[ffejnosliw]

Very doubtful. Just look at the list of stuff they have decided you PC gamers didn't need or want:

• No dedicated servers (but you already knew about that, right?)
• 18 player max in multiplayer
• No ability to kick people (score one for the hackers and cheaters!)
• No say in who hosts a match
• 5 second delay when a host leaves to pick a new host
• No console to enter console commands (you didn't want personalization anyways, right?)

It really seems like Infinity Ward has heard the will of the PC gamer and has taken it to heart on this one...and then they said "Screw you! play the game our way!". So who is picking up the PC version now?


Linkypoo:

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2...ou-thought.ars

[merlin379]

If EA are smart they're gonna make BF3 fast, and then CoD will be gone from PC pretty much instantly.

I never liked that way of playing games online, dedicated servers makes community and community makes the game more fun, is mainly cause they dont wanna make a new ded server app, this is just to milk money out of DLC for pc as well as consoles, worse of all is that you cant use community made maps, which is a big plus in many games.

[g1no23]

I bet it will still be a fun game, but I cancelled my preorder.... I think Dragon Age will be eating up a lot of my time.

But I am really dissapointed they put the 18 player max limit on the PC version, hopefully the maps aren't very large.

[Ferrik]

I've vented all over irc about this, but I'm really disappointed with the direction they've taken. If you listen to the interview, most of the answers to fan questions boiled down to "We balanced it for [x]". This strikes me as a poor argument. They balanced CoD4's maps for console players, but I have a blast playing 48-player Strike or Crossfire matches, and there are plenty of servers for people that want smaller, more intimate matches. The core philosophy behind these decisions seems to be "You will have the experience we want whether or not it's your ideal experience."

Their other standard excuse is that server browsers are just too complicated for novice players. I doubt anyone who can install and patch a modern PC game would have problems with a server browser, but they could have addressed this issue simply by adding the quick join option that's available for consoles. They've also tried to make it seem that the lack of dedicated servers is a byproduct of switching to VAC. Anyone who's booted up a Valve game can tell you how ludicrous that statement is.

In short, they have yet to present a compelling argument as to why this is good for the PC community. I understand that many people like to play on consoles and enjoy the matchmaking options available, but IW/Activision fails to understand that the PC community supports that platform by choice and not as a default "We couldn't afford a console" option. So, thanks for nothing guys! I'll be picking this one up sometime down the road when I can get a cheap, used copy for singleplayer.

[Marscaleb]

No ability to kick people?
WHAT THE HELL?!

That's something that doesn't make any sense.

Beyond that, I ask the question of how many folks bought the PC version of CoD4 versus the console versions? It seems pretty obvious which crowd they would cater this sequel to.
Since the game looks amazing just on the 360, the only thing the PC version really has to offer is a level editor. But since you can't get your friends to play your levels with you since they all have it on the 360, what is the point of that?
That's why I just play UT3 instead.

[Marscaleb]

Originally Posted by merlin379

If EA are smart they're gonna make BF3 fast,

When has EA ever been smart?

Originally Posted by Ferrik

The core philosophy behind these decisions seems to be "You will have the experience we want whether or not it's your ideal experience."

Well yeah, but that statement is true of ALL video games!
What if my ideal experience is to use space lasers to zap time pirates? Well, COD 4 isn't going to cater to my ideal experience. What is my ideal experience is the move colored gem stones to complete sequences? Well, then COD 4 still isn't going to cater to my ideal experience.

Alright, so that's a pretty overboard example, but still all games have always been able to make some few changes that would alter the experience the game brings you. As the player, you just have to find the game that caters best to your ideals.
If some new title doesn't fit that ideal, well, so what? Then don't play it. It's not like the fact that a new game came out has suddenly and miraculously changed the game you played before. If Modern Warfare 2 doesn't give you the experience you preferred in Modern Warfare 1, then just play Modern Warfare 1. No one is twisting your arm in this matter.

[Twice]

Originally Posted by merlin379

If EA are smart they're gonna make BF3 fast

*drools*

MW2 looks sweet but for me it would be a rental, and i havent rented a game since Sonic the Hedgehog 2 on the Mega Drive. Battlefield has much more playability.

[Twice]

Originally Posted by merlin379

If EA are smart they're gonna make BF3 fast

*drools*

MW2 looks sweet but for me it would be a rental, and i havent rented a game since Sonic the Hedgehog 2 on the Mega Drive. Battlefield has much more playability.

[chaosuk]

[Turvs]

Forget MW2 battlefield for me, but the console version. Also thanks for showing me this before as i was gettin MW2 as soon as i fixed my power supply. I nearly made the same mistake as gettin ofpR for 360.