Separator
PC vs. Console: Should Console Gamers Demand Better?
Dcswirlonly_bigger
Thursday, October 29, 2009

Editor's note: Daniel sees the Modern Warfare 2 dedicated servers controversy as a symptom of a larger problem -- console gamers may be settling for less than they deserve. Do you agree? -Demian


Developer Infinity Ward's decision to drop dedicated server support for the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 is one of the most serious issues in gaming right now, for multiple reasons. It’s not just about the feature set of one blockbuster title -- rather, this controversy highlights how some gamers are being taken advantage of.

This is about the intrinsic differences in content distribution across various platforms. Regardless of the cost disparity between PC and console hardware, in many ways PC gamers get a significantly better deal on software, and console-only gamers don’t seem to care.

A lot of console gamers are responding with hostility towards PC gamers who are upset about Modern Warfare's lack of dedicated server support. Some are calling PC gamers spoiled, and don’t see a problem with them getting the same experience as console gamers.

But that is a problem. If the multiplayer in the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 is basically identical to that of the console versions, then the PC platform is losing functionality that has been standard in online PC gaming since years before Xbox Live hit the scene.

The question a lot of people are asking is, “Why should PC gamers have it better?” The question they should be asking is, “Why should console gamers have it worse?”

 

Left 4 Dead’s “Crash Course” DLC is another example of this disparity -- it was free on PC, but $7 for Xbox players. That prompted a previous blog post of mine on 1UP.com, about how for years now console gamers have been paying for what PC gamers have been getting for free.

Just recently, I chose to purchase the PC version of Red Faction: Guerrilla, and compared to the console version I probably saved enough money for a whole additional game. When the game came out on consoles it was $60, and now there are three DLC packs at $10 each. The PC version launched at $40 (the current price of the console versions) with all the DLC included.

I can tell you right now, however, that the situation with Modern Warfare 2 goes far beyond mods, clans, and downloadable content. It hits at another side of the disparity between what gamers on PC have access to and what console-only gamers do not.

Dedicated servers can offer a higher quality experience than console-style matchmaking, in terms of connections, the games themselves, and the social aspect.

When playing Call of Duty or Uncharted 2 via console online matchmaking, 15 users are matched with one host playing on a consumer-level Internet connection, based who knows where. If some players are being stupid, they can be muted or even kicked from a game.

On the PC version of Call of Duty 4, I have found and bookmarked a server that is always there for me to come back to. It is run on a privately owned (or rented) webmaster-level machine set up solely for online gaming. It has moderators and admins who have established rules for 32 players to play nice, and who will ban griefers, cheaters, and screaming 13-year-olds. Basically, it’s a bar or a message board, but in a game. 1UP even had its own Team Fortress 2 server for a while.

I understand that the PC's open platform, which allows for player-made mods and free DLC, is at odds with the consoles' walled gardens. Still, Epic proved with Unreal Tournament 3 that it's possible to get PC-made mods running on consoles.

Even dedicated server support has shown up occasionally on consoles. Several PS3 games have what are essentially dedicated servers. Technically, Sony allows developers to do this kind of thing, along with free DLC and even mouse support. Publishers, however, don’t do it often because most of their consumers aren’t aware of those possibilities and thus don’t expect them. I almost want to see Sony pushing for this kind of thing just to have a leg up over Microsoft in consumers’ eyes.

Some critics of the Wii, and the “casual” games it's inspiring, accuse Nintendo of taking advantage of a less-sophisticated audience with different/lower quality expectations. I’m starting to think that’s kind of what’s happening to PS3 and Xbox 360 gamers in some ways as well.

This blog also appears at http://redswirl.1up.com.

 
0
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (15)
October 29, 2009
Back in the earlier days of X-box live, when Return to Castle Wolfenstien was the hottest crap on the block, I would refuse to play on a non-dedicated server. Dedicated servers just plain ran smoother. A good server meant instant friend request (after kissing some serious butt to insure acceptance :P).

I haven't gamed on PC for years (WoW excluded) but I miss the joyful feeling in my heart of hearts after finding an excellent Counter-Strike server with excellent admins.
Default_picture
October 29, 2009
I have been saying for a while now that this whole dlc setup on consoles is insane. I am proud to say that to this day, I have not purchased any sort of dlc because I think most of what's online is absolutely worthless. The question is, how can we get it to stop if people are buying into this crap?
Default_picture
October 29, 2009
Having played TF2 on PC for a few months now, and having a server community which I regularly donate to and participate in, the news of MW2 ditching dedicated servers is a huge deal. Yes - I'm one of those snobs who is refusing to purchase MW2 because of this.

Prior to this year, I was a console gamer all the way and never really realized how great a dedicated server is. This could be part of the problem - a lot of console gamers, who can be somewhat casual, probably don't realize the benefits of dedicated servers or don't play enough to care. For them, simple matchmaking is much easier and less worrisome. Why should developers cater to fans, at least half of whom wouldn't even understand the benefits of such a landmark change?

Another reason PC often reaps more benefits than console is because PC gamers historically are much more stubborn than console gamers - release DLC for a price on PC and gamers won't buy it. The threat of piracy is so great now, that releasing DLC for anything but free is practically flushing future sales away.

Plus, the fact that Microsoft and PSN have their own interest in the DLC pricing on their systems tends to affect things - the $7 Crash Course DLC you mentioned was thanks to Microsoft, not Valve.

Default_picture
October 29, 2009
Nice article Daniel.

We really need more like them.

To me, it's been apparent for years now, that M$ has been intent on making online gaming cost more and giving gamers less, and other other console manufacturers/makers have been pretty quick to follow.

The sad thing is, when you try to call them on it, some people have become so pavlovian, they will actually argue in favor of getting less and paying more. It's sick.

It almost seems now the industry has become successful at creating a generation of fools who openly embrace the concept of stripped releases and features for the option of paying for more a little later, and shouting down those who merely want features that used to be part of the deal.
Franksmall
October 29, 2009
I think it is funny that you blame console gamers for a problem cause by PC game pirates.
Jason_wilson
October 29, 2009
Dedicated servers is one of the advantages of PC gaming, and I'd like to think that console gamers would enjoy it as much as PC gamers, too. Consider this: What happens when console makers ditch online support for their older games? On PC, gamers can set up their own servers and continue to enjoy older games. I still sometimes play Starfleet Command 3, a game whose official server was turned off in 2007, because players were able to set up their own server. I still search for mods to Baldur's Gate 2 from time to time.

I wish console players had access to this kind of experience -- they would quickly realize they are getting the short end of the stick.
Default_picture
October 29, 2009
In case I was a little muddy before -- I didn't meant to say that console gamers wouldn't enjoy dedicated servers as much as PC people. I merely think that there is a large number of console gamers (namely more casual ones...I doubt few on this site fall into this category), right now, that don't really appreciate or understand the benefits of dedicated servers.
Default_picture
October 29, 2009
@Garret: Play a game where the host clearly has an unfair advantage, like in GoW and you'll see how important dedicated servers are.

You get the jump on the guy, line up the perfect shot, fire, and then you explode before it even looks like he noticed you, because of the lag.
Default_picture
October 29, 2009
Again, I'm not arguing against dedicated servers on consoles, and am NOT saying that consoles shouldn't have them.

I'm arguing that there are a fair amount of people on consoles don't understand the benefits of dedicated servers. I'm attempting to explain WHY developers aren't feeling the need to support them, and why a lot of gamers aren't screaming out for justice.
Default_picture
October 29, 2009
@Garret: I gotcha now. To be fair, I think I got distracted and misread your post. Sorry about that.

I think anyone who plays a game online seriously (clans) rather than casually, can really appreciate dedicated servers, and there's a good number of people who fall into that group.

Unfortunately, you're right, many of them don't understand the benefits.

Maybe this is a more compelling argument for dedicated servers... What turns a lot of people off to playing online games (besides the screamers, racists, etc.)? It's getting your ass-kicked and feeling like you don't have a chance to compete. So what happens when you go on and it feels like you're even being cheated out of legitimate kills and getting cheap deaths (host advantage, lag)?

You stop playing.

Also in general, I think it's worth noting that Console gamers get screwed on two more fronts, games tend to cost at least $10 more on PS3/360, and 360 owners have to pay $50/year to go online and don't even get dedicated servers. To this day, I'd like to know what that $50 really goes to.

Jason_wilson
October 29, 2009
What turns a lot of people off to playing online games (besides the screamers, racists, etc.)? It's getting your ass-kicked and feeling like you don't have a chance to compete. So what happens when you go on and it feels like you're even being cheated out of legitimate kills and getting cheap deaths (host advantage, lag)?

You stop playing.


There's a number of online games that I avoid -- all on consoles -- just for this reason.
Jason_wilson
October 29, 2009
Console gamers: Tell us what it is you like about the online treatment of your console favorites! I'd love to read about that!
Default_picture
October 29, 2009
David,

You make some interesting observations but there's one huge oversight in this article:

I (and many like me) don't give a shit about dedicated servers or PC gaming in general. You see, console gamers don't have it worse – we are content with what we have.

I grew up playing games on PC's (started pre-windows) and I have spent more hours of my life than I'd care to remember trying to: maintain a MajorMud BBS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MajorMUD), get a dial-up connection to work on Battle.net for Warcraft II, or even setup LAN parties for , etc...

At 26 years old, all I ask of my gaming rig & online service is that it works every time I fire it up without having to tweak registry settings or roll back drivers. If I have 25 minutes to spare, I want to be shooting dudes for at least 20 of those minutes not bouncing from server to server because the one I frequent is short on players at that time of day or undergoing maintenance. With the matchmaking features on XBOX Live at least there is always a game SOMEWHERE. Even if it is infested with racist, pre-pubescent teens, I can mute them and pretend there is a normal human on the other end!

Your argument regarding pricing is also interesting to me since you left out the biggest differentiator: the cost of entry to High-End PC gaming. For a PC rig that can handle everything currently in the marketplace and 6-12 months in the future, you're looking at a $1500-$3000 investment, before you even purchase a game. Compare that with $199 for an XBOX 360 and approx. $5/month for Live and on the low end you could buy 21 new releases with the difference in cost (at $60 each). Can you really justify an extra $1200-$2700 for slightly better graphics and the ability to play on dedicated servers (some of which you have to pay to play on anyway)?! I certainly can't.

The reason IW went this direction in the first place is because “gamers” have made their demands clear with their wallets: we want to play on consoles more than on PC's. With that knowledge, why should any company waste precious time and money to build the framework for dedicated servers when those dollars could be spent improving a product that will be played by more consumers on a console? It doesn't make any sense from a business standpoint.

All too often gamers forget that just like any other industry, the gaming industry is driven by sales. Wherever the greatest potential is for increased sales, that is where the focus of the developers will lie. I applaud those of you who are choosing to speak with your wallets this holiday; it is your best chance to have your voice heard.
Franksmall
October 29, 2009
Personally I am not hugely into playing online. I play mainly on console because I like the ease of buying a game and having it work when the disk does into the machine.

I bought a nice PC a few years ago to play Crysis and a few other PC exclusives, and really regret spending the money. I understand the benefits of mouse and keyboard, but am simply used to using a controller more now, and hate the process of getting a game to work on PC with a burning passion. I can see the superiority of PC in some ways, but there is nothing worse than getting excited about playing a new game just to get home and have to fiddle and tweak, and still not get the damn thing working. I kind of hate playing on a PC.
Default_picture
November 01, 2009
As I posted in Mr. Sims's 1up blog:

When a developer pulls this kind of crap, I make the response I usually do. I vote with my wallet. I don't currently intend to buy Starcraft II because of the 3 SKUs scam to try and get three times the cash from players, I did not buy Bioshock or Mass Effect for PC because of SecuROM and Limited Activations, and I don't currently intend to buy MW2 even though I was really looking forward to it.

I remember the days before dedicated servers. I remember they were not enjoyable. Host advantage, ping issues, etc are a nightmare. Also, there is an entire INDUSTRY based around resting dedicated servers to clans and players. The people that run these services are getting cut right out of the industry with moves like this and NO ONE is making any noise about it.

Also, the argument that this was done to stop piracy is bogus and everyone knows it. Many games require you to contact an authorization server before being able to connect to multiplayer and there are other means to attempt to stop the unstoppable as well.

And lets face it: anyone who's been around the block with PC gaming knows you cannot stop piracy. It's not possible. There is no such thing as a DRM that can not and will not be broken before or shortly after release. You cannot try to get this supposed "lost revenue" back. Honestly, the majority of these pirates wouldn't have bought the game anyway because they don't believe it's worth their money. Trying to make the process more difficult with draconic DRM methods ends up doing little more than pissing off the people actually trying to support your product.

What pisses me off the most about this though is that any time I or anyone else does vote with our wallets, the games industry and now the games press as a whole PASSES OFF THE DROP IN SALES TO PIRACY. It's the scapegoat excuse of the ages and now it's allowing developers like Infinity Ward & publishers like Activision to pass off stripping the game of more freedom of use, ultimately giving them the ability to SHUT DOWN SERVERS and remove your ability to play half the game you've purchased whenever they want....like when the next sequel comes out and they want you to buy that.

That's the story that isn't being reported here.
You must log in to post a comment. Please register or Connect with Facebook if you do not have an account yet.