I think we all know our best bet is to simply find another game developed on PC only by a new company, maybe this respawn entertainment might have what we want, the guys who quit IW over the mw2 fiasco. Plenty of info on the company but nothing on the game itself, just a foggy picture of what i can only make out to be a map thats between a cod and bf map in size.
From what the DICE guys said in a recent news letter and other sources (cant find the link right now) they arn't happy with the low sales on PC which is why they've prioritised patches for PS3 and Xbox so i think we can safely say the next battlefield will be a console port to. Been playing that alot recently, damn good game but it is sooo flawed its silly.
And this new Counter Strike: Global Offensive looks like complete crap, dated graphics and no aim down sight. But the Source engine has always been WIDE OPEN in terms of settings and console access.
But and here is a big but and i cant lie:) the new windows OS called Windows 8 (Uncompicated name, i like that) may or may not support xbox games on PC with controller only, keyboard & mouse only and controller/keyboard & mouse lobbies, finally brining the console and PC communities together, plus if we buy xbox games then we can trade them in or sell if they suck, instead of beingl umped with an expensive cup coaster. Only problem i can forsee is we might be stuck with a single resolution but we never know even Xbox might get PC traits like adjusting resolution according to the res of thier TV thereby allowing us to change res.
Here's hoping for a bright future without Call of Duty or Battlefield.
Think its stupid to bet on those consoles (and on Microsoft and Sony).
Look at the impact of the iPad... People would love to play some CoD on a tablet.
Or how all is coming together: Mobile Phones, TV, Internet.
And so only developing for 2 old outdated machines is stupid.
But Actvision, Microsoft and Sony invested in CoD and they agreed to make 2000% profit before they take the plug out of this project.
If I was Activision I would invest in PC games. Just having a studio that knows about latest hardware and can use this knowledge just to get some game-software patented for future use.
Working on PC MW3 would be a usefull project.
I think it's stupid to think Activision will even continue looking at PC as a constant stream of revenue, they are going completely console by the looks of it, more money in consoles and what makes you think they would care about customers, they are a company and companies make money, not do what's best for their customers.
It's extremely naive to think that they would continue on PC at all unless they make an MMORPG they can charge monthly for.
Just because (atm) Sony and MS don't want to invest in selling newer versions of their consoles; it doesn't mean that their today's consoles will stay the only easy and best option for people to play video games on.
Questions is: Is a game-console needed for console style gaming in the near future ?
And the answer is no.
Because Broadband Internet + Gaming on demand ( cloud gaming ) are the future.
TV/iPad/PC/phone, controller and a cheap set-top-box.
Think most of us can agree on the fact that MW3 is a bit like MW2, MW1 and CoD2.
And CoD2; released on October 25 2005, was developed in 2004/2005. That makes it.... OLD !
Old for us but still very usable on the xbox 360. And what a coincidence... also from 2005.
So it wont hurt any game publisher to invest in new ways of making games. Explore the boundries of what is possible and what is needed.
And the PC gamers wont mind if they using them to experiment on....
But please, no more old crap....
Either the servers are ranked but locked down so server owners can't change anything. (like BO / BF3) and you have to go via special providers (generally with inflated prices)
Or they are open, this means unranked but the admins can change anything and host it where they want.
Personally I prefer the second, it's better for server owners, and leads to a lot more servers.
I just don't understand why everyone cries so hard about RANKED dedicated servers. The only reason to want them would be to RANK UP with special rules/restrictions/settings to make it EASIER...
Just quit crying for ranked dedicated servers. We got ranked dedicated servers in BO (with settings locked to prevent stupid rules) and look what happened
-Stupid rules were enforced anyway with extremely excessive kicking.
-WAY too many servers running nuketown, firing range, or array ONLY.
- Excessive team swapping at the end of rounds for people to get a "win" (Some servers were set up to prevent this, but most sadly allow team switching without any autobalance)
I am also tired of so many people crying for more max players. The maps were all designed with 6v6 games in mind. CoD4 is ruined by overpopulated servers. It is little more than spawning in a crowd of friendlies and shooting into a crowd of enemies. Thankfully I managed to find two servers in CoD4 that run 20 ppl max, which is still too many but fortunately they are rarely full and usually sit at 10-15 players.
At least they gave us unranked dedicated servers! They could've just stuck us with IWnet matchmaking if they really didn't care about PC. There is NO REASON to complain unless you were hoping to rank up in a "special rules" server because you suck at the game.
It's no wonder Activision IW/SH is loving the consoles. With as much as you guys moan ***** whine and complain about every little insignificant thing. Especially after getting WHAT YOU WANTED!!! (dedicated servers) I don't blame them for not wanting to give the PC community any info.