this immense backlash? IninfityWard did drop the ball with their announcement. There should have had ample demonstration of the system that's in place, but who's to say it won't work very, very well?

Because this is not the first player hosted multiplayer system ever. People have been exposed to it enough in the past to know it's weaknesses and how it compares to a dedicated server system.

People know there is a difference between their home internet connection and that provided by a datacenter.

I played Call of Duty 4 on the PC and found 8 - 12 players the sweet spot anyway. So forgive me if I am not up in arms about losing the capability for 64 man servers.

 

[Aiune]

You guys are ridiculous.

This game will be a fantastic experience, 10/10 in both singleplayer and spec ops, and you're getting your panties in a bunch because you can't handle differences to a system that's already starting to converge that way.

Stop acting entitled to have games THE WAY YOU WANT. It's not your decision, and it's so damn funny that this arrogance and "pride" is making you deny playing a fantastic game.

90% of you will still buy the game, you just want to be "Internet tough" and "My way or the highway", well guess what. Get. Over. It. This is the way life works in and outside of video games, it's like that damn episode of southpark featuring Wall Mart.

So your 60 cancelled pre-orders for your clan is a joke. You guys are plain stupid. Finding faults instead of looking at the benefits. It's just childish and stupid.

Robert Bowling is drinking your tears.

Stop being immature. This method is intended to unify crowds and even though it may not be your ideal, you will still have a GREAT time if you just stop being so damn bitter.

Stop QQing.

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: Aiune
You guys are ridiculous.

This game will be a fantastic experience, 10/10 in both singleplayer and spec ops, and you're getting your panties in a bunch because you can't handle differences to a system that's already starting to converge that way.

Stop acting entitled to have games THE WAY YOU WANT. It's not your decision, and it's so damn funny that this arrogance and "pride" is making you deny playing a fantastic game.

90% of you will still buy the game, you just want to be "Internet tough" and "My way or the highway", well guess what. Get. Over. It. This is the way life works in and outside of video games, it's like that damn episode of southpark featuring Wall Mart.

So your 60 cancelled pre-orders for your clan is a joke. You guys are plain stupid. Finding faults instead of looking at the benefits. It's just childish and stupid.

Robert Bowling is drinking your tears.

Stop being immature. This method is intended to unify crowds and even though it may not be your ideal, you will still have a GREAT time if you just stop being so damn bitter.

Stop QQing.

you're right, we're not entitled to games we want. but that doesn't mean we should be buying products that contain features we *don't want*. That's the beauty of choice. We're (well, sorta not me since I don't like CoD, but dedicated servers FTW) telling Activision/IW to go fuck themselves if they're going to take away one of the best aspects of PCgaming in our opinion.

like i said previously, i've had a much easier time finding a good server from a list (takes all of 5 seconds to apply filters). Conversely, while the partying system is nice, finding a game can take a while. I've played halo3 with friends where we literally searched for 10 minutes trying to find a quality game. And that's for halo3!

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Aiune
You guys are ridiculous.

This game will be a fantastic experience, 10/10 in both singleplayer and spec ops, and you're getting your panties in a bunch because you can't handle differences to a system that's already starting to converge that way.

Stop acting entitled to have games THE WAY YOU WANT. It's not your decision, and it's so damn funny that this arrogance and "pride" is making you deny playing a fantastic game.

90% of you will still buy the game, you just want to be "Internet tough" and "My way or the highway", well guess what. Get. Over. It. This is the way life works in and outside of video games, it's like that damn episode of southpark featuring Wall Mart.

So your 60 cancelled pre-orders for your clan is a joke. You guys are plain stupid. Finding faults instead of looking at the benefits. It's just childish and stupid.

Robert Bowling is drinking your tears.

Stop being immature. This method is intended to unify crowds and even though it may not be your ideal, you will still have a GREAT time if you just stop being so damn bitter.

Stop QQing.

Stop handing out piss-poor advice!

 

[Chriscross3234]

Originally posted by: Aiune
... it's so damn funny that this arrogance and "pride" is making you deny playing a fantastic game.

The fact there is no dedicated server support and the overall change in IW's attitude towards the PC Gaming crowd is what denies me of playing this "fantastic" game.

 

[mrblotto]

Originally posted by: Aiune
You guys are ridiculous.

This game will be a fantastic experience, 10/10 in both singleplayer and spec ops, and you're getting your panties in a bunch because you can't handle differences to a system that's already starting to converge that way.

Stop acting entitled to have games THE WAY YOU WANT. It's not your decision, and it's so damn funny that this arrogance and "pride" is making you deny playing a fantastic game.

90% of you will still buy the game, you just want to be "Internet tough" and "My way or the highway", well guess what. Get. Over. It. This is the way life works in and outside of video games, it's like that damn episode of southpark featuring Wall Mart.

So your 60 cancelled pre-orders for your clan is a joke. You guys are plain stupid. Finding faults instead of looking at the benefits. It's just childish and stupid.

Robert Bowling is drinking your tears.

Stop being immature. This method is intended to unify crowds and even though it may not be your ideal, you will still have a GREAT time if you just stop being so damn bitter.

Stop QQing.

Don't hold back. Why dont you tell us how you really feel

Stop acting entitled to have games THE WAY YOU WANT. It's not your decision

I beg to differ. Methinks any compentent (I use that term loosely) business would 'listen' to their customers, conduct some research with said customers, and *shock* actually produce products that said customers would buy. It's kind of a supply-demand thing: Customers demand one product, the business(es) supply it. Win-win in my book.

If said business supplies a product customers do NOT want, it's lose-lose. Mostly lose for the business - they lose time/money invested in development. Not really as big a loss for the customer (who still has his/her unspent money in pocket), but still a loss because said customer cannot or will not use said product.

Common sense follows that if a business doesn't supply 'the game you want' (ie demand), then you wont pay for it, much less play it.

Business/companies continue to exist because they continue to supply products that customers demand. And smart businesses will sometimes go to extraordinary lengths to keep their customers (also known as 'primary source of income')

Stop being immature. This method is intended to unify crowds and even though it may not be your ideal, you will still have a GREAT time if you just stop being so damn bitter.

At this time, I have no desire to be 'unified' with you.

 

[BladeVenom]

Aiune is an obvious troll. Ignore his ignorant blathering.

 

[clipperfixer]

"Stop acting entitled to have games THE WAY YOU WANT. It's not your decision"

You are right, it is not my decision, but it is my decision to buy games that are what I want and I vote with my wallet. NO THANK YOU!

 

[OCGuy]

Guys, dont feed it. It is exactly what it wants. Attempting to play devil's advocate on this issue is an easy way to get hours of entertainment from people going nuts on you.

Dont give the 14yr old console fanboi that kind of satisfaction.

 

[brblx]

but GUYS, charmin has decided that toilet paper should be made of steel wool, how are you entitled to wipe your ass with WHAT YOU WANT?!

deal with your bloody asses, you damned spoiled PC gamers.

 

[Aiune]

I'm not trolling.

L4D is a perfect example of the whining involved in this being ridiculous. Yes, L4D uses dedicated servers, but less than maybe 5% of the people use them to SEARCH for games or albiet setup games using them. It's matchmaking system is far more streamlined, and though i PERSONALLY prefer dedicated servers (I play TF2 pretty often), this issue is about people causing an uproar about one aspect of a game that you haven't even tested to see if you like it, and just assume that its terrible, and thus, your WHOLE EXPERIENCE is now shattered, so you won't enjoy it.

It's about letting all this entitlement prevent you from enjoying the game as opposed to working with what you have and ENJOYING it.

It's a standard optimistic versus realistic conclusion, and it's laughable that because something is done in an untraditional manner that it's all or nothing. It's a flat out terrible mindset to have about LIFE, let alone ENTERTAINMENT.

Before you hate on this system, you have to try it and be objective.

Literally, everyone of you who is up and arms over it is not being objective.

There's the problem, and the crying. It IS childish.

 

[VashHT]

Originally posted by: Aiune
I'm not trolling.

L4D is a perfect example of the whining involved in this being ridiculous. Yes, L4D uses dedicated servers, but less than maybe 5% of the people use them to SEARCH for games or albiet setup games using them. It's matchmaking system is far more streamlined, and though i PERSONALLY prefer dedicated servers (I play TF2 pretty often), this issue is about people causing an uproar about one aspect of a game that you haven't even tested to see if you like it, and just assume that its terrible, and thus, your WHOLE EXPERIENCE is now shattered, so you won't enjoy it.

It's about letting all this entitlement prevent you from enjoying the game as opposed to working with what you have and ENJOYING it.

It's a standard optimistic versus realistic conclusion, and it's laughable that because something is done in an untraditional manner that it's all or nothing. It's a flat out terrible mindset to have about LIFE, let alone ENTERTAINMENT.

Before you hate on this system, you have to try it and be objective.

Literally, everyone of you who is up and arms over it is not being objective.

There's the problem, and the crying. It IS childish.

You're wrong, many of us have played FPS's on consoles, we know exactly what we're getting.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that matchmaking was one thing that pissed me off about console shooters. If you think people are just pissed off because it's changing you're wrong.

EDIT2: Also wanted to add that this is not a terrible way to view life. I won't buy the game and I have plenty of other shit to do, it's not like I'll be dwelling on this forever.

 

[brblx]

Originally posted by: Aiune
I'm not trolling.

L4D is a perfect example of the whining involved in this being ridiculous. Yes, L4D uses dedicated servers, but less than maybe 5% of the people use them to SEARCH for games or albiet setup games using them. It's matchmaking system is far more streamlined, and though i PERSONALLY prefer dedicated servers (I play TF2 pretty often), this issue is about people causing an uproar about one aspect of a game that you haven't even tested to see if you like it, and just assume that its terrible, and thus, your WHOLE EXPERIENCE is now shattered, so you won't enjoy it.

It's about letting all this entitlement prevent you from enjoying the game as opposed to working with what you have and ENJOYING it.

It's a standard optimistic versus realistic conclusion, and it's laughable that because something is done in an untraditional manner that it's all or nothing. It's a flat out terrible mindset to have about LIFE, let alone ENTERTAINMENT.

Before you hate on this system, you have to try it and be objective.

Literally, everyone of you who is up and arms over it is not being objective.

There's the problem, and the crying. It IS childish.

accepting whatever is rammed down your throat is being childish. not the other way around.

 

[Mike Gayner]

Stop feeding it plx.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Aiune
I'm not trolling.

L4D is a perfect example of the whining involved in this being ridiculous. Yes, L4D uses dedicated servers, but less than maybe 5% of the people use them to SEARCH for games or albiet setup games using them. It's matchmaking system is far more streamlined, and though i PERSONALLY prefer dedicated servers (I play TF2 pretty often), this issue is about people causing an uproar about one aspect of a game that you haven't even tested to see if you like it, and just assume that its terrible, and thus, your WHOLE EXPERIENCE is now shattered, so you won't enjoy it.

It's about letting all this entitlement prevent you from enjoying the game as opposed to working with what you have and ENJOYING it.

It's a standard optimistic versus realistic conclusion, and it's laughable that because something is done in an untraditional manner that it's all or nothing. It's a flat out terrible mindset to have about LIFE, let alone ENTERTAINMENT.

Before you hate on this system, you have to try it and be objective.

Literally, everyone of you who is up and arms over it is not being objective.

There's the problem, and the crying. It IS childish.

Dude, L4D matchmaking is half the reason I don't play it anymore.

Voting with my wallet is a right, so don't be a little shit and come in here telling us we can't complain about games. Where do you think IW gets it's cash? Heres a hint, I DO make the decisions, if you're too stupid to understand a free market I shouldn't even bother explaining it. You don't need to tell us why you are a blind fanboy who will buy anything with the "CoD" label stuck on it, why don't you instead give any example of why our complaints have no validity?