Posted

Nov 15th 2009

Mood

Annoyed

Bobby Kotick is CEO of Activision Blizzard. If you haven't read the last journal entry, do so, less recap required.

So, the latest Call of Duty game completely spurned the PC as a platform. Call of Duty originally being a PC centered, and supported, game up until the last installment being the first with the Modern Warfare name. As far as realistic FPSs go, the first Modern Warfare was the most perfectly perfect multiplayer experience I've ever seen. They would not have had to change ANYTHING AT ALL to make Modern Warfare 2 completely acceptable to fans of the first.

And yet they crippled it by allowing a fraction of the player count (9v9), removed dedicated server support replacing it with the console standard matchmaking system (which failed every game I've ever played that used it. Far cry 2, Red Faction: Guerrilla), removed mod support, removed access to the developer console, practically removed the god damned MENU FOR THE GAME.

I feel that, considering it was developed on the same engine as the last game, they would have had to WORK to make it anything less than the original was. How can this be anything other than a calculated move to crush PC gaming as a market anyone will care about ever again?

Let's also note that the PC version costs $60 as opposed to the usual $50. Why are PC games cheaper? becuase consoles have licensing fees, PCs do not. This price increase is a blatant cash grab, and yet more incentive not to purchase it. (if you think about it, the kind of vicious cycle in which PC games reside is likely the same one that causes companies like Adobe to charge all get out for their software)

Lets not also forget the other super mega IP Bobby Kotick's publishing company has: Starcraft. ALREADY raised a big stink about how it's been split up into three installments, tripling the cost and wait time to play Starcraft 2. second stink being the removal of LAN support for the game. What does this mean? This means that heh, well, no "Lan" parties anymore. Youll have to go through Battlenet for everything ever. This sounds alot like IWnet, actually. oh, that's the system running Modern Warfare 2's matchmaking jazz for the PC.

Again, this is a tactic advertised to combat piracy. Again, they have completely legitimate reasons for doing so. With LAN support it is possible to gather 30 people in a room with 30 computers and run 30 instances of Starcraft all at once, connected, with ONE COPY of the game. They'd much rather 30 copies were purchased.

Once more, piracy combat just wont work out. The entire DRM fiasco over Spore should have been a huge indication that all you're doing is hurting the people who will actually pay for the game. I totally wanted MW2. MW1, i still play it. Hell I was playing it today. I will never play MW2 multiplayer because it is not as good as MW1 for all the crap they did to "beat piracy".

Not only that, but I fully expect people to work out how to get private servers to work ANYWAY. This is escalation, this is what will lead to the end of PC gaming entirely (I would have said "as we know it" but that's already happened). Hackers will get around what publishers do, publishers will try new stuff, hackers will get around THAT. Then no on will develop for the PC any more. They will focus their entire attention on consoles (in hardware terms, ancient equipment), and PC gamers will get mediocre or terrible ports of games that are beautiful to behold on consoles. That will also run worse despite having overall superior hardware.

All that any of this is doing is making it harder and harder to be a PC gamer, and likely harder to be a PC game developer. Which is why any recent block buster game that has happened was probably a PC port:

GTA4
Red Faction: Guerrilla
Far Cry 2
Modern Warfare 2
Prototype

and now we have word that RAGE, the next Id software game (makers of DOOM, the most intensely PC exclusive iconic shooter possible to mention), will be booting dedicated server support.

The last bastion of PC game development I can fathom currently is Valve. They have so far been taking things in the opposite direction, it seems. The Orange Box was a multiplatform release, but it was obvious it was meant for a PC. I hope they keep things that way.

Crysis was a ray of hope for PC gaming. A game so technically beautiful, PC exclusive. The next installment "Crysis Warhead" saw the engine optimized, but still able to push visuals as high or higher than the first Crysis. But, Crysis 2 will be a multiplatform endeavor. PC, Xbox, PS3. This is great news for Crytek, but I fear for the PC repercussions. For this means the engine must be dumbed down to run on all platforms smoothly. You would think that there would still be an option to crank the graphics to 11 on the PCs that can handle it, I can only hope so.

I really really hope so.