As if PC Call of Duty fans weren't angry enough, Valve's confirmed that gamers who've purchased the Steam version of Modern Warfare 2 (that's the digi download version) won't be able to play it until Thursday, November 12 - two days after disc customers.
This is all, of course, despite the fact that the disc version of Modern Warfare 2 actually uses Steam as a DRM tool. Prep those angry forum threads...
Modern Warfare 2
Official trailer
1:32Launch trailer
Modern Warfare 2
Official trailer
1:32Launch trailer
Age Restricted Content Please enter your date of birth below in order to verify your age before watching this video
You must be at least 15 years of age.
Play Again? Missed something? Just watch it again..
Watch More Videos Browse related videos and see what's new & popular
Share This Video Email this video, or embed it into your own web page
"Those who purchase the retail copy will be able to activate and play the game on November 10 via Steam. Those who purchase on Steam will be able to activate and play on November 12," Valve confirmed
This is all slightly ridiculous so we can only see it coming down to some sort of deal, in attempt to stop Steam impacting first day box sales. Either way, hold in strong Steam users - not long to go now...
I would say it is a cheek to take your money before its released and then say oh you won't be able to play for another 2 days. You I don't blame steam I blame Activision, as I can see it any other way. It is a bit rich at lease retailers explain when they are going to take your money or tell you if they are going to take it sooner.
when i said full control was a bad thing people laughed...
i dont really understand your post...
steam isnt the problem, its the people that limit its use. the key is who made the decision and why - it could be valve or activision but at the end of the day does 2 days really matter?
when i said full control was a bad thing people laughed...
i dont really understand your post...
steam isnt the problem, its the people that limit its use. the key is who made the decision and why - it could be valve or activision but at the end of the day does 2 days really matter?
Two days most certainly does matter when you're talking about the most anticipated game of the year (ever even?). Especially if this wasn't made known when the pre-orders were taken!
When Steam first came about you would pre-order from them, download and install the game, and at midnight on the day of release you'd be able to play, all without having to leave your home. I'm sure this is what all of the pre-order customers expected, and this is a dirty, under-handed move by Activision (who wants to boost retail sales) and Steam (who still benefit from the retail sales in this case because of the mandatory Steam DRM). Add to that the fact that if you cancel your pre-order and buy from a retail store, you need to make AN ENTIRELY NEW STEAM ACCOUNT, as your existing account is tied to your pre-order.
Until now I was on the Steam bandwagon and was a big defender of them, but this is just a low blow.
when i said full control was a bad thing people laughed...
i dont really understand your post...
steam isnt the problem, its the people that limit its use. the key is who made the decision and why - it could be valve or activision but at the end of the day does 2 days really matter?
well no if that was stated way before release but after people buy it and expect it to be playable then bitch slapped like this pretty much right before launch then yes thats a pretty big deal.
sure the t&c prob say they have the right to do tht but that doesnt mean they should.
Valve may not have had a say in the decision to do this but they will have known long ago it was going to happen. Therefore their silence in the matter makes them complicate in the deception if you want to call it that. This should have been stated when ever anyone went to pre order the game via steam. I have grown to like steam but it worries me the level of control they have over game purchases I have made. I believe it even states in the EULA that if steam were to go down or permanently offline then they take no responsibility for any loss you suffer. IE all your games. (Correct me if I am wrong on that
Just glad I am sticking to my guns and not buying it.
when i said full control was a bad thing people laughed...
i dont really understand your post...
steam isnt the problem, its the people that limit its use. the key is who made the decision and why - it could be valve or activision but at the end of the day does 2 days really matter?
The answer to your query is, "It depends on the situation". Two days can mean a difference between life or death in some situations, while in other situations a difference of 2 days is all but negligible. In this situation it isn't so much the amount of delay that's the issue, but rather the fact that the digital release is intentionally delayed beyond the release of the retail version. Barring some unforseen technical issues that would physically prevent the digital distribution system from activating, there is no customer friendly justification as to the delay when the retail version of the exact same game is already out and "fully operational".
I thought the point of digital distribution was so that you could pick up the game quicker and more conveniently?
One would be tempted to think so, yet they got that part wrong too, just as digital distribution has in general where it concerns pricing. For example: I can order a new retail copy sent from the UK to continental Europe with VAT and delivery charges, and still get it noticeably cheaper than if I were to buy the exact same game off of Steam). Something is terribly wrong when that is the case time and again, and the root cause can likely be summed up adequately with one word, "Greed".
I ahve to agree, its a rather crappy thing that steam has done here.
i can understand if they say , 'it wasn't us, it was activison's choice' but surely they must have some say in release date/times ?
Certainly they do, if they want to that is. As the sole owners and operators of Steamworks they can take it or leave it and there is very little any other company can do about it short of buying out Valve. If Activision said, "Release game X on the 10th", but Valve then said, "No. We have another big release that day and our servers can't take the strain , but we can launch the game on the 8th. Take it or leave it.", then Activision would either have to accept, try to negotiate further (if possible), or try to find an alternative (which is currently difficult as Steam is possibly the biggest game in town where it pertains to digital distribution).
Valve may not have had a say in the decision to do this but they will have known long ago it was going to happen. Therefore their silence in the matter makes them complicate in the deception if you want to call it that. This should have been stated when ever anyone went to pre order the game via steam. I have grown to like steam but it worries me the level of control they have over game purchases I have made. I believe it even states in the EULA that if steam were to go down or permanently offline then they take no responsibility for any loss you suffer. IE all your games. (Correct me if I am wrong on that
Just glad I am sticking to my guns and not buying it.
What's even more worrying from where I stand, is that increasingly more retail copies of games require online activation through companies such as Valve. That means there is no "safe haven" to turn to if you want to be sure that you can in fact play a game you legally purchased should the company running the servers decide to pull the plug. As long as this is stated in their T&Cs which you sign off on there may be very little legal recourse to countermand this trend as well...At least one possible major caveat would be to argue before a court of law that this is in fact undermining the business-customer trust by unfairly limiting the fair use of a legally purchased product that would/could function without further input from the business producing it (ex. you don't need MGM nor Sony to do anything extra for your DVDs once they are bought in order for them to fucntion). I consider it an insidious form of digital slavery and I do my best to avoid buying such games.
It is noteworthy to point out that just because a company decides to type some rule out in their T&Cs, that in and of itself does not automatically make it legally binding even if you sign off on it. If their T&Cs are in violation of existing national laws then the laws of the state always trumph the private rules of a company. The company can go to court and challenge the law if it so chooses, and based upon the outcome the law may be change or it may be upheld as it stands.
I haven't managed to buy a game this year that didn't involve some sort of online activation or selling my soul. It's all about control and cutting out the second hand market.
I haven't managed to buy a game this year that didn't involve some sort of online activation or selling my soul. It's all about control and cutting out the second hand market.
Make no mistake, a line is being drawn during these days and a war of sorts is brewing in the horizon. If the companies get their way we, as consumers, will essentially end up standing there as Oliver Twist, cap in hand as a beggar, asking for "More, please". And the companies will oblige us, but we will pay for it each time. If I'm going to have to re-purchase a product numerous times due to an artificial limitation on the life span of the product (i.e. a tube of toothpaste costs what it does, but once purchased I can use it as often as I want until I have physically exhausted the tube; digital goods do not exhaust themselves in the same manner unless programmed to do so which they needn't be), then I want massively lower prices. Something akin to a quid or two for a full game. If they are going to treat their products like rentals then the pricing needs to reflect this. Otherwise they can go stick it and I will take my money with me and spend it elsewhere with companies that treat me in a manner I feel respects me.
The users combined score for the game on Metacritic is 1.7 out of 100. How many have actually played it I wonder.
As is the case with rating on Amazon. By dragging the ratings into the basement it points out the issue to other shoppers, and is a very valid way to protest, imo. There are probably a fraction of potential buyers reading forums like this one compared to the number of people reading reviews on sites like Amazon and Metacritic.
I am absolutly discusted by this news, I went on steam yesterday and bought the game thinking I would be playing it tonight at midnight and now I have to wait 2 days!!? I paid 60 euro on steam which is expensive seeing as I could buy it for 40e. But I thought no I like steam and I dont mind giving them extra cash, I feel like valve has dropped a hot STEAMing pile on my desktop. The last game I will ever purchase from them.
PS - Is there an on-line petition going on as I will be signing up for sure?
The users combined score for the game on Metacritic is 1.7 out of 100. How many have actually played it I wonder.
As is the case with rating on Amazon. By dragging the ratings into the basement it points out the issue to other shoppers, and is a very valid way to protest, imo. There are probably a fraction of potential buyers reading forums like this one compared to the number of people reading reviews on sites like Amazon and Metacritic.
I agree. Also, remember folks: Online activation is not your friend. It's a virtual set of handcuffs that despite the fluffy "convenience" it distracts with also firmly locks you in to that system if you ever want to play your game(s), and you have no say in how you will be treated at point.
Unfortunately I suspect that too many people either don't realise, or don't care enough, to defend their rights on this matter. As the old saying goes, "You don't know what you have until you've lost it". As is so often the case with humanity it will likely require great cost and sacrifice before the lesson is learned for a generation or two before it all begins to slowly start over again. C'est la vie.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
