This Is Why The Packers Are Losing Games

The Green Bay Packers lost to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers yesterday. They handed one of the worst teams in the NFL a win. The root cause is not lack of talent on the team, but a management and coaching issue. This problem is highlighted by the following:

Tampa, Nov 9 (THAINDIAN NEWS) The Green Bay Packers have put the injured Jason Spitz on reserve and instead filled the spot with wide receiver Biren Ealy according to a reliable source.

With the worst offensive line in NFL history and probably one of the best receiving corps, Packers management has decided to replace an injured offensive lineman with a god damned wide receiver. Ted Thompson and Mike McCarthy need to go. NOW!

Tempest in a Teacup: Modern Warfare 2

Ars Technica is running an article about the trials and tribulations of upcoming military-shooter, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. In the article, they provide plenty of quotes from the game's developers showing some blatant disrespect for the PC version of the game:

We thought the lack of dedicated servers was bad, but now we can add the lack of console commands, the inability to have a say in who hosts the game, a lengthy pause while the game migrates to a new host if the currently selected host quits, no leaning, no option to record matches, and no way to kick or block trouble players, hackers, or cheaters.

You have to wonder if there are any actual PC gamers working at Infinity Ward, as it will be a challenge to find any member of the PC gaming community that will stand up for any of these omissions, not to mention all of them bundled together. At launch, this will be one of the most locked-down, inflexible, and gamer-unfriendly game ever created.

While the above quote is a bit sensationalist, it does illustrate how frustrated some of the core audience for the CoD franchise have become, particularly on the PC.

Personally, I don't feel the loss of dedicated servers or a restriction to 9vs9 is all that horrible. In the current Modern Warfare game, any game above 9vs9 feels overcrowded or is a blatant cheat server designed to unlock accomplishments and/or gain levels. Secondly, its almost impossible to find two servers running the same rulesets these days. No snipers here, no perks there, this perk not allowed, no airstrikes, etc. It all gets fairly annoying when a player just wants to play the game.

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare 2 (MW2) is not a strict or heavily-leaning PC title. I have no qualms with it being "consolized" in the PC version. We would be having a different discussion if this was Team Fortress 2, a game BORN from the PC platform, and heavily dependent on a customized experience on each server. Modern Warfare 1 was big on the PC, but it truly took over the consoles. It is not surprising to see where Infinity Ward is basing their design.

With that said, IW should accept the fact that the PC gaming industry will probably reflect the "consolization" in their reviews. For example, Borderlands has some fairly obvious console leftovers in the PC version, but its still a good game and uses the same sort of Peer2Peer multiplayer hosting as MW2 will. Most reviews docked Borderlands on the PC for the console leftovers, as they should, but not because they were mad about it!

There's a quote in the Ars Technica comments section that describes the situation best:

This is a tempest in a teacup. Either buy the game or don't. This is not the end of PC gaming as we know it.

My best suggestion is for PC gamers to forget that this is part of the Call of Duty brand. It was originally meant to be called Modern Warfare 2, a somewhat separate product from the Call of Duty series. Move on if dedicated servers and other features are a must. Plenty of PC gamers will do fine without them and play the game without you.

NOTE: IWNet is an interesting move towards Peer2Peer hosting for such a MAJOR multiplayer game release.

WTF2

What the Favre!

Once upon a time I would have cheered when Favre won a game, but not today. Fortunately, I didn't get to watch this abomination of a game (the highlights were enough to make me break something).

Oct 2009: What I'm Playing/What I'm Paying

Previous months: Sept 2009
Check out the "What I'm Playing/What I'm Paying" Google Spreadsheet.



Commentary:

The first note I would like to make is that I moved gaming-related computer hardware to its own line and placed Batman:AA at $0 since it was free with the video card I purchased in September.

I spent October waiting for Borderlands, which released on the 26th. I paid just shy of $34 for the game as part of a Steam 4-pack (splitting the extra copies with friends). I do not feel comfortable paying $50 for new games any longer. The $30-$35 range feels right to me.

I'll be posting more about my thoughts on Borderlands this week.

Next, I spent another $10 on Battlefield Heroes to dress up my Royal Soldier, BrettFavre. The end result:


Heroes still remains a great game, but leveling past 14 seems to be a little bit grindy and I constantly debate whether I should just pay for an experience boost to help get one of my Heroes to level 20+. Fortunately, they gave away a 3-day XP boost to all players for Halloween, so that sated my appetite for faster leveling. Plus, I got to play as a zombie-head for a few days! I'll probably put another $10 into this game at some point to finish up my Heroes' customizations.

I am still working on beating Batman:AA. Its a great game, but with so many games to play, I find it hard to dedicate time to it. I'm only 5% done with the game.

I was fairly quiet in the MMOG department:

I knocked out a few quests on my Sorcerer in DDO:EU, but am still only level 1 and sitting on the starter island. The dungeons can be set to solo, but they truly shine when grouped. I have never had a steady play group, so this may not be the game for me. I'll have to investigate the pick-up group scene a bit more.

I hit level 5 in The Chronicles of Spellborn on my Spellcaster, Favre. I need to determine which class I want to go with from level 5 onwards. Any thoughts out there? Still enjoying the combat system, even if its hard to pick up at first.

On a side note, not listed on the spreadsheet is Killing Floor. I played a bit during the recent Free Weekend on Steam. Its a quasi-pro, but way over the top, Left 4 Dead co-op zombie shooter. Personally, it made me miss Left 4 Dead and with L4D2 right around the corner, I didn't really care for it.

Conclusion:

Free MMOs still reign in my play list. While at heart (ha!) I would like to be a completely Free Gamer, there are too many good games out there that I would miss, Borderlands being one of them. Deals such as the Steam 4-pack give me value and I reward them for that with a purchase on a game I wouldn't have spent $50 for. My purchase and playing decisions remain with value: is the game and the time I will invest worth the costs?

How About You Ask The Pirates?

Ars Technica is running a piece about Borderlands and the fact some players were able to snag a boxed copy of the PC version days before launch only to be greeted by failed authentication attempts preventing them from playing the game.

Borderlands was a highly anticipated release on the PC, but a one-week delay of the PC launch meant that console gamers were able to enjoy the gun-collecting goodness ahead of their PC gaming brethren. A few gamers were lucky enough to find stores that were willing to sell the boxed PC copy of the game before the street date, however, but when they installed the game and tried to play, they found that without the title being authenticated online, the disc and key were worthless.

The problem? They forgot that buying a PC game doesn't involve a product, but a license.

Gearbox big wig, Randy Pitchford, responded:

"I don't know if something can be done to unlock copies for people that somehow get a copy before the street date... I certainly can't do anything about it, but I understand and am sympathetic to the frustration,"

He doesn't know. The man responsible for the game doesn't know if it can be unlocked before its street date. Maybe he should have asked the pirates that were playing Borderlands DAYS before the official street date.

It constantly amazes me the things that Publishers and Developers push off on piracy. Pirates don't buy games. Stopping them does not generate any revenue. There is not a single developer that has proven that piracy hurts their game sales. In some cases it has proven to help sales just as a free copy of a ebook often spurs sales of the hard copy!

Yes, piracy does hurt the bottom line when pirated versions are allowed to negatively affect the community and service built around a game. However, rarely, if ever, does a pirated copy equal a lost sale. That is NOT my opinion, its proven fact. Unfortunately, few companies are willing to admit this.

One time, just one time, I would like to see these companies learn a lesson from piracy. Make the game easily accessible, with no restrictions, and allow players to play as soon as they have their hands on a copy. This makes for happy and repeat customers (an educated person may have noticed that pirates tend to come back again and again to the same hacking communities that put out the best product).

NOTE: I do not pirate games or endorse piracy.