Disclaimer: Originally published on the St. Cloud State University campus paper, the University Chronicle on the Nov. 28 2009 issue. Written by Jun-Kai Teoh, Managing Online Editor.

This article may not be reproduced in any form, including online or print media, without first and foremost contacting the University Chronicle.

Infinity Ward’s decision to remove dedicated server support for the PC on their latest hit-title “Modern Warfare 2” was ridiculous. They decided to replace it with what they called the InfinityWardNet (IWNet).

It was an unnecessary move that made little sense to PC gamers, and severely limited the multiplayer aspect of the game.

The removal of dedicated servers is, at the very least, a tight slap to the PC gaming community, which in the past has been used to having the ability to access to console commands and hosting servers locally to lessen the lag of the game.

Dedicated servers is not a new concept that just recently appeared in the market, it’s something that has been offered and supported at the very least since 1998 with Counter Strike, probably even further back.

It allows gamers to essentially set up custom rules and host clan-matches for hardcore gamers.

I spoke about the online elitist community in my last column.

I wrote about how they could be immature, racist and destructive spawns of Hell that was sent forth to plague online games.

What gamers did to counter this was that clans were born.

Clans were essentially a group of gamers working towards the same gaming goal.

Clans range from competitive, bureaucratic groups to simple and casual groups.

Dedicated servers allowed such clans to have their own servers and rules. Clans could ban a gamer permanently if they failed to abide by the server rules, which many times required that players be polite to each other.

With that being removed, chances are PC gamers will be forced to play with name-calling elitists and nothing can be done about it, except quitting the game itself.

With IWNet, the multiplayer experience has been kicked in the crotch, to say the least.

This IWNet fiasco that they decided to implement has severe side effects too, such as the limiting of players from 64 to a maximum of 16.

The Call of Duty series has, as far as I can remember, always been an intense war game.

The sheer amount of players always made the game a chaotic, frantic and addictive shootout.

True, severs are not always packed with 64 players, but it is the freedom of having up to 64 that made the game so intense.

Servers could set their own manual limit, kick and ban players that were rude and such.

With this IWNet joke, gone are the days where 64 players go headlong against each other trying to get the upper hand in the virtual combat field. All that’s left is a disappointing multiplayer experience.

Infinity Ward even proudly stated that while Modern Warfare 2 for the PC only accounted 3% of its overall sales, but that it is the most successful PC version Call of Duty series sold.

They’re pretty much gloating over the failed boycott that a significant amount of gamers tried to organize.

This is the part where I get disgusted with PC gamers.

Sure, they made a splash in the water when they started complaining about the removal of dedicated servers, but they equally made a fool of themselves subsequently when many of them decided to purchase the game.

Where does the “boycott” in the Modern Warfare 2 boycott movement come into play when the game is still purchased?

I have nothing against people the gamers that bought the game.

I do however, feel that players that made a big rant against Infinity Ward’s decision, joined the boycott and then buy the game, spineless wretches.

I’m aware that some PC gamers do not mind the disappearance of dedicated servers. To those people, more power to you.

But for the people that have experienced multiplayer shooter games in all its glory, Modern Warfare 2 proves to be a disappointment.

Popularity: 6% [?]